tv CNN Newsroom With Brianna Keilar CNN March 2, 2021 10:00am-11:00am PST
have some strides to make to be satisfactory by my estimates. >> i respect that. director wray, have you ever been to hong kong? >> no. >> if congress passed a bill and said to the good people of hong kong who yearn for freedom, come to america. we're going to follow our friends in britain. come here. if you want to get out of the thumb of the communist party, come to america. we'll welcome you. do you think the fbi and law enforcement has the ability to screen for spies? one of the criticisms of the proposition i just stated is we would be living with spies. do you think, based on your knowledge of security, we could catch most of the spies?
>> well, i yield to no one and my faith and confidence of the great men and women of the fbi, but i will tell you the chinese counter intelligence threat is certainly the greatest counter intelligence threat we face as a country, and the sheer number of what we would refer to as nontraditional collectors working on behalf of the chinese communist party is something that is a massive resource challenge for the fbi. >> that was probably an unfair question. in the few seconds i have left, i'm begging the indulgence of our heesteemed chairman who is doing a much better job than durbin, by the way -- oh, he's back. can you tell us how many people at the fbi have worked on the horowitz report? >> for prosecution or for
discipline? >> for prosecution first. just give me numbers because i don't want to abuse my time. >> the prosecution issue related to anything to do with the horowitz report is in the hands of inspector -- >> i get it. how many have you fired? >> most of the people involved in the horowitz report are former employees. of the ones that are current, every single one of them, even if mentioned only in passing, have been referred to our office of professional disciplinary. that piece of it, because we're cooperating fully with mr. durham's investigation, at this point we have slowed that process down to allow his criminal investigation to proceed. at the moment, that process is still underway in order to make sure we're being appropriately sensitive to the criminal investigation. >> so you've had to hold up as a result of the criminal investigation? i'm sorry i won't over, mr.
chairman. i'm sure glad you're here. he was just screwing everything up. >> senator padilla, and i'm sure you'll do better than the previous questioner. >> thank you, and i will do my best. director wray, other members in the committee have raised their concerns in the increase in hate crimes in recent years against latinos, african-americans, to lbgtqa community and others. over the last year, we've seen a significant increase in violence specifically against asian americans, including in my home state of california. earlier in this hearing, members raised recent lethal attacks in san francisco and new york as some examples. just last week in sacramento, california, a man returned to the premises of an asian family-run butcher shop with a
mutilated cat carcass for no apparent reason other than to stoke fear. the incident is currently under investigation as a hate crime. it's clear to me that this uptick in violence against asian americans is a direct result of racist rhetoric used by political leaders with intentional regard to the coronavirus pandemic. such as when former president donald trump has used offensive references to the coronavirus. indeed, on march 2020, an fbi investigation has been conducted by the fbi houston office and distributed to law enforcement across the country. and i'll quote -- it predicted a future surge in hate crimes against asian americans due to the spread of the coronavirus. the fbi makes this assessment based on the assumption that a portion of the u.s. public will associate covid-19 with china and asian american populations.
so i know senator hirona has already raised the topic, but i wanted to ask a couple specific follow-up questions. to what extent do you believe the increased violence against asian americans has been influenced by reckless rhetoric concerning the pandemic? two, what steps is the fbi taking to address the increase in hate crimes against asian americans? and three, part of that, i hope, is an update on how the fbi is pro a proactively working to overcome trust issues in asian american communities and communities of color? >> senator, let me try to take all three questions in turn. i want to be careful as fbi director not to start to get in the business of weighing in and characterizing rhetoric, because as you know, and we focus on the violence, not on the idealogy or the motivation.
i would largely, on that issue, just reassure them who have been introduced with appropriate channels. secondly, in terms of trying to be proactive, a number of things we're doing. so in addition to our investigations, which we work closely with state and local, and in some cases tribal and other federal law enforcement agencies, in some cases we'll be able to bring federal cases working with our civil rights division, counterparts and prosecutors. in other cases even if it was a state or local charge sometimes may be the best charge available based on the facts, we are trying to provide forensic support, other kinds of expertise and experience to help support the state and local prosecution. we're also trying to do a lot more public outreach, which is both with the community itself but also with state and local law enforcement.
