on c-span2. stream live at c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. e domestic terror threat in this country. we are joined by alexis collins who served for the assistant for the attorney general. first, explain what the mission of the national security division is at the justice department and how much work is focused on domestic versus foreign terror threats. guest: the national security division was formed in the years following 9/11, pursuant to a recommendation made by the commission, and the goal is to bring together all of the resources and various factions at the justice department that dear -- deal with terrorism, foreign and domestic. over the past -- i spent 13

years with the justice department starting under the bush administration and carrying through to the obama administration. while, over that period of time in the years following 9/11, there was a great focus on international terrorism, they also do a lot of work with domestic terrorism as well. host: we are having this discussion because of the events of january 6 on capitol hill. does what happened up here qualify as a domestic terror event? guest: that is an interesting question because a lot of terms have been used in the news and by politicians, and by others to characterize the event and domestic terrorism has a legal definition under the law. and it is basically acts that are violent to -- that endanger human life and criminal law that are intended to go say

population and influence the policy of government, or to stop the conduct of government through certain can assassination, mass destruction, or kidnapping. that is the legal definition. and, in this case with the capital riots, -- capitol riots, that is what law enforcement and justice department are trying to investigate. what we have seen coming out in terms of charges are in triage mode at first, because the crowd was allowed to leave without being arrested, so they are trying to track down people based on video, or statements that they made about what they did, and charging low-level crimes, but as the u.s. attorney for district of columbia, who is leading the investigation has said, they are ultimately looking to figure out whether the violence and the attack on the capital was preplanned and organized and if so how and by

who, and by what purpose, and all of that in forms whether it should be characterized as domestic terrorism versus something else. host: what should we be looking for? what would be a signal that they are going down the road of pursuing domestic terror charging and statutes in their prosecution? guest: to be clear, there is a definition of domestic terrorism in criminal law and there is no actual single statute that prohibits engaging in domestic terrorism, and that is true for international terrorism, there is a definition which mirrors domestic terrorism except for where it occurs or whether it is a foreign state, organization or ideology. but, there is no specific statute. instead, there are certain laws that are categorized as terrorism laws, but they all

reflect conduct that might be engaged in as part of the domestic terrorist attack. so, what we are seeing now and so far are primarily level -- lower level charges geared at specific conduct that can be seen at video or people admit to, for example, unauthorized entry into the capitol building, destruction of property, theft of federal property. those are the charges. recently, we have seen some of the charges start to make connections between different individuals and groups and preplanning conduct at the attack, and those -- when investigators are looking at videos of someone going in carrying zip ties, that indicate some sort of preplanning of violent conduct, and those sorts

of charges, we are seeing conspiracy charges or higher level charges, who knows how far up it will go, whether it goes to iot, -- riot, insurrection, or seditious conspiracy will depend on the evidence, but investigators will look for coordination and felipe -- preplanning. host: alexis collins talking about the issue of the domestic terrorism threat in this country. phone lines split up as usual. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. alexis collins will be with us until 8:45. but also people are seeing adjunct fellow for the new american center for security. explain what it is and what you do there? guest: it is an independent

bipartisan think tank and the goal is to do research and analysis on pressing issues of national security, foreign policy, and defense, and the goal is to engage with policymakers and develop recommendations to advance u.s. interest in that space. host: when it comes to domestic terrorism, explain the recent history, sort of the political goals, and where along the spectrum most of these groups fall? guest: you know, it obviously varies over time, but with what we have seen in terms of intelligence and reporting coming out of law enforcement throughout the fall and most recently last week with the bulletin issued by the department of homeland security is that the domestic, violent extremist threat is centered

