tv MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson MSNBC February 25, 2021 7:00am-8:00am PST
ordinary tissues burn when theo blows. so dad bought puffs plus lotion, and rescued his nose. with up to 50% more lotion puffs bring soothing softness and relief. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. visible is wireless that doesn't play games. it's powered by verizon for as little as $25 a month. but it gets crazier. bring a friend every month and get every month for $5. boom! 12 months of $5 wireless. visible, wireless that gets better with friends.
right now on capitol hill, we are about to get the most detailed account yet on intelligence and police preparations leading up to the january 6th attack on the capitol. you will hear the acting police chief acting publicly since the riot set to contradict testimony from the former sergeant of arms. we will bring you an update live. plus, any minute, we will get a decision on whether democrats can get a $15 an hour wage. you will hear about that proposal from vice president harris in an msnbc exclusive coming up. and in a minute, we'll talk with the top democratic leadership, congressman james clyburn about what their next move may be. and in an exclusive, leicester holt will join us about what he is learning from a one-on-one from pfizer, looking
at booster shots to target the more infectious strain of covid. we got a lot more going on. i'm hallie jackson. you will get to those stories in a moment. first, we have baracking news out of new york. the manhattan district attorney is now in possession of former president donald trump's tax returns and some other financial documents as well. let me bring in tom winter, who is joining us on the phone. not a total shock. because we knew after the breaking news on this show monday with that supreme court decision that this was now a question of when, not if. so what more are you learning? >> that's perfectly put. it was a question of when, but if. it's quick in this case. so basically, shortly after the supreme court decision or lack of decision in that they were not going to stop the grand jury here in new york city from getting these tax returns but perhaps much more importantly, the underlying tax documents. the subpoena was able to be enforced.
so those records are now in the hands of manhattan district attorney sy vance. i think going forward here, what's important for people to know is why vance's office, they have hired former federal prosecutors familiar with these cases, hiring forensic accounting firm, while they will move quickly, these are very complex cases, they're very difficult to organize, they're very difficult to construct. and then you've got to find out what, if anything, is illegal and figure out how you might want to prosecute that. they are not simple one-off cases. we're talking about the volume of records that exist in this case. when we are talking about the length of time, ten years examined, but perhaps further back. when we look at all those things, it's a difficult case to try to arrange and organize, so in speaking to former prosecutors, they will have to establish a time line. what did the president, the trump organization and those working for him present to banks
at the same time they were prengt presenting information to new york. is something provably false? is our own colleague and former u.s. attorney chuck rosenberg says, you can't just hold up these tax documents and say, okay, they presented this one thing to a bank and presented this thing in the tax returns, there are two different numbers here so one of them must be false. you can convict whoever they happen to charge. that's not how this works. so they need to delve into the numbers, understand it, and i think it's going to be some time here, halle, before we hear if there are charging decision and, of course, we won't get to see these documents until this case goes to trial, if it ever does. >> right. real quick time line question, is sy vance up against a clock here or anything? >> reporter: well, that's an interesting question. i think over the next couple days or weeks or perhaps even longer than that we'll hear how
they are able deal with the statute of limitations concerns. i think they have some thoughts on that, i'll leave it there for now. but i think there are some, there will be some interesting developments in due time. >> tom winters, live for us there with that breaking news, thank you. we want to take you back to what's happening here in washington. that house hearing on the january 6th insurrection. we have nbc news' garrett haik. we already have the opening statement from the capitol police? >> reporter: yeah, the era of virtual hearings make this a little more difficult to nail down it will tell us more about the failures that led up to january 6th, both tactical and the bigger figurative and intelligent failures. she will tell us officers didn't properly lock down the building and they weren't properly
trained on when the use of deadly force is appropriate. you will see more of this back and forth about intelligence failures. what did the capitol police and sergeant at arms know it. the acting capitol police chief will say intelligence products they have warn them that this event on january 6th wasn't going to be like this previous maga marches in washington, d.c. and it was possible, in fact, even likely, that there could be significant violence and they should be prepared about that. that's not what the former senate of arms told the hearing this week. >> the january 3rd assessment forecasted the protests were quote expected to be similar to the previous million maga march rallies that had taken place in november and december 2020. every capitol police daily intelligence report between january 4 and january 6th, including on january 6th, forecast the chance of civil
disobedience or arrests during the protests as remote to improbable. >> reporter: so remote is not exactly what the now acting police chief is saying. that's the former house sergeant at arms, not senate house of arms. forgive me. these discrepancies may get more cleared up next week when that same panel recon convenience to hear from speakers of the fbi, department of defense. we may learn yet what these folks actually knew and when. >> garrett, live force you there on capitol hill. thank you. you have been looking by the way at congressman tim ryan who is starting that hearing now, running a little behind schedule. we do expect to hear from the acting police of capitol police. as garrett explains, it is likely to be fairly newsee. i want to bring in the third housing rank democrat, majority whip james clyburn. good morning to you, thank you for being on, on what i know is a busy day.