in some cases, field offices are bringing them together so it's a group discussion which has a lot of value. we've also provided training. we're doing a lot of training, hundreds of seminars, workshops for both law enforcement and community groups, religious organizations, so forth, and that includes hate crimes training not just for the hundreds of agents at the fbi but for thousands and thousands of police officers. when it comes specifically to the last part of your question, the trust issues, you know, part of that is demonstrating through our work that we're going to do the right thing in the right way, and that we're going to respond just as aggressively and professionally to crimes against them as victims as they see with other kinds of crimes. we have done just since march of 2020, i think we've done 60 -- over 60 liaison events or t
trainings specifically geared toward the asian american and pacific islander community, and he with also put out reports like the one you referenced that call out the issue. >> i think it's just yet another example of the value of increased diversity, not just throughout the ranks of the agency but especially among leadership. that makes a great transition to my next question. some of the most striking revelations in the aftermath of the january 6 insurrection here in the capitol were reports that some members of the capitol police were sympathetic to the insurrectionists. they posed for photos, provided directions and may even have expressed support for those attacking the very building they're sworn to protect. i understand that six capitol police officers have been suspended and at least 29 others
are under investigation for their alleged role in the attack. we've also learned that among those participating in the insurrection where numerous off-duty law enforcement officers from around the country rooting out white supremacists and right wing extremists is a challenge that local law enforcement agencies and even the united states military is facing across the country. director wray, how is the fbi assisting law enforcement agencies across the country to root out white supremacy or other forms of extremism, and do you believe there is a concerted effort by right wing extreme ilsi -- extremists to infiltrate law enforcement agencies? >> i guess a few things i would say on this topic. certainly it is true that in some instances, as we continue to investigate the january 6 attack, there have been some
instances of current or particular former law enforcement and we want to pursue those cases just as aggressively as we would anyone else. we also, which may go to the heart of your question, when appropriate referring individuals to their -- the department that employs them for possible administrative or disciplinary action under their rules as appropriate. we work very closely with both our law enforcement partners and our military partners in their efforts to address any kind of violent extremism that may be in their midst. we view that as a kind of insider threat, if you will, and they do, too. i want to be clear that in my experience, and i'm dealing with our law enforcement partners and military partners every single day, a vast, vast, vast, vast
majority of men and women in uniform both in law enforcement and the military are brave, selfless, professional, high-integrity individuals. but when there are bad apples in the midst, we work with our partners to try to get ahead of it. >> i agree with that final statement, but the danger that those few bad apples present are to be taken very seriously, i understand. i hope to work with you possibly to develop further best practices and protocols to be shared with agencies around the country. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director wray, thank you for being here for your years of service and the great work that so many people in the fbi do every single day. before i ask you a question, though, i think it's very important. i was the last senator to leave the senate chamber, and i agree that the capitol police did a
great job in shepherding every single member and every single staff to safety, so i think we should go through a review as officers. i think they were tracking our pattern every single day. some of them were putting themselves between us and violence, and we need to make sure we treat them fairly. but back on the rioters on january 6. can you give me a rough idea just of the crimes that many of them are being charged with or being pursued through investigations? >> well, we're using a variety of statutory weapons. there are certainly assault charges, there are a number of charges -- by that i mean assault against federal law enforcement, including the capitol police, the brave men and women of the capitol police that i think you rightly credited there. there is also various charges related to destruction of federal property, things along those lines. we are now starting to begin to
see, as we have sort of taken care of the most immediate, easiest to prove -- i hate to use the word like low-hanging fruit charges, but now we're starting to get more of the more advanced charges, if you will. we've had some conspiracy charges recently. some of the people that are more involved with different forms of planning or coordination or preparation, some of those charges are starting to happen, and i would expect to see that continue. >> and with senator graham's comments earlier, i think your threats are going up and we have to match that with additional resources, so i look forward to the committee continuing that. would you see any difference between the charges, the investigations that you're pursuing in the events on january 6 and charges that should be pursued against federal buildings and federal law enforcement officers being harmed in seattle or portland?
are there active investigations for either of those two events, and would they be treated any differently? >> as i think i said in response to an earlier question, we are equal opportunity. so by that i mean we don't care what idealogy motivates you, if you're involved in violence, we're coming for you. that's true over the summer and some of the terrorism that was there. >> are there active investigations with those events? >> yes. >> i think you said the volume is increasing. i've introduced in the last congress, and i intend to reintroduce the bill called protect and serve which increases penalties for rioters for assaults on federal officers and more significant consequences. do you think that those would be helpful tools for law enforcement and for prosecution?
