Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

First Senate Hearing on Capitol Hill Riots Today; Interview with Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok; COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturers Pledge On-Time Delivery. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired February 23, 2021 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

CHARLES RAMSEY, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: So this is a very serious issue that hopefully they can kind of keep politics out of this as much as possible, and spin and that sort of thing.

This was a very serious incident. There were a lot of breakdowns that took place. We're lucky that more people weren't seriously injured or killed as a result of this. So this is no place to be trying to put some kind of political spin on what took place.

I think most reasonable people would understand, to begin with, that the majority of people who show up for a rally, whatever the cause, aren't there to really cause damage or insurrection or things like that, but it doesn't mean it didn't take place and it doesn't mean that there was a radicalization that took place that really, I think, really caused a lot of this to take place.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yes, Gloria, what do you think? This is also, we should mention, the same senator who questioned whether this was an armed insurrection because he said, when I think of armed, I think of firearms. And I mean, just to fact-check that, there were arrests that did have to do with firearms, but there were also a number of weapons that clearly were not firearms but were deadly weapons.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's total rubbish. I think he has a political agenda. He wasn't listening to the people who were actually there, trying to fight the insurrectionists. You'll also recall that Johnson wasn't sure this was actually an insurrection. I don't know what he thought it was, did he think it was a walk in the park?

And what Mr. Sund said, he said, "These people came with equipment and with climbing gear." These were people intent on getting into that Capitol one way or another. If you were just going to a Trump rally, you could just listen to the former president and whatever he was saying, and then go your merry way. And there were lots of people who did that.

But the people who invaded the Capitol had an agenda, and that's what the police were saying today. And they were saying, look, we weren't prepared, we didn't have enough intelligence, we didn't have enough equipment, we needed the National Guard, we didn't get it fast enough.

But the one thing they did not say, over and over again, was that this was not an insurrection. They all agreed. They raised their hands or nodded their heads, and said we all agree.

KEILAR: And, Peter, the former Capitol Hill Police chief revealed he hadn't seen that FBI memo that warned of violence. How does something like that fall through the cracks?

PETER LICATA, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: It shouldn't. There's a term sometimes we use, and it's law enforcement's biggest enemy is complacency. Or, in this day and age, as it was said by the senators most times is this is nothing (ph) (INAUDIBLE) e-mailed.

So in the term of the report writer (ph), the JTTS point (ph) at Norfolk (ph) or at Washington Field Office, they shouldn't have been complacent about that memo. It should have been -- a phone call should have been made.

I've done that numerous times in my FBI career to my peers, to other commanders that I work with and other team leaders. When I saw something that came across my desk or the bureau saw something that came across their -- my desk or somebody else's desk that had to be actioned immediately, that's not done via just hitting send and forget about it.

If you want to hit send, that's one thing. But then you follow up with a phone call saying, have you received that e-mail I just sent? You need to take a few minutes and read it and then call me back, or we can do a video call, we can -- you can come into my office immediately or I'll come to your office and I'll hand-deliver it if you didn't get it.

So there's no excuse for that. So that's kind of a failure as well. And unfortunately, that happens too often and when we're living off of devices and media and phones and e-mail on phones, that people just send things and they don't necessarily follow up on it.

KEILAR: And, Charles, I think a lot of people having looked at what happened on January 6th, they said why was Capitol Police not prepared for this? The former chief answered that question, saying essentially that any civilian law enforcement force would not be prepared for something like this without having the assistance of some other type of agency, whether it's other law enforcement agency or military. What did you think about his answer?

RAMSEY: Well, I mean, you raise a good point there because the one thing that wasn't talked about during this hearing, there was a lot of emphasis on the National Guard being activated or not being activated in a timely fashion.

But that department has MOUs in place with other surrounding law enforcement agencies, and these are substantial agencies: Fairfax County, Arlington, Montgomery, Prince George's, obviously MPD. They are there and they're very well trained and very well equipped. And it's not unusual for them to come into the district, I used them quite a bit, quite frankly, whenever we had large demonstrations, in order to provide some assistance.

So you know, listen, you could hit a point where you know, you just get overwhelmed, but I do believe that they were not as prepared as they could have been. I think that they got a little smug in terms of well, you know, this has never happened before, I heard Mike Stenger say, you know, we plan based on probability not possibility.

Well, the whole point of tabletops. I mean, you have to look at different possibilities to find out how prepared are you, should the worst-case scenario take place. Obviously that didn't happen. They're not properly equipped. I mean, four platoons? That's about -- that's what, 160 people out of a force of 1,400 that are fully equipped with riot gear? I mean, that kind of stuff is just unacceptable, I'm sorry.