around white supremacists, neo-nazi extremist groups and there is a conglomeration of grievances against the government, and that can include an antigovernment view, feeling that the government is overreaching in a number of ways, you are seeing that manifested in people having concerns about the covid-19 steps to prevent the spread of the disease by restrict thing outside activities and lockdowns, and so all of that is kind of a toxic mix of the classic violence we have seen right now. host: the department of homeland security bulletin, here is some of what you are referencing, it is longer that viewers can read online. "throughout 2020, domestic violent extremists targeted individuals with opposing views and engaging in first amendment

non-violent protest agreement -- activity. it was motivated by any -- a range of interest -- issues including anger over the covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force have plotted attacks against government facilities. dhs has determined this will remain throughout the early 2021 year and some extremists may be involved didn't -- emboldened by the january 6, 2021 breach to the u.s. capitol building to target government officials and facilities." what does that mean for folks patrolling the capital behind me. we have already seen them behind the newly constructed fence. guest: one thing, before i answer the question, i would note that that leaves out the threat that we have seen in recent years from white supremacy -- the premises, nationalists and neo-nazi groups. we saw that with charlottesville

with the mass shooting and el paso, -- in el paso, and other attacks. what bulletins like this is designed to do is to alert the public and state and local law enforcement about the existence of credible intelligence relating to a general threat. what the bulletin does not seem to indicate is that there is in imminent threat of a specific attack. it does not say that tomorrow there will be an attack on the statehouse or legislatures. but they are warning of this toxic mix that i mentioned that is leading to heightened risk of domestic extremist violent activity. host: the risk that was felt on capitol hill on january 6. we have another description yesterday in a viral video that

is going around. it was an instagram life posting by alexandria ocasio-cortez of new york describing the experience of being in her office and people breaking into her office on january 6, making the rounds on instagram. i want to play two minutes of that clip. [video clip] >> where is she? where is she? and, i just thought to myself they got inside. and, so i hide behind my door like this and i am here. and the bathroom door starts going like this, like the bathroom doors behind me -- rather in front of me and the door hinge is here and i just here where is she? where is she. and this is the moment where i thought everything was over.

and, the weird thing about moments like this is that you lose all sense of time. in retrospect, maybe it was four seconds, maybe it was five seconds, 10 seconds, or one second, it felt like my brain was able to have so many thoughts in that moment. between the streams and yells of where is she -- screams and yells of where is she? i go down and just -- i mean i thought i was going to die. and, i had a lot of thoughts, you have a lot of thoughts. i think, when you are in a

situation like that. and, one of those thoughts that i had was that i happens to be a spiritual person and be raised in that context, and i really just felt like you know, if this is the plan for me, then people will be able to take it from here. [end video clip] host: congress roman alexandria ocasio-cortez from an instagram live. just a reaction to that and the amount of focus you are seeing now from members of congress on this issue of domestic terrorism. guest: it is difficult to watch and listen to a video like that and not be incredibly affected. the situation that she was

treated with as well as all the congress people was dramatic and frightening. but just listening to that clip, it really demonstrates that and it shows the severity of the situation. i think that it also raises a lot of questions that all -- that congress and others will be looking at into the response by law enforcement. you have all seen the pictures in the newspaper of the police presence at the capital when protests that -- for which there was no credible evidence of preplanned organized attack that was going to happen had a very police presence versus this one where there was a lot of construction -- discussion by experts on the likelihood that there would be violence resulting from this rally.

and yet, had a very light police presence. i think that law enforcement in congress will be discussing and examining over the coming weeks and months why the response was lacking in the way that it was, and what needs to change to ensure that our domestic extremist threats are properly responded to, and prevented. host: one last note on the video, the congresswoman tweeting out last night after posting that "my story is not the only story nor is it the central story, it is just one story of many whose lives were endangered by the lives, threats, and violence fanned by the cowardice of people who choose post -- shows personal gain above democracy." taking your phone calls with alexis collins.