>> while i'm not familiar with the specific bill, i want to enthusiastically support the idea of looking at everything we can do to protect the men and women of law enforcement. the threats, the violence against law enforcement in this country is one of the most tragic and sometimes least talked about challenges we face. this year alone an officer is shot and killed in the line of duty at a rate of more than one a week. and when you think about what it takes for someone to be willing to sacrifice his or her life for a total stranger and how unusual that is just to begin with, and then you add on top of that somebody who is willing to do that, get up and do that every single day, day after day after day, and they never know when
that day might be the day that they don't come home to their families, and so then you put that in the context of the way in which some violent opportunists or terrorists hijacked the protests, whether it was the ones in the summer or the one on the 6th, and then you have some of these same selfless individuals that in many cases were killed, but for anyone who was killed, there is someone who survived, thank goodness, but his life and his family's life is forever altered. i don't think we should ever take for granted those people because they protect all of us. >> i agree. i'm curious with all the discussion of defund the police and systemic racism and law enforcement agencies, some of the dialogue that's out there. are you seen a measurable decrease in all the people trying to come into the fbi?
state troopers tell me their applications are down 70%. we see people expanding their requi requirement. >> certainly when it comes to state and local law enforcement, because i talk to many of the chiefs and officers you do, the recurring challenge comes up all the time. that's something we need to be concerned about, and all these trends we've talked about, i think we run the risk of that, just making that trend worse. at the fbi, happily, because we can all use some good news from time to time, last year and the year before, we tripled the number of people americans across the country applying to be special agents. when i took the job, it was around 11,000 or so a year of people applying to be special
agents. in 2013, it was about 36,000. and then last year, even with the pandemic, it was even higher than that, and that's the highest number of people applying to work at the fbi as special agents to put their lives on the line in about a decade. so we'd like to think our work is earning people who want to come work for us, and we're grateful for that, and hopefully we can do our part to try to encourage more people -- because we can only take so many of them -- to pursue law enforcement jobs in other agencies. >> that is good news. i just wish you all the best of luck in prosecuting every single person that you can that breached the capitol and every single person on the ground who assaulted or threatened a police officer, if there is anything we can do to help. i will follow up on the department to get your perspective as to whether or not you think the protect and serve act would be helpful. i think it will be, but i'd like your professional judgment. >> thank you, senator.
senator ossoff? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and director wray. greetings from your home state of georgia. >> thank you. >> thank you for your service. there's been a significant increase in shootings and violent crime nationwide over the last 18 months. there were at least ten people shot in atlanta, georgia on sunday. what does the fbi assess is driving this crime wave? >> well, certainly i am following the same trends you are with concern not just in atlanta, but in other cities around the country. i'm not sure there is any single factor that's driving it, i think ilt's a variety of things. we are seeing -- some of it may be the pandemic itself in its own way has had an impact, you know, people who are maybe not at jobs and not in school or not otherwise available and they're more -- there's more potential
for wrongdoing to occur. we talked about some of the challenges with local police departments and some of the issues there in terms of their recruiting and staffing. a lot of them are understaffed in addition to the recruiting challenge, so that's a problem. so there are a variety of drivers that we think contribute to it, but the violent crime problem over the last year in particular, 2020, is something that is a great concern and that we are very warily keeping our eye on. it doesn't get the same kind of headlines as some of the other threats we've talked about today, but as your question, i think, quite rightly implies, it's a subject that's near and dear to the hearts of all the people we know back home. >> with that many shootings in atlanta on sunday alone, this increase in violent crime is of great concern to georgians and people across the country. will you work with this committee and my office to try to refine that assessment of the
drivers of this crime wave? >> i would be pleased to do that. i commend you for your interest in the violent crime problem back in our home state. >> i appreciate that, director wray. next week will be the first anniversary of the shooting death of brianna taylor, a young lady who died when police officers in louisville, kentucky entered her home with a battering ram executing a no-knock search warrant connected to a narcotics investigation. ms. taylor was not the subject of that warrant. there has obviously been deepening and grave concern about equal justice, due process, the extent of brutality harassment, discrimination faced by black americans in the justice system growing each year with incidents such as this one. without commenting on the specifics of the late ms. taylor's case, is the fbi
