>> "washington journal" continues. sen. we are back with -- host: we are back with former u.s. capitol police chief who is with us to discuss capital security again on justice for the j six rally on those who rioted. good morning. chief gaynor, today the capital and law enforcement around washington, d.c. face their first large-scale security test since the january 6 attack.

do you think they are ready? chief, unmute your microphone for us. perfect, we can hear you. guest: sorry about that. i think they are ready and there are so many lessons learned from the sixth and so much preparation began after january 6 with some of the work that was done with the task force. that the then acting chief worked very hard to begin the process and the new chief has kept that up along with two new sergeant at arms. i think they are well coordinated and prepared for the worst. host: that brings us to the next obvious questions, what lessons were learned? guest: problem number one was getting the correct information from a variety of sources and how to interpret it.

everyone who gathers intelligence looks at it through their own lens and they looks at that decide how that impacts. better operational intelligence, communicating that to the officers, having enough officers deployed with the right equipment and radio frequencies so that they can be directed as things change, and then a command center linked with the metropolitan police department and perhaps the u.s. secret service because of the relationship to the white house. to pass that information onto each other and maintain situational awareness. host: like you just mentioned there are so many different police forces that operate in washington, d.c.. the washington, d.c., the metropolitan police force. the capitol police, the senate sergeant at arms and the house sergeant, all operating with different personnel. how do you coordinate all of

these different agencies when something like what happened on january 6 happens? guest: you are going to see that perfect coordination today and at future events. the and others have done very well for preplanned events, gigantic preplanned events. between the metropolitan police department and capitol police they do very well at spontaneous events and managing of crowds that are out for legitimate protest and try to respond to those who are not. so, it is not unusual that a chief of police, no matter where he or she is at reports to someone else -- somewhere else. the chief of police on the capital reports to a police board, the house and senate sergeant of arms and the architect of the capital. in the last 30 years they have had strong military or police

backgrounds. they are in a good position. one of the things i have mentioned, there has been so much hubbub about the national guard. they are not normally the first responder for law enforcement situations. we have used them to bolster what we are doing, and the whole conversation after the sixth that somehow because the national guard was not there it went to hell in a hand basket. more national guard armed or unarmed what have been helpful, but the key first responders to armed violence or violence that could turn to deadly force is police departments. the metropolitan police department and capitol police department are well rehearsed, they have reinforced that since the sixth and they are working together. chief torme or is experienced who has led departments is -- in

fairfax and montgomery county. we will cooperate well. host: if you were in charge of capitol police today, what would be your biggest concern on the national mall? guest: less about a violent attack, i think what anybody would worry about our loan actors and people stirring up -- are lone actors, and with all of these physical coordination. one in two people -- one or two people can create havoc, so you worry about people who have been stirred up, not the people who generally protest loud, but safely and within their constitutional rights, but you worry about the loan -- lone actors who get so worked up about something is wrong with

america, the election, and government so you have the incidents like the past month like someone who professes to have an explosive device, those are the things we worry about. host: you spent years as capitol police chief and senate sergeant at arms. tell us what you are thinking as you were watching january 6. guest: i was shocked because i never thought that would happen. but i also know that i bear some responsibility. i had not been in those positions in about seven years before that. i just need to tell you as both the chief of the capitol police and later seven years as the senate sergeant at arms, we did not practice or anticipate that u.s. citizens and the numbers of hundreds of thousands what attack the capital, some armed and all of the other weapons

they brought, we did not practice that, we did not practice shootouts in the hallway. i was not thoughtful enough to know that things would get so bad that our own citizens would do that. we were more worried about the typical things the closer you were to 9/11, airplane attacks, improvised explosive devices that people would bring up, cars that travel up and down the avenue. we were watching those things. what should have been happening in the last five or maybe two years before 9/11 -- before the sixth of january is what was going on in the united states. where, internal extremists were becoming problems at different capitals across the united states. that should have been the process and had i been sitting there i hope i would have been smart enough to talk to my own staff and federal intelligence agencies to see what is going on with splinter groups, the white -- ethnic insurrectionists, all

of those that have a better sense of what i needed to be prepared for. host: let me remind our viewers that they can call in for this segment. we will open up regular lines meaning that democrats at 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. keep in mind that you can always text 202-748-8003 at. and we are always reading on social media, twitter and c-span -- and facebook. like i said, you also served as senate sergeant arms, what do you think -- sergeant at arms, what do you think the message of the justice for j6 rally that says those that participated and those being prosecuted for being

inside the u.s. capitol are political prisoners? guest: i think that they are misinformed, but i get that everybody can have their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. anyone watching on january 6 or all the tape and video that has been shared and the investigative journalism that has been going on and what c-span has been done -- what c-span has done, the facts belie the fact that people who were using bear spray, clubs, and beat officers and 1000 aggravated batteries against police officers. 500 people have been charged. i do not think that is fake news. everybody could at -- can have disagreements about policies and procedures, but not necessarily about the facts. i think they are misinformed and they open their minds and hearts to see both sides of the issue. host: one of the things that we

have seen over the last couple of days is security fencing going up around the u.s. capitol and supreme court. do you think this type of fencing should be permanent? and what type of advantage and disadvantage that having this fencing up do for our country? guest: that is almost a third rail of talking about anything in washington. i believe this. i firmly believe as i did as the senate sergeant of arms that we ought to have a better gateway to the larger capitol complex, meaning that you would have a tasteful way to get in, a fence. but the fence would screen everybody so that in a multiple entrances around the square, and you realize, people who know washington first avenue, independence, and constitution,

