Ex-FBI agent reveals 3 key WHCD security gaps

[0:00] What happened on Saturday, we saw security ultimately work in that no one died, right? [0:06] But I think it also opened a lot of what ifs. [0:11] What if this gunman hadn't been alone? [0:14] What if this gunman had come with explosives? [0:17] What if? [0:18] And that was really but for the grace of whatever this man, this suspect, chose to do, right? [0:27] So what kind of questions now does Secret Service have to be brainstorming for the kind of can of worms that this opens up? [0:40] Yeah, I'd add to the what ifs. [0:41] What if he had accomplices outside as everybody was coming out and surging onto the sidewalks and somebody was waiting to ambush them? [0:50] So what's the next step moving forward, particularly if we want to do this again in 30 days? [0:55] First, you've got to reconsider having that many people in the line of presidential succession sitting in the same room, number one. [1:04] Number two, you've got to consider moving your hard perimeter farther out, even onto the street, [1:10] so that your so-called mag and bag operation, the magnetometers, the checking of bags, [1:15] takes place as far away as possible so that if something goes bad, [1:18] it happens as far away from your protectees as possible. [1:22] Number three, you should be reconsidering this idea of a paper ticket that you flash at somebody and get in. [1:28] I have seen greater security at the after parties for this dinner than I have for the dinner itself. [1:35] Electronic code on your phone, QR codes, double-checking your ID with your phone electronically, [1:41] two sets of mag and bag. [1:44] I've been in after parties where the mag and bag happens on the sidewalk. [1:47] So all of that needs to be reconsidered. [1:50] And then the obvious, why are you having this event in a fully operating hotel with 1,100 guest rooms? [1:56] Yeah, that is a considerable security consideration. [2:01] I also wonder, Frank, what you make of these initial three charges, including an attempt to assassinate the president. [2:06] Yeah, as Paula said, I'm really struck by the lack of the charge of assaulting a federal officer, [2:15] and I think Paula's got it right. [2:16] Either they can't yet prove that the round that struck the officer came from the suspect, [2:22] they're waiting for the internal boat review, or they've already proven that it did not. [2:26] So that's interesting. [2:28] I also think we're going to see more charges. [2:30] I would not be surprised if, at a minimum, we see an attempt to add a domestic terror sentencing enhancement at sentencing. [2:38] But even back that up, within the last 60 days, we saw DOJ charge American citizens with being Antifa, [2:46] and they were convicted of material support to terrorism. [2:50] Highly unprecedented. [2:52] I think we'll see that tacked on here. [2:53] We just got some sound in from a witness who watched what happened just outside the ballroom on Saturday night. [2:59] Let's go ahead and listen to that. [3:00] It was a shotgun, yes, and he was running right in my directions, magazine clips around his body. [3:05] Had you already climbed all the stairs? [3:06] I had already climbed all the stairs. [3:07] So you were on the same level as him? [3:09] He dropped right at my feet. [3:11] When you say he dropped right at your feet? [3:13] He fell face first. [3:14] Frank, just given what you see in the video, what you're hearing from this witness, [3:17] what does it tell you about the level of sophistication, perhaps, [3:21] that this assailant, that this alleged shooter had in mind for the event on Saturday? [3:27] There's an interesting dynamic between the level of planning and premeditation that appears to have gone into this. [3:34] He got a room at the hotel in advance. [3:36] He planned to take his train all the way across the country. [3:41] He chose a shotgun with buckshotting. [3:44] A great deal of thought reflected in the manifesto about what he's about to do. [3:48] Yet, in the execution of it, I see far less sophistication. [3:53] I mean, he appears to have thought that he was going to breach security and get all the way in [3:59] and execute his plan against the protectees, and that didn't happen. [4:04] So, you know, two things can be true at the same time. [4:06] There was a lapse in security that he exploited, [4:09] but there was a success story in that he was taken down far enough away from the protectees. [4:14] Chief Gaynor, you know what security situations like this are like. [4:18] You've had so much experience here in securing, dealing with major events. [4:23] Wondering what you think about what happened here. [4:25] Did it actually work as intended because the suspect didn't get all that close to the president, [4:30] or, in your view, was the security insufficient? [4:36] Well, number one, it worked because no one was injured, apparently, [4:39] besides the Secret Service officer and the offender himself. [4:43] But getting kind of close and almost close is not good enough in the business. [4:48] So I am confident that the Secret Service and others involved [4:52] will take a close look at what went right and what went wrong. [4:56] And, Manu, you may know that over the years, [4:58] police in general or federal agencies haven't been very good at doing great examinations [5:05] because we never want to offend those who have been injured or involved in the heroes of being heroes at these events. [5:12] But we've become much more adept at reviewing strengths and weaknesses. [5:17] I've got to say, it would appear he got closer than anyone would want to. [5:23] And so you have to look at what went wrong and what went right. [5:27] Should that include, Chief, actually examining the hotel guests themselves because he wrote, [5:34] this suspect wrote in his manifesto that he was surprised at the lack of security at the hotel, [5:39] that he's able to walk in with a bag full of weapons. [5:42] So should there be a different level of security for hotel guests themselves? [5:47] Well, I think we're going to look at it. [5:48] When we have the biggest security events, whether it was State of the Union or the inauguration [5:53] or any place else that we control, we run name checks on all the guests, which I'm sure is done now. [6:00] In a hotel situation, unless you control the whole hotel, you do have to look at that. [6:05] And I don't know, as I sit here, whether that was done to at least run the names of the people there. [6:12] Now, maybe it's really pointing out that that's a bad venue. [6:16] Now, I've been thinking about the president's call to have this within the next 30 days. [6:20] I suggest there are places now in D.C. where you can do that. [6:25] And, for instance, maybe the Capital One Arena, which you could better secure, [6:30] and then you wouldn't have people sleeping overnight. [6:33] So any place where you're going to have people in there that you haven't previously screened or control, [6:39] you've got a problem. [6:40] And, Chief, I just want to ask you one other question about this, [6:42] because much of the line of succession was in that room. [6:45] The president, the vice president, the speaker of the House, multiple members of the cabinet. [6:48] Should this event have been given a higher security designation, in your view? [6:56] Well, using the old rectoscope, something should have been done there is the quick answer. [7:04] I think that's one of the reasons that you wouldn't have the event there [7:09] with this little background that probably was done on people at the hotel. [7:14] So I don't think it should be had there. [7:18] I think there are better ways to secure it, and they should second-guess having all their survivors [7:26] or people you want to survive in that one location. [7:29] And, Josh, the president is using this incident to bolster support for his call for a new White House ballroom. [7:36] Is that the answer here, only having the president attend major events at the White House? [7:42] Is it possible to properly secure every place the president goes outside the White House? [7:48] Well, it's a good question. [7:49] I mean, obviously, the whole ballroom issue has an entire political component, [7:52] which I'll leave to your panel of experts. [7:54] But purely from a security standpoint, I don't think you're going to have the president [7:58] do every single event in one place. [8:00] I mean, this is a president, obviously, who travels across the country, indeed, across the world. [8:05] And so that would definitely provide additional security to have that within the White House compound [8:10] and all the accoutrements of the Secret Service that come along with it on a daily basis. [8:14] The question is, is that realistic that you have a president who's simply in one location? [8:19] I think bottom line for me, Manu, is that we are facing two realities here as we look back on that incident. [8:24] It's a very scary incident on Saturday night. [8:26] And that is we are a nation where no place is seemingly immune to gun violence. [8:31] That can be true. And also a second reality is that if you look at the Secret Service, [8:35] their primary job is to protect the president, the vice president, and those protectees, which they did here. [8:41] But there will be a review, as the chief said, to look at what was the safety like for everyone else [8:46] who was in attendance at this event, to include everything that he mentioned there. [8:49] There's a question about maybe you move back that initial checkpoint to provide a little bit more room. [8:54] I mean, we saw the gunman on that CCTV video just as a dead sprint running past that, [9:00] and whether he tripped or whether he was actually confronted, [9:04] it was a short distance to actually get down the stairs into the ballroom. [9:07] Although I will note that I've talked to some of our colleagues like you who were there [9:10] who said that there was Secret Service all over the place. [9:12] So bottom line, it will be looked at. There will be questions. [9:16] But to your original question, I don't think the answer is going to be to lock down the president. [9:21] Because, again, this is a president who's always on the move.