prioritizing cases under su usc 242, and what have you committed to those? >> as you said, i can't talk about the brianna taylor case as it continues. but we have definitely talked about investigations we're pursuing, and we have quite a number around the country, we're also trying to contribute by doing different forms of training and outreach to state and local police departments so they understand better kind of where the lines are and where we fit into it. so that's part of it as well. we're also trying to contribute to the situation by encouraging better reporting, and we've had a lot of conversations this
morning in other contexts about statistics and reporting. and when it comes to use of force, we are trying to build out a use of force database that involves use of force by police departments, law enforcement agencies around the country. it's voluntary. we can't mandate all these local police who provide the information, but we are doing a lot to encourage them to submit their data, and my pitch to them has been, we're going to be talking about these issues no matter what and we should all want the conversations to be based on the actual facts and the actual data as opposed to what some random person thinks the facts and data are. we have now reached one of the thresholds where we can start doing some of the reporting related to this effort. we need to get to a certain threshold statistically. i think it's like 80% or something of police departments before the data is considered
statistically reliable. so investigations, training and outreach, more complete statistical reporting and use of force. >> thank you, director wray, and i know that law enforcement agencies are trying to make that data more accessible to you. will you let my office know the violations in recent years of usc 242? >> i will do what i can on that. >> thank you. director wray, is the recently revealed solar winds breach a ma major cybersecurity breach, a counterintelligence failure by the u.s. government? >> i don't know that i would describe it that way. certainly the solar winds
intrusion is something thatly ref -- that reflects a trend we've been calling out for some time, but it takes it to the next level. for years we've been warning of both china and russia in efforts to inject malware and to undermine our trust in software that organizations all rely on. we've also called out the intrusions into managed service providers which allow our adversaries to reach a far greater number of networks to sort of single entry points. the solar winds intrusion essentially takes this to the next level, purposely infecting a product that's widely used to manage networks. so the scope, the scale, the somewhat inskridiscriminate nat is something we take seriously with our partners -- >> director wray, my time is limited. >> sure. >> certainly for malware to be embedded on sensitive networks
at that scale must constitute a failure? >> certainly it's a cybersecurity issue. i think of national intelligence differently than the context you're thinking about. in some ways it's analogous to what i said about some of the earlier threats. our goal is to bat a thousand, and if we don't bat a thousand, we're looking to see what we can do to prevent that happening again. when it comes to cyber intrusion specifically, though, we have long passed the world where it's a question of if an organization is going to be a victim of sipe cyber intrusion. we're in the world of when. the question is not whether somebody was the subject of a cyber intrusion, but how fast does it get detected, mitigated, et cetera. the scope, the scale, the range of attack methods, the number of
adversaries involved in sophisticated cyberattacks dwarves what it was when i was in law enforcement and national security before, and a huge amount of the information -- a huge amount of the information -- for america in particular is in the hands of the private sector. and so unlike some of the other kinds of threats we've been talking about here this morning, the partnership between the intelligence community, other federal agencies and the private sector is at the heart of the issue. >> thank you, director wray. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator ossoff. i'm glad you brought up solar winds because i think it's the first reference at this hearing. i would like to do a follow-up before i recognize senator blackburn. what do we do about it? we know we don't have an extradition agreement with russia, so even finding and naming the hackers doesn't lead to any punishment of them. what is our response as a deterrent to future cyber
intrusion? >> so i think discussing this in more detail is something that should be done in a classified setting. that in itself should give you a little bit of a hint. speaking more generally, what we have found over the last couple years in the cyber arena in particular is that we are at our most effective when we have joint sequenced operations that essentially -- think of it as having the whole be greater than some of the parts. you mentioned a few of the things that can be done. any one of those things by themselves ain't going to get the job done. but if you start putting some of those things together in a way where each amplifies the effect of the other, we have actually seen some pretty good results with some of our adversaries, so it's everything from not just the law enforcement piece, it's foreign partner participation, it's private sector hardening,
it's treasury sanctions, it's a whole host of things. but when you put them together, sequenced, i would never suggest to you, and you would never believe me if i did suggest to you that that's somehow going to just eliminate the problem. it does push the adversary back and slow their progress. but this is going to be a long, hard slog. >> thanks, director. i believe that senator blackburn is on remote. senator? technical difficulties. i'll give her another minute. >> yes, mr. chairman, i'm here.
