Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Holds First Hearing on Insurrection at U.S. Capitol; Security Officials Agree That Insurrection was Planned Attack. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired February 23, 2021 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

PAUL IRVING, FORMER HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS: And in that conversation, he indicated that conditions were deteriorating. He might be looking for National Guard and approval of our mutual aid agreement with local law enforcements and I went Mike Stenger's office awaiting an update.

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO): And this is time, Mr. Irving, I'm sure my colleagues will want to follow up on this because I'm out of time. But this is a time when the difference in 1:30 and 2:10 or 1:09 and 2:10 makes a big difference.

One of the things I'm wondering, and we don't have time for you to answer this, but I'm going to tell you what I'm thinking here, is in a moment like this, if your focus is chiefly on the safety of House members, and I would certainly understand that, and Mr. Stenger is chiefly on the safety of Senate members, maybe that is a problem here where the board really can't function as a board because you have such diverse areas of immediate responsibility. But whatever happened here doesn't seem to me to be in agreement with the various timeframes and I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Thank you, Senator Blunt.

And I wanted Senator Peters and I are going to trade off chairing here with the votes and we have a set order that all of the senators staff have based on a melded set of rules between the two committees. And I'd like to submit for the record a written statement from the United States Capitol Police Labor Committee dated February 23rd, 2021. Thank you. Senator Portman?

SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Without objection, Ranking Member Portman.

SEN. ROB PORTMAN (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, with regard to the conversations we just had on the discrepancies with regard to National Guard assistance, I would request that both Chief Sund, you and Mr. Irving provide us with those phone records. I know there has been some interviews that have been conducted but I'm not sure we have the phone records, and that would clear up some of the confusion.

I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about preparedness. Chief Sund, in your testimony, you talked about the need for a better intelligence and better coordination. That was your conclusion, and I think that is true. And certainly everything that we have learned indicates that was part of the problem, but what about preparedness?

We've received information that prior to January 6th, Capitol police officers were not trained on how to respond to an infiltration of the Capitol building. Is that correct, Mr. Sund?

STEVEN SUND, FORMER U.S. CAPITOL POLICE CHIEF: When you talk about infiltration, you're talking about a large insurrection like we saw on January 6th, no.

PORTMAN: And why not? Why wouldn't we be prepared for an infiltration of the Capitol given the risk that is out there, I would say, to Mr. irving and Mr. Stenger, both of you have distinguished careers with the Secret Service, I would ask you all to just give me a quick yes or no answer, does the Secret Service have training regarding infiltration as an example of the White House, yes or no?

Mr. Stenger? Mr. Irving?

IRVING: Senator?

PORTMAN: I'll take that as a yes. If it is a no --

IRVING: Yes.

PORTMAN: Okay. Mr. Stenger, are you a yes also?

MICHAEL STENGER, FORMER SENATE SERGEANT AT ARMS: Yes.

PORTMAN: Okay. Well, it seems obvious that you would have training on responding to an infiltration.

So I think if nothing else comes out of this process, we've got to figure out how to deal with, again, the real danger that is out there and it seems to me the intelligence reports but also just the previous demonstrations would indicate a need for that kind of training.

Let me ask you about something else, if I could, Mr. Sund, and that has to do with the U.S. Capitol Police officers that I saw on video and the world saw fighting against this attack in street uniforms or soft uniforms. Many of them did not have riot gear. I'm told by contrast D.C. Metropolitan Police Department provides all of the officers with such gear, including helmets, shields, gloves and gas masks.

Having seen those incredibly disturbing videos and photographs of your brave officers attempting to hold the line, to defend the Capitol without that kind of riot gear, are all Capitol Police officers outfitted with riot gear?

SUND: No, they are not, Sir.

PORTMAN: They're not. And why are they not? SUND: So, if you look at way we outfit our officers, it will probably be similar to I think you'll find even with Metropolitan, I've been with Metropolitan for a number of years, they'll have a certain number of officers, CDU platoons, as they call.

[11:35:01]

It is not the entire force that is outfitted to the level one CDU with the big protective gear, the helmets and things like that.

So we outfit a number of our -- we have seven CDU platoons that we can we activate four of those platoons. It's 40 people in a platoon are activated to what we call the level one, the full CDU gear and equipment. It requires extensive cost, extensive training to keep and maintain that level for us. A number of our officers are posted in interior posts, screen posts, things like that, where that gear wouldn't do them -- it wouldn't provide them any support.