gene is up first out of ohio. line for democrats, go ahead. caller: i am calling about the role of the capitol police and the failure of their leadership. for example, steve -- steven sund, chief of the capitol police resigned to the next day, not a word has been heard since. he was not fired and is receiving 10 weeks sick pay while he is off at taxpayer's expense. and we had 2500 capitol police employed at the time, according to what i can determine, only 500 were there that day. i do not understand why they have not been brought in. capitol hill leadership, and then made to answer for this failure, and why sund was not immediately fired.

thank you. host: i will let you respond to that, although i would note that former chief sund did have an interview with "the washington post." it said that other house and senate security effector -- officials pointed at the sergeant and arms' offices that are part of the guard that oversee security decisions appear saying that those officials hamstrung the efforts to call in the national guard in response to that day. that came out a week after the january 6 incident. go ahead. guest: sure. as i said, i think that those questions are very good ones about why the capitol police responded the way it did and that that will be looked at by congress. and, internally within the capitol police and other law enforcement agencies in bc.

usually when there are big events of any time from the inauguration to other events that happen downtown, there is a lot of coordination among the various law-enforcement enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction in the district of columbia. and d.c. is an interesting place because there are so many different agencies that have overlapping jurisdictions. it is not clear whether that was done here, or how the intelligence and information that law enforcement had about the activities that were anticipated to occur, it is not clear what they did with the information and how they used that to shape the response. it is not clear as the chief said, that there was some hindrances placed by directives coming from above, or outside the agency, none of that is

clear at this point and i agree that it is something that congress and the agencies themselves need to look at and investigate, and figure out how to do better so that this tragedy can be prevented. host: blue-green on twitter sending a simple question, "what is the best way to prevent domestic terrorism?" guest: that is a complicated question, and one that law enforcement and the department of justice have been grappling with for the past two decades with respect to international terrorism, because in part, there is not that much of a difference. what we are seeing in terms of how domestic extremists are using to organize, i do not -- i am not sure that we -- that they are much different than what we have seen in other areas.

the justice department has traditionally used in all tools approach from prosecution, and investigation in terms of response, but also investigation to try and proactively prevent these crimes from happening. they have stood up countering violent programs to try and change the mindset of the people so they do not get trapped in that ideology that then leads them down the path to potential violence. there is lot -- there are lots of angles that government at all levels and in our society need to try and use to solve this problem. i do not think there is one solution, criminal law, act, or one thing we can do to solve the problem. it really is an all tools approach that needs to be considered. host: ohio.

david, an independent. caller: top of the morning to you. before i get started i want to make sure everyone knows i am a true independent. i have not voted for a democrat or republican since 1996. i have two points. cis -- csis had a report out october this year, october 2020 that stated that 66% of all the mystic terrorism, violence domestic terrorism was caused by the far right. 22% was caused by the far left. the other thing that i would like to bring up is that there is a law in place called title 18, chapter 19, code-3 73 that

says solicitation to commit a crime of violence. and what it states inside is that whoever intends at another person that is poor needed to commit violence should be brought up on charges with this, and that would directly correspond to trump, giuliani, and don jr. i think the second impeachment is nothing more than a political theater. he is no longer president and he should be drawn up under charges. these charges along with giuliani and trump junior thank you very much. have a great day. host: on that. guest: there is a lot that was brought up in the call. i would like to focus on the first part of what the caller said about the importance of

tracking and getting information about what the threat is. there are lots of organizations like cisi -- csis and other experts tracking the information. i think that you will start to see a push for better tracking and monitoring within investigative agencies, so when you have better information about the nature of the threat and where it is coming from, then you can improve your response and track statistics and that sort of thing is very important. we have already seen this in the national defense authorization act passed last month actually enacted a new requirement for the fbi, department of homeland security and director of national intelligence to produce a report of putting together all the instances of domestic terrorism in recent years, and

also in the future to report on the type of training and coordination that they are applying to law enforcement how to how to handle domestic terrorism. that point of making sure we understand the nature of the threat and are reflecting the right information is very important to framing out a response that deals with a proactive strategy for preventing these sort of violent attacks. host: what do you make of the numbers from the report, this is the wall street journal story that came out after the numbers that were released. "67% of domestic terror incidents committed by far-right groups, 20% by far-left groups and the remainder by islamic extreme texts -- extremists and loose knit movements including antigovernment extremists. but, on that spectrum and those numbers? guest: they seem to be consistent with numbers coming out of the government.