>> okay, senator, you have the floor. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate that, and yes, i think i don't have enough band width -- something is wrong with the video transmission. we'll just go to audio. to the chairman, following director wray, i would just like to add, i think it would be excellent, and mr. chairman i would offer to you, as we're looking at what is happening with cryptocurrencies and with the growth in that marketplace and how this currency could be used when it comes to cybercrimes and to terrorism, i think a briefing from you all on what you are tracking and what you're seeing would be very helpful to us. so i would just -- i would commend that as a second place
for us to go. and, director wray, i want to say thank you to you for being h here, and thank you to the fbi and the u.s. attorney's offices in tennessee for the work they did after january 6, striking down and catching the rioters from tennessee that had taken part in those activities, and there are a lot of questions that still remain. one, and i know senator kennedy mentioned this, but the national guard and the timeline that was there, i'd like for you to speak to that if you can, the day of timeline. i understand that mayor bowser spoke with the secretary of the army twice, at 1:24 and at 2:22. with the chief's son, he spoke to the d.c. guard commanding general at 1:49, and the guard
began to mobilize at 3:00, and the troops did not arrive until 5:40. is that your understanding of the timeline? >> senator, i appreciate the question, and i'm glad you tied me back to my exchange with senator kennedy, because i fear that i may have contributed to a little bit of a muddle here. first let me say that my understanding on the question of authority is that the d.c. mayor and the u.s. capitol police can ask for the national guard, that the secretary of defense has the authority on federal land, the secretary of the army has authority on, in effect, d.c. or when it's not d.c., state land. i really don't have the specifics on exactly who requested what and when. i understand why it's a topic of keen interest, but i, as fbi director, are not intimately involved in that process, so i don't want to add to any confusion that's out there.
>> okay. so, then, it would be appropriate that we direct that, first of all, to the guard command and to the secretary of the army. is that what i'm hearing you say? >> i think so, yes. >> okay. all right. that sounds great. thank you for that clarification, because i do think that we do need some clarification there. let me go to some of the riots that have taken place around the country and the crime that has seemed to spike this year. previous to this, the fbi participated in operation legend. of course, memphis, tennessee was a part of that effort. so we thank you for that. but let me ask you, is the fbi tracking extremist groups like
antifa or other radicalism that are connected to violence in cities across the country, the violence and looting that has taken place? and we know operation legend wound down and ended in january. so how is the fbi going to continue assisting local law enforcement in these cities where you have these riots that have taken place? >> well, senator, i appreciate the question. i think you've touched on two very important but distinct topics. one is the violence on our streets in a lot of our major cities, including memphis, that operation legend was designed to address. and the other is the violence that's occurring amidst protests, where otherwise peaceful protests are hijacked by people who engage in violent
criminal behavior. so on the first, on what i would call the more sort of traditional violent crime side, in effect, the operation legend side, if i can just use that as a shorthand, we do think that was a successful operation, but it was, by its very nature, finite in duration. what we're doing since then is trying to work with our safe streets task forces which have representatives of state and local and other federal agencies and to try to bring a strategic intelligence-driven approach to the violent crime problem. what i have found, and i have talked with state and local police chiefs in all 50 states, is that each city has its own i had -- idiosyncracies, but some kind of tail wagging the dog
that is bringing violence to that community. if people can all work in a tailor-driven way, they can work together rather than just moving the problem around. >> you're correct, there are different sets of issues around the different types of crime. i understand that. and i appreciate that, but i think part of the frustration is -- let's take july 4th last year with the hatfield federal courthouse in portland and the fire that was started. how did the fbi and federal and local law enforcement agencies attempt to track down those that were responsible. was this an extremist group or groups, or was it individuals like a lone actor which you
mentioned earlier, and, of course, in nashville on christmas day, we saw the actions of a lone actor, and separately, at some point i would like to get an update from you on that. but let's talk about what you're doing to track those groups that are there, or like in seattle, with the capitol hill autonomous zh zang why they're just really flouting the rule of law. how are you tracking these anarchist groups who are planning attacks, who are occupying public spaces, and what type work are you doing to help protect communities from this? >> so, sure. that's the second topic of the two that we touched on. we do have a number of domestic
terrorism investigations. we would call them anarchist violent extremism investigations into individuals, some of the most dangerous individuals involved in conduct in particular over the summer. we are looking at everything from taxes to funding to logistics, and we're pursuing all available charges against them. i think i may have mentioned in response to an earlier question that last year, in 2020, we arrested more anarchist violent extremists than the prior three years combined. but in addition, i would say that in some of the activity you described from over the summer, when it's targeting federal buildings, there are certain charges that may be available there, as was true with the courthouse in portland and as is true, obviously, with the capitol on the 6th. but when it comes to non-federal