So we have determined up until January 6th that that number of CDU platoons had sufficed for all of the demonstrations that we had to deal with, the one on Capitol Hill.

PORTMAN: Yes. Mr. Sund, I would just say, obviously, those officers who you say had interior posts needed it that day. So it is not accurate to say that they didn't need it. But I know that you activated seven of the civil disturbance unit platoons. And only four of them had riot gear.

I don't know why you would have a civil disturbance unit platoon that didn't have riot gear but you've just testified that that is true, that only four of them had it, is that correct?

SUND: That is correct. And just one additional point, since I've been chief, I've actually pushed for every member in the department to have riot helmets. I had ordered those back in September, that we had been looking at delays because of COVID from the manufacturer getting them delivered, and they actually just started being delivered January 4th and distributed to our officers just days before this with limited numbers being given to the officers prior to this event.

PORTMAN: Too late for many of the officers. Chief Contee, the comment was made, the Metropolitan Police does not, on the record. Is that true? I thought the Metropolitan Police officers did have access to riot gear. Could you comment on that.

ROBERT CONTEE, ACTING CHIEF, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: Yes. So we have seven platoons that have the hard -- all of our officers have ballistic helmets. All of our officers have batons. All of our officers are deployed with gloves as well and a gas mask. So our entire department are deployed with that level. But when you're talking about harden all of the extras, we have seven platoons that have the additional. That is a different layer of protection.

PORTMAN: But every officer has a helmet. Every officer has the protective gloves. Every officer has the baton. Is that correct?

CONTEE: And gas mask, that is correct.

PORTMAN: And gas mask, yes.

It appeared to the Metropolitan Police Department, I'm told, that the Capitol Police officers did not have the training in civil disturbance tactics that they had. That is what I was told by some of the interviews that we have had. Chief Contee, is that correct?

CONTEE: Yes, I've heard the same thing with respect to the training of the U.S. Capitol Police officers.

PORTMAN: Are all of your Metropolitan Police officers trained in civil disturbance tactics?

CONTEE: We have platoons that are trained for every -- for every patrol district and special operations division. Some officers do not have the civil disturbance training. Those officers, generally, they work traffic duties or they work assignments back in patrol.

PORTMAN: Chief Sund --

CONTEE: If I could add -- if I could add too one other thing, all of the officers who leave the training academy, they get the basic civil disturbance unit training. So all of our officers do get the basic training, but we might have some members, for example, who have been on for 30 years and they haven't been CDU trained. They work back and patrol the district, but all of our members coming off the academy, they received the civil disturbance unit training.

PORTMAN: Mr. Sund, is that true with Capitol Police officers also, are they all trained in civil disturbance tactics as they go through their training?

SUND: That was a process being implemented. I could check and let you know if that is been fully implemented for new recruits coming out of the academy. That was one of the initiatives I was working on.

PORTMAN: So you were working on that, but as far as you know, this training was not being provided, even for new officers, much less for those --

SUND: I believe the new officers coming out were, but I just need to confirm that.

PORTMAN: Yes. I think that the bottom line here is that, unfortunately, our officers were not given the proper training with regard to infiltration of the building or the complex, with regard to dealing with civil disturbance and they didn't have the equipment necessary to push back and most importantly to protect themselves.

So my hope is that, again, one of the ways that this joint hearing and this committee report can be helpful is to bring the Capitol Police Department up to speed.

[11:40:00] And, look, I appreciate the sacrifice and the bravery of that day but I think we also owe it to these officers to provide them the training and equipment they need to protect themselves and the Capitol. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PETERS: Thank you, Ranking Member. The chair now recognizes Senator Leahy.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to call upon what Senator Portman said. I agree with his concerns. But I might ask a question from the Appropriations Committee, and I know time is limited, so these could be yes or no answers.

The Appropriations Committee has always worked in bipartisan fashion to get money to the -- to the police. So, Mr. Sund, yes or no, Appropriations Committee, ultimately, the Congress, have met your request for salaries and operating expenses in every fiscal year, is that not correct?

SUND: Yes, Sir.

LEAHY: And, Mr. Stenger, the Appropriations Committee and, ultimately, the Congress has met your request for salaries and operating expenses every fiscal year, is that correct?

I don't hear an answer.

So I'll ask Mr. Irving. Mr. Irving, the Appropriations Committee and, ultimately, the Congress has met your request for salaries and operating expenses in every fiscal year, is that correct?

IRVING: Yes, that is correct.

LEAHY: Mr. Stenger?