>> thank you very much for having me. >> let me stick to this conversation garrett and i have been having, this hearing, looking into the intel, security failures that led up to the january 6th attack. it is assumed right now based on her statement that the acting chief of the capitol police will contradict previous testimony, tell lawmakers they warn of potential violence. what questions do you think need to be answered as this hearing and the ones next week move forward? >> i think we really need to have some clarity as to exactly let us know when was it known and who may have been the source? these things are very, very important that we are going to get to the bottom of this. i think it is kind of interesting, today is the 60th anniversary of the supreme court decision against south carolina. that was the supreme court case that said once and for all that
the civilians could not be stopped by the state under the guise of reaching the peace and that's what made a big difference. 60 years ago today, these kind of issues have been -- and i think it's very important for us to gather all the facts and for these facts to get layered on the table and wherever it is necessary, let's do legislatively what should be done and should be done in order to preserve this democracy that we hold dearly. >> you talk about wanting to get facts and answers. one of the ways to do that, potentially, at least in the purview of speaker pelosi is this 9/11-style commission to do that. as you know, republicans are objecting to the makeup of that panel, it would include seven republicans, only democratic
members would have subpoena power. is there a point there? why not make this truly 50-50, like the actual 9/11 commission was if you want to have a truly bipartisan investigation? >> well, if these people are outside, these are people that will be selected. they're not people who will be members of the congress. >> right. >> and we cannot get people who are non-positive. you use people who are steeped in investigations, security issues, like people who have been trained in the military for such things and people who have had experiences as police commissioners, et cetera. you can do that. they won't be members of the congress so to speak. they will just be appointed members of the congress. now, if you've got people who are express some opposition to
get into the bottom of this, or who want to continue to tell the big lie about what may have led up to this, they ought not be a part of this. we ought to get people who have no axe to grind and, hopefully, they will be appointed by people who do want to get to the bottom of it. >> would you be opened, though, to allowing democrats and republicans to appoint the same number of people to this commission, just to take away that argument that we've already heard from some of the gop on this? >> sure. i think they will open up the discussions here. i think that we all will negotiate. she has no axe to grind with this. we want to get to the bottom of it. she was a target, the vice president of the united states was a target. so the targets were bipartisan. the republican vice president, the democratic speaker of the
house were both targets in a very sinister way. >> we are waiting on another -- switching gears to another topic here. specifically, covid relief. we are waiting for the senate parliamentarian to rule, i think any minute on whether raising the minimum wage can be included in this covid relief bill. are house democrats moving forward with tomorrow's expected vote on covid relief anyway? >> i think so i think we're going to rule. we'll let the senate -- that's the senate's problem. we're financial to pass a bill with the $15 in it and the senate will take up the bill based upon the ruling they get from their parliamentarian. so, that's not our problem. that's the senate's problem. >> right. but if it doesn't get through the senate, why pass it if you know that it's going to hit a road block there? is this something you would consider negotiating on at this point?