facilities, sometimes the charges end up being state and local charges where we work closely with and support our state and local partners as they bring charges. so we are continuing to move full speed ahead. we've increased significantly the number of investigations into the kind of activity you're describing, and we're going to keep at it. >> thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blackburn. as we conclude the hearing in the area of shameless self-promotion, i'm not going to send you a qfr, but i'd like to send you a copy of my domestic prevention terrorism and ask for your reaction to it. you may suggest changes to make it more effective, and i would appreciate that. it's been a while since you've been before the committee, and we've certainly tried your patience today, but you've been excellent in your presentation. i just want to thank you and the men and women of the federal
bureau of investigation for the sacrifices they make to keep america safe. this meeting of the judiciary committee will stand adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you have been listening here to some significant testimony by the fbi director christopher wray. this is the first time he's testified about the deadly insurrection at the capitol on january 6th. and among the headlines, wray calling the attack domestic terrorism. he said he can't explain the breakdown in communications between intel agencies prior to the attack. he says there is no evidence that fake trump supporters were involved, which is a conspiracy theory that a republican senator recently pushed on the floor. he said domestic terror investigations have risen sharply from last year, and wray also said the riot has become an inspiration to would-be terrorists. a lot going on here, very important. let's get some reaction now. we have cnn's gloria borger, we have andrew mccabe as well, along with cnn contributor
kathleen belew who is the author of "bring america home." andrew, to you first. big takeaways here. >> i think you hit some of the moments in your introduction. the fact that he basically took the air out of the balloon about the presence of antifa elements and the riot on 1/6, i thought, was really important. and the fact that he very clearly stated that the fbi has not found any evidence of voter fraud and certainly not evidence of voter fraud on a level that would have affected the election, so i thought both of those were important. as to the matter of how director wray handled the fbi's handling of that infamous norfolk intelligence report, i thought it was really interesting. it was the one point that every time it came up, he seemed particularly defensive. he made a point of restating the
three ways the fbi tried to pass the report on, but from my experience, brianna, each one of those roots that he laid out, the way intel was handed off, really laid the blame on the lowest possible kind of rungs of the ladder. so each one of those handoffs that he detailed is really just a very standard business as usual operations. what i thought the director did not ever fully explain is the questions that really senator blumenthal, i thought, zeroed in on particularly effectively, and that is, what was the fbi's assessment of the threat possibly posed by this rally on january 6th? never got a straight answer to that. how did the fbi think about this gathering of people with substantial grievances about the results of the election and possibly infill ttrated by some
violent groups. how did they think about that in advance when they knew some of the violent actors were traveling to washington. i felt the director never gave us a straight answer to that question. >> he would know the toanswer t that question, you would suspect. why would he not share the answer to that? a lot of folks would say having the information they had, why didn't the fbi take a more proactive approach in following up on this and making sure that this was very much seen, absorbed, understood by law enforcement? why wouldn't he answer that, do you think? >> well, i don't think he has a good answer to that question. look, any leader has got to look at this situation and acknowledge that this was clearly a failure. when your job is to protect the american people, and in this case, to protect the capitol together with your partners at the capitol police, the capitol got overrun that day, that's not a success in anybody's
estimation. so the important thing to do is go back and look at each one of these elements and re-evaluate them to try to figure out how the fbi and its partners can work more effectively in the future. we didn't really get an answer to that question. >> and, kathleen, wray mentioning this attack is certainly an inspiration to would-be terrorists, certainly not good news in terms of what law enforcement has ahead of them. >> certainly not. i think that people who study acceleration of white power movements have noted that january 6 is really an inflection point for further action. but one thing that stood out to me in the testimony today was the question about what should a high schoolteacher do if they encounter a student who is facing this kind of radicalization. his answer was to call your local fbi field office. now, your fbi field office is a great stopping point for things like being threatened if you see hate speech, if you see graffiti
on your walls, but it's not a call that a lot of teachers want to make about their students, it's not a call that parents want to make about their children. what is the relationship going to be between the kinds of immediate answers we need about january 6 and the kind of broader social network we need to build for ourselves in understanding and reckoning with this kind of violent activism on the far right. >> it was really something to hear gloria repeatedly rein, knocking down the idea that the capitol attack was somehow run by antifa in trump supporter clothing. what did you think about those moments? >> he made it clear that there was no evidence of this, and no matter how much the republicans wanted to keep raising the subject of antifa or fake trump
protesters, he said, no, we have found no evidence of it. i'm with andrew mccabe here on one point, which is that he had no answer for that famous norfolk memo, that fbi memo. and how it didn't get into the right hands quickly enough and sort of washed his own hands of it and said, you know, the best i can tell, all normal procedures were followed. i don't know if those were exact words, but he didn't make it seem as if it were anything out of the ordinary. . my question would be, for the senator sitting up there, why was nobody's hair on fire, and why was this just done with normal procedure, and why was there no follow-up, if after you sent it, you didn't hear from anyone in the district or anyone else. why didn't the fbi follow up with this kind of information.