STENGER: Yes, that is correct, Sir.

LEAHY: Thank you very much.

So, I have to think that we had -- not that we have inadequate resources but a failure to deploy the people that we were supposed to. I look at those who appeared, I looked at the lives that were lost, the police who fought, who protected our Capitol. We saw this as a violent and I would say planned and organized attack on the United States in the United States government by domestic terrorists. I hope they're all going to be prosecuted as fully as they can.

But when we see people encouraging them, including from the former president of the United States, who urged his followers to fight and to show strength, I really wonder why we didn't take this seriously enough to be prepared for them, the hours it took to bring in the National Guard and everything else.

So, I read -- Mr. Sund, I read your detailed letter to Speaker Pelosi, but you said there wasn't enough intelligence shared. But in your same letter, you stated that the intelligence assessment, and I'm quoting here, indicated that members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, Antifa and other extremist groups were expected to participate in the January 6th event and they may be inclined to become violent. How much more intelligence do we need than that?

SUND: Yes, Sir, that is correct. That is what the intelligence assessment said. It was very similar to the intelligence assessments that we had for the November and December MAGA marches. The intelligence assessments that we had developed for the January 6 event all the way up until January 6 were all saying very much the same thing, and that is what we planned for. We had planned for the possibility of violence, the possibility of some people being armed, not the possibility of a coordinated military-style attack involving thousands against the Capitol.

LEAHY: The violence (INAUDIBLE) strike me as a pretty strong thing and I would suggest everybody get together and look at the future. Because if you have something that goes on for months and the president calling them and everybody else calling them, I am worried there is not more there. I think until we root out the hate and throw the rioters to the door that day, no fence or tank or barrier is going to provide the safety we need, not just safety but also talking about (INAUDIBLE) who says, give up -- those who give up the liberty to (INAUDIBLE) safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[11:45:03]

But I know a vote is on and before I close, I do want to commend Chief Contee for your excellent response. You don't have an easy job protecting a city as large as Washington, D.C. and balance the delicate balance of dozens of other law enforcement.

I think that I commend the two chairs and the ranking members for having this hearing. We'll hold more in appropriations. But we're going to look very closely at the request this year and say, what do we do if we have another one of these. I thank you and I yield back my time.

PETERS: Thank you, Senator Leahy. The chair recognizes Senator Johnson.

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to start off by just thanking our law enforcement witnesses for your service. I know there is -- 2020 is hindsight and it is pretty easy to Monday morning quarterback and I want to guard against doing so.

So I've seen from testimony, it seems like there is a fair amount of thought, a fair amount of due diligence that went into this. So, again, I appreciate your service.

I also want to say, I find the videos, as you said, Chief Sund, sickening, the violence reprehensible, the racial slurs repugnant, and I want to make sure the perpetrators, the people that engaged in the violence are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I've got a long list of questions, which this format really doesn't lend itself to asking. So what I will be doing is preparing a letter for the committee chair and hoping that they will ask those questions and investigate these issues that I'll be listing.

But I want to do in terms of asking some questions, I want to start out by reading excerpts from what I thought was a very interesting eyewitness account by J. Michael Waller. He is a senior analyst for a strategy at the Center of Security Policy. His areas of concentration include political and psychological warfare and subversions. He's a professor and instructor at the Institute of World Politics at the Naval Post-Graduate School. He's a current lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg.

He wrote this piece titled, I saw provocateurs at the Capitol riot on January 6th. And he basically arrived on scene by 11:30 from Union Station, and I'll just reading. About 11:30, a walk from near Union Station and noticed a small number of Capitol police dressed if full riot gear with shin guards and shoulder guards.

Then I walked up Pennsylvania Avenue toward an empty Freedom Park. He noticed that the speech had broken up and so a crowd was walking down Constitution Avenue. He joined them at 13th Street. But he said that the mood of the crowd was positive and festive.

Of the thousands people who passed me along Constitution Avenue, some were indignant and contemptuous of Congress but not one appeared angry or incited the riot. Many of the marchers were families with small children, many elderly, overweight or just plain tired or frail, trace not typically attributed to the riot prone. Many wore pro-police shirts or carried pro-police black and blue flags.

Although the crowd represented a broad cross-section of Americans, mostly working class by their appearance and manner of speech, some people stood out. A very few didn't share the jovial, friendly, earnest demeanor of the great majority. Some obviously didn't fit in.

And he describes four different types of people, .plain clothes militants, agents provocateurs, fake Trump protesters and then disciplined uniformed column of attackers. I think these are the people that probably planned this.