>> well, look, you come back to, you know, when you have different bills, then they come together to congress. so we could very well be that if it's not done here, we'll do it over here. they won't do it over there. then we'll have some kind of a conference. then in that conference, we will then see, can we find some reconciliation if i might use that term? >> you may certainly may. before i let you go, i want to get you on this, i'm sure you've seen the anti-transgender sign put up by one of the republican members after her democratic neighbor congressman paul newman put out a transgender flag outside of her door, partly because of her daughter. do you view that as a opportunity or serious problems inside some factions of the republican party? >> i don't know. you know, when you have people
working in isolation, it can very well be their own personal feelings about things. i prefer fought to see that as being anything that's institutional in a way. >> okay. >> i hope we move forward through this legislation. i think we will. the house will pass it as we've passed it before. we will pass it again. >> congressman jim clyburn. thank you for joining us on what is a newsy morning. i appreciate it. we will keep an eye on that hearing happening in the house. and we are keeping an eye on what is happening at the white house this morning, there is a fight for neera tanden to get the votes she needs to be the next budget director. an old tweet may not be helping her case a. few years ago, she directed there rather to senator lisa murcowski for supporting a gop move. no offense, but the sounds like you are high on your own supply. you know, we know, everyone
knows this the all garbage, just stop. senator murcowski had this response in the washington post. high on my own supplies that's interesting. should i ask her? my own supply of what? see, that goes to show how much homework i still have to do about her not knowing she sent out a tweet about me. kelly, they are absolutely sticking by tanden, despite the potential stickiness there politically. >> reporter: well, one of the issues is the moment the white house breaks from that show of confidence and the sticking with her language, then, of course, it collapses. so they are holding that line, while at the same time there are serious questions about the likelihood that neera tanden, if you are spop shopping for a republican vote, are you knocking on the door of lisa murcowski. what you read certainly raises some questions. what the white house is saying as well is a future for neera
tanden in a biden administration may not be limited to this initial post, they nominated her for director of office of management and budget, typically considered a more bipartisan position. which her staples of both democrats and republicans have been contentious. the chief of staff is saying this about what the future could look like. >> she's a great candidate for the job and certainly worth fighting our guts out to get her confirmed. if neera tanden is not confirmed, she will not be the budget director. we will find some place that doesn't require senate confirmation. >> reporter: so the trap door has been outlined and identified, perhaps they will exercise it at some point. president bind said he is sticking with her. neera tanden and her aides believe she can go forward. this is certainly uneasy ground. there is often a cabinet
official or two that has some trouble and clearly that has been the case for neera tanden. >> thank you. as mentioned, that house hearing on the intelligence and security failures leading town january 6th is happening now. we will bring you any news from now. in the meantime, we have nbc news' leicester holt standing by to join us with his exclusive news with pfizer ceo, the potential third shot to the current vaccine and potentially alarming details on the new covid variants spreading in new york that could weaken how effective those vaccines are. a new reality check after the break. are a new reality check after the break. our fairy godmother alice. and long-lasting gain scent beads. part of the irresistible scent collection from gain! at t-mobile, we have a plan built just for customers 55 and up. saving 50% vs. other carriers with 2 unlimited lines for less than $30 each.
fine, no one leaves the table until your finished. fine, we'll sleep here. ♪♪ it's the easiest because it's the cheesiest. kraft. for the win win. ordinary tissues burn when theo blows. so dad bought puffs plus lotion, and rescued his nose. with up to 50% more lotion puffs bring soothing softness and relief. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed.