and i still think we have no answer to that question. >> we certainly don't and there's going to need to be more of an answer on that in the future. kathleen, what did you think about republicans blamg. repeatedly bringing up antifa as opposed to anti-government supr supremacists and white supremacists. >> i think they can have a realistic understanding about the facts around all of this. one of these movements, the white power movement, has decades of action, infrastructure, like paramilitary training camps, and a casualty count in the hundreds. the other one, antifa, is a loose affiliation of people that have a casualty count of two. these are not comparable threats. these are not at all comparable threats for those who are a watchdog or add voluntary
indicator about these groups. thirdly, what we have to remember is the groups are not necessarily a member of superpatriots. we're talking about a movement in the violent overthrow of the united states. we saw that in the deliberate work they did. ly also to disrupt our process by delaying the results of the election. that is an act of direct terrorism, and mr. wray made a point of calling it that on the senate floor. >> i want to thank you, kathleen and gloria, for being with us following very important testimony today. as the first johnson & johnson vaccines get to america today, a former trump appointee is breaking with dr. anthony fauci on whether the u.s. should delay second doses.
plus sexual harrassment against new york governor andrew cuomo are intensifying as a third woman comes forward and several new york democrats call for his impeachment. and prosecutors are getting closer to the inner working of the trump organization. now focusing on donald trump's long-time chief financial officer. whoo-hoo! great tasting ensure with 9 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals, and nutrients to support immune health.
intuit quickbooks live. meetings with democratic senators on a covid relief bill, the package is expected to cost $1.9 trillion and democrats are under pressure to stick together to pass it. cnn's raju manu is following all of the latest investments on capitol hill. manu, what new details do you have about what the president told lawmakers? >> he just spoke to senate democrats at private meetings just moments ago and he made very clear he needs to he sure
they get behind this bill, he argued it's bipartisan outside of the halls of congress and he also is making very clear democrats should reject any measure that could essentially sink the plan, amendments that could be offered on the senate floor later this week during a marathon voting session that could occur. the concern among democrats is a couple of their members may join 50 republicans and decide to essentially amend key elements of the plan. so what joe biden is privately telling his colleagues is not go down that route, reject that. he also says you may accept some provisions of the plan that you may not like but you should still get behind it. everyone in some way, he suggested, should swallow the provision they may not ultimately like because of the greater good in this bill, arguing the democrats should demonstrate to the american public they need to get behind this plan because the democrats need to get behind the plan so they can demonstrate how voters
are able to respond to the crises of this time. brianna, this is a pitch biden is making behind closed doors ahead of critical votes this week to get this bill out of this chamber, ensure it remains intact and maintain that fragile democratic coalition that will be needed to get past the senate and back to the house for final passage before that march 14th deadline when jobless benefits skp expire for millions of americans. >> what measure might democrats or some moderate democrats consider joining republicans in with during the amendment process? >> there's some concern from the democratic leaders that some of the more modern members may seek to dwidle down the jobless benefits in particular. joe manchin, west virginia democrat, mentioned paring down that benefit to an adegsales about 300 to $400 a week in the plan. that is not sufficient for most democrats who want to keep it at $400 a week and extended, the time frame would expire in
august. in the house bill there's talk about extending it until december by some like ron white, chairman of the finance committee. there's concern about that. and also concern about tightening the eligibility of the stimulus checks up to $1,400 for individuals. would joe manchin breaks democrats to do that? if he did, how would that impact the vote count in the house for the democrats who on the liberal side are pushing for more expansive relief measures. that is why joe biden is making clear he does not want his party to go down what his view is poison pill amendment that would sink the underlying bill if they change core amendments here. complicated strategy ahead of a minefield of debate amendments that will come up and that could change the course of this, but joe biden is pushing ahead saying get behind this, we need to show the voters we will respond to the crises, even if r republicans don't agree. >> manu, thank you very much for that. the former surgeon general,