in october of last year the department of homeland security produced a report on the threat to the homeland, which talked about various types of threats including the threat from international terrorism and domestic extremism, and they noted that, if i am getting this right, and 2019 was one of the deadliest years for domestic violent extremist attacks since 1995 was the year of the oklahoma city bombing. they noted that the vast majority of those attacks were perpetrated by people who were related to the white nationalists, neo-nazi, or kind of antigovernment, militia type groups, or leaning within domestic discrete unit -- extremism, so those are consistent with what we are seeing. host: this is chuck, a

republican. good morning. caller: hello, how are you doing? i do not understand these numbers. when all of this rioting, burning and killing in the summer, it was called a peaceful protest. is that not terrorism, when you burn down cities and destroy people's lives and destroy their livelihoods? if you want to stop a lot of this stuff, we need to have a group of people that are journalists that are actually journalists. for example, i hear trump and charlottesville all the time, and i read the whole speech that he gave and he said nothing about -- the thing on both sides he was saying that some people were saying do not tear down the statues. those people were not bad people because they would not tear down the statues. it is ridiculous that the stuff

that goes out through the media. it is crazy, but terrorism was on the streets in the summer and nobody said a word about that. the little -- the people in the white house, they got scared, what about all the people who got scared when they were tearing down the stores and cities? guest: sure. i think that this comment underscores how important it is to have accurate information about events and to track and have a formal mechanism for tracking them, and that is why congress early on this year has focused on that. and, i think it is important because having met accurate information will then inform accurate policy responses, and will inform how law enforcement and governments should direct it

to resources. and, to make the determination of what the actual threat is. host: rick out of boston, a democrat. good morning. caller: i want to make a couple of comments about this guy just did about having reporters. everybody is a journalist, that is the problem. you have facebook and other things you can go on and you can say anything they want. like this lady is all over the facebook talking about news reporters being bad. trump problem is the fact that he think everything is about him. host: on social media and this issue of domestic terrorism. guest: social media and the role of social media has been the subject of a lot of discussion, especially since -- not only

from the capitol riot's and for the past several decades because there have been a lot of information that has come out about use of social media by different extremist groups whether domestic, or foreign terrorism to organize, recruit or propagandize and spread their ideology. there has been a lot of discussion recently about a provision called section 230 of the computer communication decency act which prohibits private civil liability for social media companies based on the content that other people posted their platform. and, often times as the civil discourse it has been framed as a first amendment issue. these are private companies. they operate private platforms. the first amendment is directed at preventing the government from respect -- restricting free

speech and free association. it does not apply to private companies like social media companies. so this is just a policy question that needs to be addressed by congress and considered by congress and the industry, as well as in discourse with the public at large. there are pros and cons to how you deal with the issue of social media, and that really just needs to be discussed as a policy issue. i would also say that i think we are seeing an instance where the development of the law is progressing much slower than technology advances. and this is an endemic problem. law moves slowly and technology explodes exponentially every day and year and it is difficult to keep up with these sorts of judgments that need to be made and it is a difficult challenge.

this is playing out across a number of issues, partly in this realm in terms of extremism and domestic and foreign terrorists groups, but other areas like antitrust and data privacy all of which congress and we as a society, along with the tech industry are looking at and need to address. host: we have heard about the foreign terrorism watch list. is there a domestic terrorism watch list? guest: there are lots of ways of keeping track of whether it is domestic extremist groups and people who participate in them. there are lots of different types of ways of doing that. there is nothing like a no-fly list or anything like that for domestic groups or individuals.