an nbc news exclusive this morning, the head of pfizer sitting down with our leicester holt as a new coronavirus emerges and variants on the vaccine. pfizer announcing a new study to evaluate booster shots and how they protect against new strains. moderna is targeting virus variants first found in the uk and south africa. that update the on its way to the national institutes of health to be study. all the latest unknowns for keeping up with this virus. for people anxious about how the variants were slow or was progress made against the virus? dr. anthony fauci telling the "today" show you heard it before is still rearing a mask and social distancing. >> the other strains or mu tants
or variants as we call them are coming up, but the major spread in the country right now, the vaccine is good against it and even ones in which it may be somewhat less effective, the vaccine is still good against severe disease, emerging of variants will occur. the trick is when they do occur to prevent them from spreading. >> reporter: joining me now, leicester holt, good morning, thanks for being up early with us. >> reporter: no, good morning, the ceo of pfizer, i had to start it off with variants out there, based on what they know, is their vaccine holding up? he expressed strong confidence there s. he says the company is essentially looking around the
corner to got ahead and they are looking at a booster shot. essentially a third dose, trying to find out what that would look like. is your expectation that this will turn into a routine three-dose vaccine? >> i think that we need to wait to see. but a likely scenario is we will not have a three-dose vaccine, we will have an annual revaccination and likely with one dose of the vaccine and that could be an annual new variant vaccine. >> is there a worry, though, introducing a third vaccine will create confusion of people's place in line, we have to start from scratch if we change the protocol? >> i think it will be no doubt if we have to either start the
six-month vaccinations or an annual vaccination, there will be, we need some effort to monitor the confusion and give the people instruction, but it's not something that is going to happen for the first time. we have multiple vaccines. so it's going to be the same. within a year you will have to get your annual shot to be protected. >> they are working with fda regulators to see if they can tweak their vaccine to make it more adaptable. the idea the new variant comes down the line, within 100 days, they can make the swipe. it's optimistic about where they are and where they're going. >> you also, talked to them about another issue important to you.
so many parents which is the idea of vaccines in kids. >> as you know, the cutoff is 16. they have been doing a study of trials with kids as young as 11. they expect that to be the fda, they are planning a study as young as five years ago and hope to have that study down by the end of the area. >> it is a fascinating interview, leicester. thank you so much for brigg it to us. we want to let you know we can catch much more tonight on nbc nightly news, thank you, leicester. after the break, one of the country's top vaccine experts reacts to what we heard in that pfizer news and reviews tomorrow's very important fda hearing on the johnson&johnson vaccine. plus the u.s. expecting to release details on jamal khashoggi, singling out the
saudi count prince. and how the police force is responding to hate crimes and violence. lots to get to right here on msnbc. o get to right here on msnbc. ♪ ♪ - [narrator] if you're thinking about going to school online, southern new hampshire university is where you belong. we've been online for more than 25 years and have helped thousands of students reach their goals. as a nonprofit university, we believe access to high quality education should be available to everyone. that's why we offer some of the lowest tuition rates
in the nation, and haven't raised tuition in nearly a decade. so no matter where you want to go, snhu can help you get there. visit snhu.edu today. you may have many reasons for waiting to go to your doctor right now. but if you're experiencing leg pain, swelling, or redness, don't wait to see your doctor. these could be symptoms of deep vein thrombosis, a blood clot which could travel to your lungs and lead to a pulmonary embolism. which could cause chest pain or discomfort, or difficulty breathing—and be deadly. your symptoms could mean something serious, so this is no time to wait. talk to a doctor right away, by phone, online, or in-person.
we want to come back now live to that house hearing we were telling you about where the acting chief is now delivering her opening statement. let's listen in. >> i would like to thank the committee for their continued support in insuring what the department has what it needs, i'd also like to help the chairman to ensure our officers have the mental wellness resources that they and their families need. as to the usct officers that proudly serve the congressional community. they fought bravely on january 6th.
they are heroes. i am ready to answer your questions. >>. >> ranking member granger, chairman ryan, ranking member herrera butler and members of the appropriations subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on security failures of january 6th. before i begin, i want to act knowledge the debt of gratitude we owe to the officers, metropolitan police and law enforcement partners came to the aid of the institution and risked our lives to democracy can endure. i cannot thank them enough. i want to thank congress for helping to provide a fitting tribute to officer sicknick. the recognition rightly bestowed upon him, hopefully served as a member of capitol police and all law enforcement who make sacrifices on a daily basis.