BORGER: You know, also, I don't think we heard, you know, the answer to why that FBI memo, which was a flashing red light, why that was only issued right before. I mean, if all the information was out there on social media, et cetera, why was that so late in coming? Never mind why wasn't it distributed quickly, why didn't they see it at all before January 6th. I mean, that's kind of remarkable to me, when you think about it.

And also, we didn't really hear that much about the National Guard and why the National -- it was so slow in getting the National Guard to the Capitol. I think that's another chapter of the story that involves high levels in the administration and the vice president, the former vice president and the former president. And I think we have a lot to learn about that.

KEILAR: Yes, and there are going to be other opportunities, right? This --

BORGER: Yes.

KEILAR: -- is the first in a series of hearings that we expect ,many, many more questions to be answered. Gloria, Peter, thank you so much, Charles as well, really appreciate it.

I want to reset for our viewers. If you are just joining us now, what we're following is breaking news coming off of Capitol Hill. This is the first Senate hearing about the deadly insurrection on January 6th. Today, we heard hours of testimony from the current and former security officials who were in charge that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVEN SUND, FORMER CHIEF, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE: Yes, I'm able to provide you a quick overview of why I think it was a coordinated attack. One, these people came specifically with equipment. You're bringing climbing gear to a demonstration, you're bringing explosives, you're bringing chemical spray such as what Captain Mendoza talked about. You're coming prepared.

The fact that the group that attacked our West Front, attacked our West Front 20 minutes, approximately 20 minutes before the event over at the Ellipse ended, which means they were planning on our agency not being at what they call full strength, you know, watching the other event, saying hey, that event's ending, OK, everybody get on post, they're going to be marching our way? Knowing that we may not be at full strength at that time.

And then also the fact that we were dealing with two pipe bombs that were specifically, you know, set right off the edge of our perimeter to, what I suspect, draw resources away. I think there was a significant coordination with this attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's talk now with CNN's Whitney Wild, she's been tracking this for us. What were the biggest revelations that you heard so far today?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, there were so many. There was a lot of news that came out of this. I think the most important thing, though, was this confusion about the intelligence.

Basically what all three men had said, these -- I'm talking about Paul Irving, Michael Stenger and Steven Sund -- was that the intelligence said that there was always a possibility that something bad would happen, but the possibility wasn't probable, which in hindsight was an almost unbelievably thin line. I mean, so thin you could hardly see it.

And what's really striking about that assessment is that these are men with decades-long law enforcement experience. Paul Irving left the Secret Service as the assistant director. And even still, most of the, you know, response we heard from these three men was, well the intelligence didn't tell us that there was going to be a battle. They looked at the intelligence and didn't make the assessment that turned out to be true, so that was the first thing.

The second thing was that we learned today that former USCP Chief Steven Sund heard about this very critical FBI memo that warned of a war on the Capitol yesterday, he heard about it yesterday. I cannot stress enough how unbelievable that timeline is.

What he said was that that memo came from one of the local FBI field divisions, it went to members of his intelligence unit and never made it to him, which raises the question of what would he have done with that piece of intelligence. So there's this preparation and then there's the response.

And then the last, I think, revelation about the preparation was this confusion about what the conversation was about bringing in the National Guard ahead of time. Steven Sund claims that in the days before the riot, he went to Paul Irving, he went to Michael Stenger -- basically his two bosses on the Capitol Police Board -- to say we need an emergency declaration, we need to call in the National Guard.

However, Paul Irving says he didn't hear the conversation the same way. He thought this was a casual conversation with him and Steven Sund, in which Sund was saying if we need extra people, the National Guard's offering 125 troops, what do you think? And Paul Irving in the end said, look, I just don't think the intelligence supports this. And he says they all walked away saying that their plan was very solid.

TEXT: Senate Hearing on Capitol Hill Attack: It was planned, coordinated and white supremacists were involved; Accusations of bad intel that didn't indicate an insurrection; Critical warning from the FBI was missed; Capitol police lacked training and equipment; Structure issues with Capitol Hill Police Board; National Guard request wasn't immediately approved

[14:10:07]

WILD: So those are, I think, the biggest revelations about how the planning breakdown happened.

Now we talk about the response that day. The biggest breakdown, the most obvious breakdown was when the crisis was happening, they could not get the National Guard fast enough. Here's what MPD Chief Robert Contee had to say about that -- Brianna.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT CONTEE, ACTING CHIEF, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: Chief Sund was pleading for the deployment of the National Guard. And in response to that, there was not an immediate yes, the National Guard is responding, yes, the National Guard is on the way, yes, the National Guard are being restaged from traffic posts to respond.