but, obviously, law enforcement as well as private nonprofits and other experts are trying to track who these groups are, what their goals are, what they are trying to do, and he was involved. so, they can better understand the threat as well as try and prevent attacks violent events. host: why not have a no-fly list for somebody identified as being part of one of these violent extremist groups? guest: there are lots of -- there may be constitutional concerns about things like that. there may also be policy concerns, so those are questions that law enforcement and the department of justice and, i am sure congress, are thinking about and what might the necessary to combat the threat. host: susan, a republican. that morning.

caller: yes. i have a couple of things to say. please do not hang up. you know, black lives matter and antifa have been burning and looting all year, and camilla harris has been bailing them out of jack -- kamala harris has been bailing them out of jail. when you start arresting those people i will feel bad. my friend's son is a policeman in his 20's and he is paralyzed from black lives matter. all right? also, i am just so angry, i just see a big witchhunt calming. -- coming. and donald trump had nothing to do with what happened on capitol hill that day. nancy pelosi do days ahead of time what was going to happen,

they recommended to her that she have the national guard there and some help, and she refused it. i think you ought to look into that. host: i will let you take those up. guest: sure. as i mentioned, i think that there will be a lot of thought and reflection, and investigation into the response that we saw of law enforcement of the -- on january 6, so i do think that is something that is going to be examined and lessons are going to be learned from that. and, hopefully more facts will come out and we are already seeing a lot of discussion about that already. in terms of activities of different types of protesters, i guess what i would say is that criminal law targets conduct.

we have these definitions of terrorism, domestic or foreign that are limited to intent. criminal liability attaches to the conduct, that is occurring. so, i think, regardless of whether or -- actions are on the left or right, you saw charges coming out of any of those types of events that are charges linked to specific conduct which is what we are seeing in january 6 in respect that there was a violent conduct at earlier events as well, you saw charges coming out of that too. host: terry out of akron, ohio. independent. caller: c-span is great, and hopefully, the lieutenant general will get to the bottom

of what happened at the capital with the security problem. -- the capitol with the security problem. what i want to ask mrs. collins and will comment on the fact that those rioters, white supremacists, they went to their homes in tennessee, or missouri, and the local judge there released them on bond, which shows you that the whole society is reluctant to charge white supremacists. i think the justice department ndc had to charge these -- in d.c. had to charge these guys and hold them until their trial. it just shows that this pervasive racism in this country will not be dealt with. so, i like your comments on that. i will hang up. guest: sure. so, the question of bond is one

also that has been widely discussed. in particular since covid when there is awareness that there are people being held pretrial for very long periods of time because they could not pay bail and are now potentially at risk of covid. bond is decided by judges in the federal system based on a statute where they have to assess various factors to determine whether the person opposes -- poses a risk of violence or danger to the public, or whether they are a risk of flight, and that is done by a judge after arguments are presented by the prosecutor and defense counsel. and, that is how that decision is made. it is hard to say that based --

and a lot of that is based on the nature of the charges. and so, it might be that there is some inherent bias in the system, given the circumstances and facts of that case and that judge's view, it meant that they felt that bail was appropriate. so, being out on bail does not mean that the charges disappear. the person has to come back and appear in court and follow the case through. if they do not, additional liability can attach for them being a fugitive. bond and charges do not -- they do not go away if bond is granted, it is a discretionary decision by judges. host: the caller mentioned the retired lieutenant general and just for viewers that had not heard it. it was nancy pelosi who tapped

the former army lieutenant general best known for coordinating military response after hurricane katrina in the gulf coast to lead a review of the security of the capital complex in the wake of january 6. this is the announcement that said "at the discretion of the speaker this is -- this task force is leading the review. the duration is from january 22 through at least march 5. it scope include security infrastructure, command-and-control, procedures, training, and exercise. it will not only examine the members thus the safety of members in congress but their movements from washington to their districts." that announcement from late last week out of the speaker's office. mary in las vegas, a democrat, morning. caller: good morning. we have to stop with the