i want to acknowledge officers and fear families, their sacrifices will never be forgotten. i finally want to thank the national guard that come from near and far to keep our city on the hill safe. they have left their families amidst the pandemic to work in an uncertain environment. their presence makes us safer. as i stated to the appropriations committee, the intelligence surrounding january 6th was problematic. intelligence were finding needles in a haystack. on january 6th, there was a failure to gather, synthesize elements and there was indications it was muddled or contradictory. for example, the january 3rd intelligence assessment has been touted to include information that makes it clear january 6th would become violent. the document states the protesters rallies were expected to be similar to the maga march in december 2020.
it drew tens of thousands of individuals. we know now the v these were not like the previous marches orallys we've had on capitol ground the intelligence provided to capitol police did not have a coordinated attack. warnings should not be qualified or hidden bad information leads to poor decisions, in fact, when the capitol police presented the assessment to the sergeant in arms, they simultaneously briefed on the plan of action for january 6th. and one would think the plan was developed, taking into account the intelligence they were seeing at the time. one would also expect the warnings to be reflected in all subsequent intelligence reports. the officer of the sergeant at arms received daily intelligence reports following the initial assessments rempbsd referenced on the 3rd. they listed the demonstrations and categorized the probability of civil disobedience or arrests
as repeat, highly improbable or probable. for each of those days and every single demonstration. the characterization of a threat posed by these protests reenforced the notion of thinking they were similar to the two previous demonstrations and not the violent insurrection we experienced. the sergeant of arms is a consumer of intelligence products. we do not analyze intelligence. we are dependent on the capitol police and the intelligence communities to provide timely, accurate, succinct intelligence to guide our decisions. it pains me to say the misstepped placed the health and lives of front line officer at risk. while front line officers did everything they could that day, they were prepared for a first amendment, fought prepared for the events of january 6th. for example, former chief sun noted in the letter to
congressional leadership he expedited the delivery of approximately 104 helmets to officers. it was a good decision to expedite the delivery of the helmets. it raises questions as to why the officers did not have the helmets on hand. i support any efforts we can to supply all gear for our officers to keep them safe. it's to be able to keep the gear on hand to express to the capitol police board. proper planning will provide the needed support on the line and the event does not turn to a crisis. we must prepare contingencies, failure can resulted in greater difficulties and executions, examinations are under way to prepare for the next january 6th. deet honore has been securing members traveling, as well as in their districts.
we have worked to support this critical task. this will prove to be valuable input on how we provide security services to members. in the aftermath of january 6th. i know the sergeant at arms must provide more to staff to keep them safe. it will come with stew warding the funds. funding is an important aspect, but just as important if not more so and we look at perspective to help my own proposals. i also support necessary infrastructure improvements and changes the capitol police will propose to equipment upgrades and more importantly the investment in its officers. the capitol police and the sergeant at arms will better secure congress. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i welcome your
questions. >> thank you. chief, let me start with you, first, let me say thank you to you for the lines of communications has improved dramatically over the past weeks when i want to say thank you to you and your team for making sure you are staying in contact with the committee and the congress. i've got a couple questions. you were talking about increasing the size of the dignitary protection, protection agents, extending coverage of the investigations division. so when you say you increased the size of dignitary protection, how many people were increased there? how many law enforcement people are increased? >> yes, sir. thank you. so we went from four man protection details and increased that to six-man protection
details. >> okay. that's not a significant increase at all. you are talking about you know what we went through. how about some of the other things you mentioned, so you embed an analyst, employing countersurveillance agents. how many countersurveillance agents did you deploy on the morning of the 6th? >> so we deployed all of our countersurveillance agents that we have available to us. we also increased our open source operations, if you will, to go from a 16-hour day to we separated our man power to insure that we had open source operations around the clock. so all of our psb operators, if you will, which includes dignitary protection, the investigations division as well
