New video of Correspondents’ Dinner shooting raises questions about presidential security

[0:00] The Justice Department released high-resolution video showing the moment an armed man stormed [0:05] past security at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The incident is raising serious questions [0:10] about the security posture surrounding the president at high-profile public events. [0:15] We're joined now by Juliette Kayyem of the Homeland Security Project at Harvard's Kennedy [0:19] School. She previously served as Assistant DHS Secretary in the Obama Administration. Juliette, [0:25] it's great to see you. So, look, there are lots of questions, as you know, about this [0:29] shot that struck the U.S. Secret Service agent. The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, [0:35] Janine Pirro, says there's no evidence of friendly fire. But the video, this single video, is not [0:41] definitive. What does this footage show us and what does it not show us? So, it shows us, it shows the [0:48] suspect going through, you know, a security metal detector, essentially. It also shows him speeding [0:56] up. It shows him trying to reach a gun. And then the frame-by-frame shows some dust, sort of a dust [1:03] up, literally, up above, which would suggest that there had been a gun fired, because afterwards you [1:09] then see the Secret Service pick up their guns. So, the prosecutors will say this shows that he had [1:15] deadly intent and that the Secret Service were responding. But I will be honest with you, [1:21] the frame-by-frame is not dispositive in any way. What the government released was, you know, [1:28] it was on different speeds. It sort of slowed down and sped up. So, a good defense attorney is going to, [1:34] you know, wonder why that is happening. What you also don't see is you don't see any movement, [1:40] like a sort of a muzzle from his gun, go off. So, it's a long way of saying lawyers are going to [1:46] debate this in court. It's certainly not definitive. The more important thing is why is, [1:51] I don't quite understand why the government is sort of going for broke on this issue. [1:56] Friendly fire is known to happen. It's not like a moral outrage. It happens when bad people come [2:04] with guns to areas with a police presence. And so, I don't quite know why the administration is so [2:11] stuck on this issue. Even if there were friendly fire, they're still intent to kill the president [2:17] by the assassin. Well, on that point, the Secret Service director, Sean Curran, in defending his [2:23] agents, says the site was set up perfectly. The video, this is about a half hour into the dinner, [2:29] the video shows the agents, some of them removing the magnetometers. And the suspect appears to exploit [2:35] that exact moment. He's got that running start as he sort of barrels through. Is that what a perfect [2:40] setup looks like? I would never say perfect ever. And I would certainly not say it after there was [2:48] an attempted assassination attack, only because the truth is, is the director Curran, you know, [2:53] if you said to him, you have to do this again next year, he wouldn't in no way do it the same way. [2:58] We all know that there were vulnerabilities. So, in the Secret Service's defense, in other words, [3:03] where do I look for the highlights of this planning? They had a secure zone. That secure zone was never [3:10] breached. And the president was truly not under any direct threat. They got him out of there in time. [3:16] So, if you look at it from the perspective of the security zone, nothing bad ever happened. Of course, [3:21] the fear, you know, the shooting and all the badness outside the secure zone, of course, [3:27] impacts everyone. And so, I think the question for Director Curran is sort of, you know, both the, [3:31] what we call the mixed environment, the public and private at a hotel like this, [3:36] do you really want to have those for President Trump or any president? And also, you know, [3:42] at some stage, the secure zone may need to be extended further because of the nature of gun [3:48] violence and political violence in this country. Well, say more about that, because this is now [3:53] the third attempted attack on President Trump. So, from a protection standpoint, does that fundamentally [3:58] change the model? It probably does in one way, which is you're just going to be more conscious [4:05] conscious and do a lot more planning for the president's non-home, sort of, when he gets [4:13] out of the House, out of the White House. And the reason why I say that is because I look at these [4:16] three assassination attempts. One happens in a open-air political rally. The second happens at a [4:23] private golf course. And the third in the basement of a hotel. So, anytime he's going to get out, [4:29] there's going to be vulnerabilities. Now, the White House has been saying that means, [4:32] you know, he needs more protection or a ballroom at the White House. That's not how it works. In [4:38] between a White House that no one's invited to and the fact we have a democracy where you want your [4:43] president to engage with people and not just the people around him, but you want presidents to [4:50] engage the public. There's a lot more that we can do security-wise, in particular, maybe extending [4:56] that security zone. But almost every planner I've talked to since last weekend, you know, said, like, [5:03] just don't have it in the hotel. Go to the convention center in D.C. Secure the area around [5:08] the convention center. You won't have residents and you won't have a public. It's not rocket science, [5:14] actually. [5:14] You mentioned the president talking up his ballroom, his desired ballroom. Do you think the administration [5:19] is treating this primarily as a security failure to fix or as a political moment to message around? [5:27] I mean, I was thinking about the past week. I take presidential assassinations seriously, [5:32] as we all should. And I sort of think about the line of the story since last Saturday, which is, [5:39] you know, it's very scary for a democracy to have people and people with whatever motives, [5:44] but in this case, you know, left-wing motives, to go after a president. So you have a discussion [5:50] of a ballroom. You have going after Comey, the FBI director. And then you have going after a late [5:56] night host for what he said about the president. None of those are related to the president's safety [6:01] and security. And I think the White House might make all of us take security more seriously if they [6:09] did not politicize it within hours of an assassination attempt against the president [6:14] of the United States. [6:16] Juliette Kayyem. Juliette, thanks as always. [6:18] Thank you. [6:20] Support journalism you trust. Support PBS News. Donate now or even better, start a monthly contribution today.