The response was more asking about the plan that, you know, what was the plan for the National Guard. The response was more focused on, in addition to the plan, the optics, you know, how this looks with boots on the ground on the Capitol.

And in my response to that was simply I was just stunned that you know, I have offers that were out there, literally fighting for their lives, and you know, we're kind of going through, you know, what seemed like an exercise to really check the boxes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILD: I think in the end, the big themes here today, Brianna, were really a lack of independent thinking and a lack of agility.

And there's one other thing I want to clear up. Members that testified today said that members of Congress did not delay the response by the National Guard. There had been some rumblings about that, I think there had been a few questions. But I want to put that to rest. Members of Congress did not hold up the ability of the National Guard to response that day -- Brianna. That's according to, again, to the witnesses.

KEILAR: Right, yes, very important to note. Whitney Wild, thank you so much for that.

And joining us now to talk more about this is former FBI agent Peter Strzok. I want to start with that critical error that Whitney mentioned, the missed FBI memo warning of violence. What is your reaction to that? PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI AGENT: Well, I think it demonstrates a

couple of things. The first is that in some ways, the system did work. And my understanding is that the Norfolk Field Office of the FBI generated that report the day they received that information, it was transmitted up and received by the Joint Terrorism Task Force at the Washington Field Office. And that same evening, within hours, was picked up by the Capitol Police representative and transmitted to the Capitol Police.

But there is where the breakdown starts to occur, and I'm very interested to hear the FBI's side of the story next week, they along with DHS and DOD will be in front of the Senate. And I'm very interested because of course you've got a lot of different people presenting their perception of what occurred.

But it isn't simply enough to send an e-mail. In this day and age, if there is something significant, one, you've got to realize that it's significant and an analyst has to actually pick out that signal amongst all the noise, and raise that up the chain so that you're affirmatively pushing that information. I don't know that that occurred. Clearly Chief Sund did not receive it, or he says he did not receive it. So that indicates, at some point, that information didn't do what it should.

But, Brianna, I think it's important to step back. Everybody's focused on this one memo. As we're looking at all the charges the Department of Justice is bringing in court, it's clear that there were a number of conspiracies.

And why that's important are these represent groups of people who are planning and coordinating their activities in advance of ever arriving at the Capitol. That's the sort of information that investigatively is out there, and was available.

And the question is whether or not that was seen, whether or not that was collected. If it was, why that didn't get disseminated. And if it wasn't, why not. And those are the hard questions that I know are being asked right now in the federal law enforcement and intelligence community.

KEILAR: Do you think that the accurate threat picture is being communicated in these hearings? And what I mean by that is that we heard a lot about white supremacists' presence in this group, this -- but we also know about other groups that were involved: Oath Keepers, a lot of anti-government extremists. Do you think that Congress, the people asking the questions and the people answering them, are giving a complete picture of the threat that they are facing?

STRZOK: I don't think it's come out yet in these hearings. And I think part of the reason why is you're talking to the people who are engaged in the actual incident itself, those folks, whether the sergeants-at-arms or the Capitol Police chief or the Metropolitan Police chief, who are responsible for the immediate on-the-ground protection in securing the Capitol.

I think when you look to next week, that's when you start getting into a broader national picture. Now, I've heard FBI Director Wray, in prior testimony, talk at length very articulately about the threat that's posed by domestic terrorism and specifically from the right wing, white nationalists from other violent members of those groups.

And so the question is that clearly this is something that the head of the FBI has been articulating as a threat. The question is how to square that acknowledgement of the threat with what was or wasn't known and what was or wasn't communicated leading up to the insurrection on the 6th.

[14:15:02]

KEILAR: You heard, Peter, earlier, Republican Senator Ron Johnson pushing baseless and debunked conspiracy theories about supposed fake Trump supporters causing this trouble. It's misinformation, and it's at this incredibly high level of government. How much of a threat is that when it comes to what our country is facing, what the FBI is facing as it's trying to get to the truth here?

STRZOK: Well, it's horrible. Look, it's tremendously damaging when you have a United States senator who, frankly, has a history of conspiracy theories going back for years and years -- whether it's Ukraine or Russia, and now is the domestic terrorism that took place on the 6th -- who's advancing a knowingly false narrative about what occurred.

And the reason that's an issue is that there is still some confusion out there in the public about what the events of January the 6th represented. And let's be very clear about it. What happened with the people who stormed Congress on the 6th was an attempt to interrupt the certification and peaceful transfer of power in the United States by people who supported Donald Trump.