as intelligence were operating on a 24/7 platform. >> if i understand that, my main point is that this is not in anyway a significant increase in the amount of law enforcement out there, moving in detail before the 6th, even if you did that multiple times, it is not any significant increase. i guess the question i have is if you felt like and everybody felt like this was adequate, why was chief sun trying to press the argument at arms for more help? >> so let me just be clear, as it relates to dignitary protection. that is just a small portion of u.s. capitol police. so there is a limited number of dig fitary protection agents that are specially trained in that area. so increasing from a four-person team to a six-person team essentially is all of the dig fitary protection agents that u.s. capitol police has
available to them. so from that four-person team to six is every person that we rell side of the house, that's where the bulk of the agency is employed by the uniform services bureau. so that's where the increase came primarily from as it relates to warming up those civil suburbans units, the operational plan required for four platoons to be activated on for the january 6th event. uniform operations increased that platoon size to maximize its strength to seven platoons. that is essentially every available officer we have to form up our cdu unit. that's 276 officers approximately with 40-person
platoons each. four of those platoons, excuse me, three of those platoons comprise part platoons him those are the officers you see and the hard turtle gear and they have extra, if you will, less than options available to them as well as tactical gear, sir. >> i appreciate that. my point is that, clearly, chief sun didn't think that was arms, and saying, hey, we need more s? >> yes, sir. so i have an accurate account of the request that chief sun made to lean forward as it relates to the national guard and i think that's what you are referring to. my team, since january 6th,
actively pulled all of the cell phone records from chief sun. they show the following. on january 6th, chief sun first reached out for national guard support to the house sergeant at arms at 12:58 p.m. he then spoke to the senate sergeant at arms to make the same request for the national guard at 1:05 p.m. and he repeated his requests to the house sergeant at arms at 1:28 p.m., 1:34, 1:39 and he spoke to both sergeant at arms to request national guard support. >> now, i don't mean to interrupt you, we have a little time, i'm talking about prior to january 6th. my main point here is that we appreciate that you increased protections and platoons and the rest. that's a limited number.
i think it's important that the congress knows that is a limited number compared to what the threat was and we think the threat assessment s. and my question to you is chief sun clearly was worried and he called mr. irving prior to the 6th. >> yes, sir. >> and said, hey, we need more help. mr. irving said, no, go ask the national guard to lean in. i don't know what lean-in is. if that's some term i don't know. what does lean in mean? it means shut up and don't ask me for any more help is how i take that. and my question is and we got a lot of questions here, but my question is were you in agreement, because you are now the acting chief and part of this enterprise is about moving forward. at that time were you in agreement with chief sun that you needed more support from
primarily the national guard? yes, sir. >> okay. thank you. >> my time is up. i just want the committee to know, like yesterday, we will take a little time to make maybe allows us to do some of that. with that, i will yield to mr. herrera butler. >> sergeant, acting sergeant at arms budget, if we could and i may scale back. so when we have failures, i'm not necessarily talking about the tweets and the secretaries that came to members while this is happening. what you and i discussed on the phone and what i think is really important is i was standing next to officers, both sergeant of
arms and capitol police officer as the inspection was happening on the house floor, getting to the house floor it was very clear their head pieces, the communications pieces, they were getting no actual communication, no leadership, no direction, there was no coordination. you could see the fear in their eyes. like they literally, the brave men and women did the best they could with what they have. there is a video on youtube where a woman was shot. there is a time with different armed forces coming in at different angles. it was clr clear the person that shot didn't know there was a tactical team up the stairs. they all had earpieces in. i am talking about the leadership. no one owning the sfreektcy and giving direction and i want to
know if you are fixing that. it's great you send out text messages, the big communications from my vantage point, i talk to representative on the floor helping barricade the door with those officers who had their firearms drawn. he said he couldn't hear the shouting in the chaos in the earpieces of the officers trying to do the dchlts they were on their own are you fixing that? and please be bree, i have a couple more questions acting sergeant of arms, are you there? >> i apologize, i was on mute. i have to unmute. that's something we need to fix immediately. only the chief acknowledged in her statement. i don't want to speak for the acting chief, but that communications needs to be
enhanced. it drives out of the command center post, wherever that is set up. in terms of that. in terms of the communications of my staff. >> okay. >> and sergeant at arms, we don't control all the capitol police radios while we have the radios, you can hear what is or is not going on. we do not interject during a crisis. we communicate with our staff via cell phone, text message and we were in close contact. the situation where you discussed where officer ferguson when miss babic was shot, it was our sergeant at arms that rendered the aid to her at that sight. >> can i break in? you were in charge of the house floor or are you there to make sure we take our coats off on camera?