He goes on, the D.C. Metropolitan Police were the usually professionally detached selves standing on curbs or at street crossing and exchanging occasional greetings from marchers. When we crossed First Street northwest to enter the Capitol grounds, where the Capitol police had jurisdiction, I noticed no police at all. Several marchers expressed surprise. They opened the scene like a courtesy gesture from Congress that controls security. That appearance of low-threat level made no sense. Yet no Capitol Police appeared anywhere from what we could see.

Now, again, I'm taking these excerpts in order, but there is a lot more to this piece. What looked like tens or even hundreds of thousands people surged down the avenues as far as one can see, but almost everyone seemed talkative and happy. No police could be seen on the platform for an hour. No police could be seen anywhere.

People kept surging in from Constitution Avenue and the plaza quickly filled up and overflowed onto the lawn. Everyone squeezed closer and closer together, with most in high spirits. Some trouble began up in the front near the base of the inaugural platform itself, but we could not see what was happening.

Then something happened at the front of the crowd. It seemed like a scuffle, but from 40 feet back, I couldn't see.

[11:50:02]

People started chanting, USA, USA and other slogans. For a few seconds I saw what looked like police in a tussle with some of marchers up front, what looked to be an organized group in civilian clothes. This organized group, I would call the plain clothes militants. They fit right in with MAGA people.

Suddenly, energy surged from the front of the crowd is the anti-riot police above on the inaugural platform visibly tensed up. one fired a tear gas canister, not at the plain clothes militants, the frontline, but into the crowd itself, then another. Flash grenades went off in the middle of the crowd.

The tear gas changed the crowd's demeanor. There was an air of disbelief as people realized that the police who they supported were firing on them. What are you doing? We support you, someone yelled. All of a sudden pro-police people felt that the police were attacking them, and they didn't know why.

More tear gas, a canister struck a girl in the face, drawing blood. The pro-police crowd went from disbelief and confusion to anger. I'll stop there. The last five pages is titled provocateurs turn unsuspecting marchers into an invading mob.

So I'd really recommend everybody in the community to read this account. And I asked it to be into the record.

But, Chief Sund, I want to ask you, the House managers made a big deal that this was predictable, this was foreseeable, which I don't believe. Do you believe that what happened -- the breach of the Capitol, did you believe that's foreseeable and predictable?

SUND: No, I don't, nor do -- if you look at some of our other partner agencies, I think acting Chief Contee actually made the statement that the breach at the Capitol was not something anybody anticipated, nor do I think some of our federal partners expected it. I don't think Secret Service would have brought up the vice president if they expected it.

JOHNSON: Is part of that because what you had experienced in the past, what this Mr. Waller experienced, the vast majority of Trump supporters are pro-law enforcement and the last thing they would do is violate the law?

SUND: I will say that information I received from some of my officers, were they were trying to prevent people from coming into the building and people were showing and saying, hey, we're police, let us through, and still want to violate the law to get inside the building. So, you know?

JOHNSON: Again, I've got long, long list. I just want to close with the two former sergeant at arms. I knew these committees were going to start an investigation. I waited a couple weeks. I didn't see any letter go out, oversight letter, so I wrote my own on the 21st, and I just have a question for both the former sergeant in arms. Did you get my oversight letter with my questions?

IRVING: I did not receive your letter. I left town right after I resigned, but I certainly look forward to working with you and your staff to answer your questions.

JOHNSON: Okay. Well, if you would give us an address because we sent it to the acting sergeant in arms. That acting sergeant in arms won't even let us know whether they passed that letter on to you, apparently, they didn't.

Mr. Stenger, did you receive my letter?

STENGER: I don't recall, Senator. I might have. I don't recall.

JOHNSON: Chief Sund, one last question for you. Do you regret resigning?

SUND: Yes, I do, Sir. I certainly do regret resigning. I love this agency, I love the men and women of this agency and I regret that I left.

JOHNSON: And, Mr. Irving, Mr. Stenger, I really wish you -- first of all, look for my letter and I'd like an answer to that as quickly as possible. Thank you.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you, Senator Johnson.

We're waiting for Senator Warner and any other member. I see Senator Rosen. Would you like to go ahead, because you're the first member on, Senator Rosen?

SEN. JACKY ROSEN (D-NV): Perfect. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar, and thank you, everyone, for being here today and bringing this hearing. It's much needed and I think this is the first of many.