And when you get a United States senator leading his -- lending his moral authority to this nonsense, the first thing we need to be doing is coming together as a nation and understanding exactly what happened, and saying this is unacceptable.

And as long as you have United States senators -- and frankly as long as you have a prior president of the United States encouraging certain followers to maintain this bogus narrative that it was an illegitimate election, it's a tremendous problem and it's going to prevent us from addressing this threat in the way we need to.

KEILAR: Peter Strzok, thank you so much for being with us .

STRZOK: Thank you.

KEILAR: Next, a tense hearing for another of President Biden's Cabinet picks as Republicans grill the first Native American nominee at the Interior over her past tweets.

Plus, the leaders of the vaccine makers are testifying and they're making some big promises as demand is outpacing supply.

This is CNN's special live coverage. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:21:22]

KEILAR: As demand for the coronavirus vaccine vastly outpaces supply, there are some big promises that are coming from Capitol Hill. Leaders from the nation's top five vaccine-makers, assuring House members today that their companies will meet supply commitments to the U.S. on time. That is 300 million doses each from Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, and 100 million each from Johnson & Johnson and Novavax.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN YOUNG, CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER, PFIZER: We particularly saw some rate-limiting steps with raw materials, but we anticipate that we will be on track to deliver those 300 million doses before the end of July.

STEPHEN HOGE, PRESIDENT MODERNA: We do believe we're on track to meet those deadlines.

RICHARD NETTLES, VICE PRESIDENT OF MEDICAL AFFAIRS, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Yes, we are on track to deliver the 100 million doses by the end of June, yes.

RUUD DOBBER, EXECUTIVE V.P. ASTRAZENECA: In short, we are on track in order to deliver the commitment of 300 million doses.

REP. DIANA DEGETTE (D-CO): Not immediately upon EUA, it's going to take some time?

DOBBER: It will take some time.

JOHN TRIZZINO, CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER AND CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER, NOVAVAX: We are dependent upon EUA, obviously, but we would be prepared by the end of June to produce that hundred million doses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The vaccine executives agreed that it could mean there may be a surplus of vaccine in the U.S. by late summer.

Joining me now is epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist Dr. Celine Gounder. So the vaccines may be there, but how is the U.S. doing when it comes to getting the vaccines and putting them in arms?

CELINE GOUNDER, FORMER MEMBER, BIDEN-HARRIS TRANSITION COVID ADVISORY BOARD: I think that's a great point, Brianna. We had gotten to over 1.5 million doses in arms before the bad weather of the last week, and things have slowed down a little bit. But 1.5 million doses is not nearly what the capacity is going to be.

With this ramp-up in production, Pfizer and Moderna are really looking at producing 4 million doses a day over the course of March and beyond. And so we really need to be trying to aim our capacity to get shots in arms to be that equivalent level of about 4 million doses per day. KEILAR: So I mean, look, I think no one right now wants to worry

about a surplus, but it sounds like that's something we may be talking about in the summer. If you add up all the totals of what the company's committed, it's more than a billion doses. So what would happen to the surplus? Would this go to other countries?

GOUNDER: Yes, I think that's likely what we would be doing, is we would be donating these extra doses to other countries that have not been able to purchase -- and this is not just a humanitarian donation. We know that as long as the virus is circulating in other parts of the world, that has the potential to mutate for new variants to emerge and for more virus to be seeded back home here in the United States.

So it really makes sense for us, from a very selfish perspective as well, to be donating extra doses we have to help control the disease outside of the U.S.

KEILAR: Yes, we certainly saw, of course, how that is something that affects the U.S. as well.

I want to ask you, Johnson & Johnson said at this hearing, as soon as it receives emergency use authorization, it's going to send out 4 million doses immediately. How should states be handling people who maybe prefer to have other vaccines because Pfizer and Moderna have higher percentages of efficacy?

GOUNDER: I think it's really important to understand what we mean by efficacy. So is it efficacy, effectiveness in preventing severe disease, hospitalization and death? All of the vaccines are equivalent for that. What you're really talking about is do some of the vaccines help prevent a milder case of COVID. So, you know, cough and sniffles. And that's not why we vaccinate.

So what I would advise is really whatever vaccine you can get your hands on first is the vaccine you should get.

[14:25:05]

KEILAR: No, it's a very good point. Dr. Gounder, thanks for being with us.

Still ahead, a Florida community is outraged over the discovery of a so-called VIP list for a pop-up vaccine site.

Plus, three of President Biden's cabinet nominees are in the hotseat and their chances of surviving the confirmation process? Well, they are facing obstacles.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:30:00]