trump appointee, is now contradicting the biden administration's advice about getting two covid-19 shots. in a tweet dr. adams wrote, good protection for many with one shot is better than great protection for a few. 2,000 people a day are dyeing because they can't get a first covid-19 shot, not because they can't get a second. adams was referring to dr. fach's interview with "the washington post" where he said the company should not delay getting a second dose. otherwise he added, quote, that would be a messaging challenge to say the least. i want to get some reaction on this from dr. richina bissett, medical director and assistant professor at the baylor college of medicine. since his initial tweet, we should mentioned adams rolled back his comments saying two shots is not necessarily the wrong way to go. what do you think about this mixed messaging here? >> i think that he should park his twit ter fingers for a few
minutes, brianna. the trump administration has a lot to answer for about how their vaccine plan rolled out with the missing doses of vaccine, 20 million missing doses of vaccine, the rate of vaccinations. so i don't think we can take any advice from him right now. i would much rather listen to dr. fauci, who is a trusted national expert. what we know is the science shows for the pfizer and moderna vaccine, in order to be fully protected, you need to get at least two doses. until we see science saying otherwise, i think we need to stick with that vaccination schedule. now, with the johnson & johnson vaccine being shipped out as we speak, you know, that will be ape mute point since it is a one-dose vaccine. >> yes, that's a very good point. let's talk about that vaccine. president biden is set to announce that something pretty extraordinary here is going to happen, competing drugmakers merck and johnson & johnson are going to work to increase the production of that one-shot vaccine. that's pretty significant. what is that going to look like?
>> it's extremely significant. i mean, we have two big competitors in the vaccine world that are working together but i think it just goes to show you that right now, all hands are on deck and we're in global preservation mode. covid is still ravaging many countries in the united states and we need to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. what we know is that johnson & johnson has said that in the immediate future, they can deliver at least 4 million doses to the united states, and they're thinking at least 100 million doses by the summer. along with what we're going to get or what we're supposed to get from pfizer and moderna, we should have enough doses in the united states to vaccinate our entire population by the end of july. >> that is good news. dr. bicette, thank you very much for that. it's good to see you. >> thank you, brianna. this is cnn breaking news. >> hello, i'm brianna keilar.
it is the top of the hour. we begin on capitol hill where lawmakers just finished grilling fbi director christopher wray about the attack on the u.s. capitol. this is the first time wray publicly testified since pro-trump supporters forced their way into the capitol in an attempt to stop lawmakers from certifying president joe biden's win. beginning that day there had been questions about how authorities missed signs about what was coming and how serious it was. and as there are concerns about potential future threats, senators press wray about how information was or was not shared across agencies in washington. >> when did you first receive intelligence about the possibility of an attack on the capitol on january 6th, and what happened to the process that people weren't seeing the warnings? >> in that raw, unverified information was passed within i think 40 minutes to an hour to
our partners, including the capitol police, including metro pd, and not one but two, but three different ways, one email, one verbal and one through the law enforcement portal. as to why the information didn't flow to all of the people within the various departments that they would prefer, i don't have a good answer for that. >> joining me now for more on this testimony today is cnn crime and justice correspondent shimon prokupecz. big takeaways here for you that you saw? >> yes, the big takeaway, and something we should all be very concerned about, this threat is going to continue and it's only going to increase. the idea of domestic terrorism here in this country is a concern. the fbi director said that since he's been in office, he's seen a three-fold increase in the number of cases and the other thing is, you know, you played that sound there from the fbi director. it's very clear that they are now dealing with something that