aboutism. whatever is wrong is wrong and people should be held accountable for their actions. january 6 was just another plan in the progression of efforts to overturn the election. if you live in -- listen to steve bannon's comments. the second thing i would like to address is if you know anything about a letter that just surfaced dated january 1 by a christopher miller that has bullet points on what needs to be done before they can intervene in instances like this insurrection that happened on january 6. i believe he was an act -- he was an acting, because i stress that, the prior administration had people serving and a lot of acting capacities, he was

serving as acting national security adviser. for instance, you could not bring in helicopters to stop the insurrection, and maybe steve can google christopher miller, that is how i found out about it. thank you. host: mrs. collins. guest: i have not seen the letter that you mentioned, and i am not familiar with that person , but i do think that thinking through, law enforcement as i said normally before any kind of big event typically coordinates and figures out what steps they will taken certain circumstances so if this letter is indicative of the nation of that preplanning, then that is

something that should be assessed. so, this sort of thing that -- does not happen again. host: williams from jacksonville, florida. can you make it quick? caller: good morning. just to clarify, what differs between domestic terrorism and action of the klu klux klan to black people? guest: sure. it is an interesting question, because in many ways, the action of the klu klux klan fits the description of domestic terrorism and it is interesting because part of the trend over the past 30 years has really been to view instances of white nationalists violence as hate

crimes, which they are, but treating them as isolated incidents that were targeted at specific victims as opposed to looking at them as part of a broader movement that is towards promoting a particular vision of what the united states should look like. so, a lot of legal scholars, historians, and others have made the connection between that historical activity and domestic terrorism and, i think that is why it is so important, even though there is no domestic terrorism statute to think about how things should be classified. because it really does impact the response if you are viewing something as something isolated, then we tend to be more reactive

to have about dealing with that. but if you deal -- view it as part of a broader, connected movement and goal, then you might approach that in a different matter -- manner and more proactive ways. that is why there is a decision can be very -- the decision could be very important. host: alexis collins spent years at the national security vision and as an adjunct fellow at the center for a new american security. cnas.org >> you're watching c-span. your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by cable companies in 1979. today, we're brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service.

>> the u.s. house meets at 2:00. legislative work gets under way at 5:00. president biden has a nearly $2 trillion proposal while senate republicans wants a smaller aid package. it's expected to take a couple of days in the house. we will have live gavel-to-gavel coverage here on c-span. and tonight at 9:30 eastern, the capitol police officer who died during the january 6 attack on the capitol will lie in honor in the capitol rotunda. we'll have live coverage, including a congressional tribute for officer brian sicknick wednesday morning at 10:30 eastern. you can also watch live online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> former president trump became the first president to be impeached twice. last week house impeachment managers delivered the articles

of impeachment against the former president on incitement of insurrection with maryland representative jamie raskin reading the article before the senate. mr. raskin: thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states. >> so help you god. >> the following day, senators were sworn in as jurors in the trial. republican kentucky senator rand paul requested a point of order to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional. senator paul: therefore, i make a point of order that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, a vice president, or civil officer, violates the constitution and is not in order. >> the motion was tabled in a 55-45 senate vote. afterwards, the senate approved the rules of the trial and adjourned until tuesday, february 9, marking the start of

the senate impeachment trial. watch the senate impeachment trial live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, stream live at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. " continues. host: back with us is john berry, author of the book "the great influenza: the story of the deadliest epidemic in history -- pandemic in history." and we are coming up on 11 months of this pandemic, nearly 440 thousand deaths, 26 million cases in the united states. 11 months into the great influenza pandemic, where was the united states when it came to infection levels and deaths? guest: one of the differences between influenza and covid-19's which the speed it moves. everything with influenza is faster from mutation rate, incubation period, how long you shed the virus and how long you are sick. 11