>> we are there to enforce the rules of the house, to work in conjunction with the capitol police to make sure that it's safe. we had staff on the floor and in the galleries as well. >>, so can i ask, so talking about what happened on the floor, when the senate was evacuated. maybe this will be a chief pittman question. when the senate was evacuated, it was several minutes. i don't have the time line in front of me before the house was evacuated. why were we locked in and left on the house floor? when there were known assailants in the building and the senate was being evacuated. did we not have plan for evacuation? >> i'm sorry. yes, we had the officer of the sergeant at arms put together a plan for the house floor. it's a tactical decision to evacuate will be left to the
capitol police because at the command center, they can see what's going on throughout the camps. we don't have eyes on that. >> chief pittman, can you speak to the lack of communications to your officers on their radios and can you also speak to the reason that there was a decent time delay between when the senate was evacuated and the house was evacuated? >> yes, ma'am. as it relates to communications, u.s. capitol police has practiced routine drills, if you will, for the incident command system since the september 11th incident. on january 6th, our incident command protocols were not adhered to as they should have. >> why? >> yes, ma'am, within an incident command structure. you have operational order, if
you will, and it designates who is in charge of your incident command structure on the ground as well as a lot of your leadership folks to include myself and several other deputy chiefed posted within the command center. so you actually have a 1,000-foot view if you will and a boots on the ground view. those boots on the ground view, the persons in charge of our civil disturbance unit as well as our operational commanders in charge of the capitol are responsible for the implementation of that incident command system. so when there is a breakdown, you look for those commanders with boots on the ground to provide that instruction. that did not happen, primarily, because those operational commanders at the time were so overwhelmed. they started to participate and
assist the officers with boots on the ground versus providing guidance and direction if you will. >> are you talking about the officers who were, when you say boots on the ground, the guys and gal literally defending us against the attackers. are you saying they are responsibility for the communications breakdown amongst themselves? >> no, ma'am. >> so i want to know why yourself and the other leaders did not maintain or regain control of the com system because you had a bird's eye view of the advantage. >> yes, the expectation is not that those officers would be in charge of the communications. those commanders would be in charge that were directly responsible that those officers reported to because they have the tactical advantage and strategic lens, if you will, on with those officers. >> are you saying those commanders then somehow and this
is a question, so the commander famed to regain control of the com systems and direct the officers who were on the front line? >> i think it's a multi--tiered failure, if you will. >> can i i think it's really important. the capitol police union issued an overwhelming no confidence vote for top leads, including the chief, yourself, and half a dozen other agency leaders. pitman drew a 92% no confidence vote with 657. it's symbolic. it's not actionable. half of the u.s. capitol police sworn officers belong to the union. i am frustrated that what i'm not hearing is, hey, i was sitting there watching this with a bird's eye view and i tried to -- i'm hearing a lot of process and a lot of almost explaining why there's a problem
versus hearing how you are going to make sure that there is a command center who speaks into the earpieces of the officers and provides direction and leadership. part of the problem there was chaos is because each and every one of the officers boots on the ground, commander or not, had to make a decision with no information. there was no incoming help as far as they knew. they had no idea what you were doing. my hat is off to these brave men and women. they saved our lives. i'm frustrated that i'm not hearing, this is how we're fixing that right now. this is what we're doing. that's what i expect. i know, mr. chairman, my time is up. i will wait for the next round. yield back. >> thank you. just quickly as a quick follow-up before we go to miss deloro, in line with what she was saying, can you give us an explanation about the preparation for january 6th? was there any specific training
for the officers to have them prepared for this? >> yes, sir. a couple points of clarification. explaining the incident command structure was just basically to detail what the system was supposed to do. the executive team has taken a number of proactive steps to ensure incident command protocols are adhered to in the future as it relates to the command staff that are giving directions in the command center. that was forthcoming. i myself directed the capitol lockdown on the day in question. with that said, there are many more improvements to be made. as it relates to the vote of no confidence, the numbers there are not totally accurate. 36% of our sworn population, less than half of the available officers that could have voted,