But I'd like to start off by expressing that my thoughts are with the brave Capitol Police officers. They put their lives on the line to protect us on January 6, and their heroic actions, like the ones of Eugene Goodman, they redirected those violent rioters away from us. They're going to forever be embedded in our minds. And we know that so many of these courageous men and women are really hurting in the aftermath of the insurrection.

And I've been particularly heartbroken to hear about the death of Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebingood. He was protecting the Senate since 2005. He was stationed by the door of my Russell office. My prayers are with him and his family, his loved ones.

But when the insurrectionists, when they came to storm our Capitol on January 6th, they came armed not only with weapons but also with hate. Mere weeks before International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the world watched in horror as a rioter inside the Capitol proudly wore a Camp Auschwitz shirt, as he and others violently pushed forward on the House and Senate floors.

[11:55:06]

All the while, the rioters are waving confederate flags, are hanging nooses on the front lawn. They're verbally assaulting a Jewish reporter outside the Capitol, saying, you are cattle (INAUDIBLE). That refers to cattle cars that were used to transport Jews to Nazi death camps during the holocaust. This violent attack in the Capitol featured followers from the anti-Semitic QAnon conspiracy theory.

So, Mr. Contee, on January 4th, Metro Police Department arrested Enrique Tarrio, leader of the racist, anti-Semitic Proud Boys hate group. FBI claimed the next day it shared with MPD concrete intelligence about extremist plans for violence on January 6, including specific threats on members of Congress, maps of the tunnels under the Capitol complex. If MPD was tracking extremist, potentially violent white supremacy activity, then what exactly did you know on January 5th and why didn't you alert anyone?

CONTEE: Thank you for that question. What the FBI said now on January 5th was in the form of an email. I would certainly think that something as violent as an insurrection in the Capitol would warrant a phone call or something. But as Chief Sund mentioned earlier, the information that was sent was -- it was uncorroborated information, it was raw information that we had, that we received through the same lines, through the JTTF. That information was not fully vetted and had not been sent through the chains of the Metropolitan Police Department.

What the Metropolitan Police Department was prepared for was the larger violence and demonstrations that we expected to see in our city.

ROSEN: I have to ask Mr. Sund the same question now. What did you know on as of Tuesday, January 5th, because I have a follow-up for both of on this one? So, quickly, Mr. Sund, what did you know on know on January 5th? And were you alarmed or not alarmed? What did you expect?

SUND: So, yes, I was concerned. We had the intelligence that was coming out, the intelligence that we would be planning for. Again, keep in mind, the intelligence assessments that we had developed at the end of December, and the one for January 3rd, were very, very similar. They just provided a little more specificity.

So we had already been planning for the threat for violence, the threat for armed people protesting. And that's what we were planning for. Now, if you're referring to the Norfolk letter, again, I just became aware that the department was aware of that 24 hours ago. So on the 6th or the 5th or the 4th, I was not aware that memo existed.

ROSEN: So you're saying that there is a breakdown between you and the FBI, because we have rallies, protests and things happening in Washington all the time. How many -- could both of you just maybe give a guess, how many do you think actually were armed insurrectionists or came heavily armed out of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of rallies that we see in Washington through the year?

SUND: You know, the last three incidents, the first two MAGA rallies, the women of the Metropolitan Police Department recovered firearms from several people who were attending the demonstrations at the first MAGA rally, as well as the second one.

Aside from that, those have been really the only demonstrations where we've seen individuals coming armed.

ROSEN: Well, do you think this was an intelligence breakdown or a resource issue?

SUND: I think that the intelligence did not make it where it needed to be in terms of --

ROSEN: So, you think the FBI did not raise this to the level they needed to with Metropolitan Police Department, in your mind?

SUND: We received in the form of an email that came as an alert bulletin at 7:00 P.M. the day before. Al Foster of the Metropolitan Police Department, again, I think is reflected in our deployment in terms not just the National Guard that was deployed, but as well as other officers in other jurisdictions. That reflected the seriousness that we took with respect to the threats that we were expecting to see in the city.

ROSEN: Mr. Sund, can you tell me, do you think this was a resource issue or intelligence breakdown or something else? If you'll be brief, because this is very important --

SUND: Yes, Ma'am, I'll be very brief. I think it was more than just the Norfolk letter. I think we need to look at the entire intelligence community and the view they have on some of the on some domestic extremists and the effect that they have.

[12:00:03]

I look at this as an intelligence problem that impacted this event, yes.

ROSEN: So what information.