said that they vote no confidence for the capitol police leadership. with that being said, i think that one vote is one vote too many. february 11th on the day of that vote marked one month and three days since i was sworn in as the acting chief. since then, my team and i have been working around the clock and the department has been working around the clock. i think that we have made some very important changes as well as improvements. we are working on communications to improve that. we have streamlined a number of items to include the joint emergency notification messaging system. we have streamlined communications between u.s. capitol police and our law enforcement partners. we have also streamlined communications between the upper management and how that information is delivered to the rank and file. in addition to that, we have
increased our wellness resources and the delivery of vaccines to all of our employees. obviously, with that vote, we acknowledge that there's more work to be done. i know that because i talked to the officers. i've been here for 20 years, and i've grown up in this agency. many of those officers are not just my colleagues, those are my friends. and their personal well-being is personal to me. as it relates to cdu training, all of our officers that are coming out of the training academy receive 40 hours of training as it relates to cdu. in addition to that, our officers that have specialized training, what we refer to as the hard gear or turtle gear, receive an additional 27 hours of training or 24 hours of training for them to be trained on special equipment.
so to answer your question, mr. chairman, there absolutely is additional training for those hard platoon cdu officers. >> i don't want to take up too much time. we're going to come back to that. there wasn't any special training specifically about january 6th to have them prepared for that? you are talking about the standard training that they get, not in particular for this moment in time with all of the intelligence and everything else that we had? >> that specialized training carrying over with those officers. those officers train on a routine basis as it relates to hard gear platoons that they are prepared for civil disturbance riots. those officers are trained for those types of events, yes, sir. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to direct my attention, if you will, to the
role, the function, the relevance of the capitol police board. both of you, what does the capitol police board do? what is its mission? what is it its authority? >> thank you, ma'am. >> somebody? >> yes. thank you, ma'am. the capitol police board acts as a policy board of directors over the capitol police. there's some statutory authorities that they do have with vehicle and traffic and the capitol police enforce those on the day-to-day basis. there's an emergency and request for executive branch assistance, protection of leadership
overseas and deployments are just some of the direct statutory inputs that the capitol police board does have. i see the role of the capitol please board is to provide the policy guidance to the chief, support the chief and the needs that she has to both your committees and then, obviously, on the senate as well of the take your concerns with the police and work with the capitol police to correct those concerns that you have as well as personally providing a house perspective to the policing of the grounds. >> chief, what is your view of the role of the capitol police board? >> i'm sorry, ma'am, you were breaking up. could you repeat your question? >> sure.
your view of the role of the capitol police board. >> yes. so the capitol police board in my view provides direct oversight to the united states capitol police when there are huge or special events that are occurring on the campus. the united states capitol police develop an operational plan, and they share those plans with the capitol police board as it relates to an intelligence perspective on any types of events. the capitol police board is kept apprised of any of those things. the capitol police board worked in close collaboration with, if you will, the members of congress so that they can make their security needs known. and then that information is kind of like a two-way communication. the capitol police board would then share those requirements with the capitol police as it relates to security.
>> with regard to january 6th, what was the capitol police -- was the capitol police board function? did it function? what operational plans were being reviewed? is it not a fact that when the request for national guard -- when there was a request for national guard, the capitol police -- the board said that the optics wouldn't be good or we don't need this or the request denied? there doesn't appear to be -- what is it its real role? does it have a role in oversight of the capitol police? i know it does a lot of
ceremonial things. i appreciate that. everybody has to be taken care of. this board and its -- where was the board and how did it function prior to january 6th? and on january 6th? >> ma'am, if i could answer that question as it relates to capitol police prior to january 6th, i think it's important to note that by statute, in order for u.s. capitol police to have the national guard on its grounds in a law enforcement capacity, the capitol police board must first declare an emergency. in order for us -- >> capitol police, your responsibility was to declare an emergency before the capitol police board cou