one can be concerned about people coming up to the capital -- the capitol and doing things like planting a device that we would not want. if you had 24 hour access to that whole ground, 24 hours a day, all you would do is have a pass-through on one of the screening points and then you could lounge -- lounge on the grass and you would have picnics and we would not be popping it up and down. the advantage of a barricade like there is now, a fence is time and distance. you give authorities an opportunity to respond to someone, but what i wanted and size, i am not saying a fence that keeps people out, i am suggesting a very tasteful, decorative, welcoming to barricade to let you comment through a checkpoint. i do not think that is unreasonable. i think that it is frustrating to think that we are always going to be able to pop this

fence up and it is functional, not very handsome. it is not very welcoming and i think there are better ways to do that. but i realize that so many people including members do not want to hear about that, but one of the jobs on security officials like i was as an advisor now you do have to think about what is going on now and what is the worst case scenario. i support a gateway to the capital complex that screens you in 24 hours, seven days a week, rain or set -- rain or shine, and things will be safer. host: what do you think it will take to get something like that done? it is almost the third rail of talking about securing the u.s. capitol. this has been going on since september 11 and even before that. what will it take to get back type of increased security at the u.s. capitol and around other buildings? guest: i would like to think

intelligence can -- intelligent conversation would go along way so we would have to educate people who think we are cutting off access to members of congress by putting up a safe way to get in and out of the building. it is no different, i don't think, than having a lock on the door or certain doors you have to go in and out of. the issue, which i get, you need access to the members of congress. the members of congress except when they are in session are not in the building, the leadership is. you would still have a way to go through normal screaming like -- screening capitol visitor center like the way you get into the buildings, which is clumsy. you're plenty of access to your members but make it safer. it would still mean the capital is -- the capitol is a beacon on a hill, we have set up a way to do it safely. host: one of our social media

followers has a question revolving around the counterprotesters. "sometimes it is not the protesters that capitol police have to deal with it is people protesting the protesters. so our media follower wants to know what steps would be taken to keep anti-protesters from causing another conflict like they have done in places like charlottesville? how do you deal with two different groups on opposite sides may be in the same place? guest: that is why you have a lot of police officers, but it starts earlier. hopefully when you have contact with people who are going to demonstrate or protest, pro or con something, and you talk to the leadership so that when they get a permit, if you request them, talk about what their intention is and lay out some ground rules. they might have coordinators who will deal with leadership on the

police department just to help them keep calm. in most demonstrations, who do not mean to cause harm, will have some type of coordinator, judge, or guides to try to keep everybody calm. now, and the district of columbia, today and other days, when you are mixing between jurisdictions of the metropolitan police department, the capitol police, and metro transit police, there are coordinated efforts to manage the crowds. if things get out of hand, then the leadership in either department depending on where this is happening will take any action. crowd management is the forte of law enforcement. the metropolitan police department, they are very well-trained and very well disciplined to do that, and today they will be very well

coordinated between the capitol police, metropolitan police and the metro police because of people moving. it will be well rehearsed and worked out. host: i want to show you something going on right now. here's a tweet from jamie who says "looks like the capitol police chief is addressing officers before dealing with today's rally for those who attacked the capital." we have the photograph. what do you think the chief is telling the officers right now? guest: he is refreshing their memory about the current intelligence and reminding them is -- that their job is to allow for peaceful protests, even if you agree or do not agree, even if they are loud and boisterous, they are permitted to do them. -- do that.

he would remind them of the training and discipline and that their duty is to serve and protect. i imagine he is giving a little bit of a pep rally to say we did take a liking on january 6 but you are successful because the process continued. it was not sweet and easy and it caused injury, but on the end, the u.s. capitol police along with great processor -- partners let the process continue. he is letting them know he is in charge and with them and he has their back. host: we sometimes forget that on the end of the day the political process continued. you are right, the capitol police to do their job. everyone from u.s. congress was safe in the political process continued. guest: it did. host: let us let our viewers take part. we will start with tom from ohio on the republican line. tom, good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to find out if they arrested all of these people for the -- for being there, how they got there and who paid for the buses to get them there? guest: thank you for the question, are you referring to today caller: or january 6? caller:january 6. guest: part of that investigation is still going on. i think the fbi and others worked hard to figure out who was there committing offenses. as i recall 600 have been indicted or charged. but there is a lot that we do not know about whether there was some greater or larger group push going on. we see from some of the splinter groups that they were a little bit more well organized whether it was the proud boys and others

and they have been charged. i think the detail of who was responsible is unclear, except we know this. i think anybody who continues to spread hate and discontent, and violence contributes to what we saw on january 6. when people get together in crowds who know enough about crowd behavior that people lose their sensibilities and do things they would not do. host: which brings up a great question. how far does the capitol police's jurisdiction go? do they go out and investigate? they handle security for members of congress. what the capitol police go out to investigate how this all started outside of the capitol grounds? guest: not as a rule. what they will do is that they

have a large dignitary protection division which has been increased, part of the recommendation out of january 6 because the capitol police are responsible for members and their families no matter where they are at. they work in cooperation, so if a member is threatened in ohio, the capitol police investigative function would begin a polemic area investigation and then, as necessary to turn the information to the fbi, and the local fbi office will pick that up, and/or reach out to the local sheriff or chief of police. the capital police enemy -- the capitol police in the meantime would decide what threat is against the member and who they need to assign protection two. it is assigned where under federal law the secret service has some responsibilities.

the fbi has responsibilities, and the capitol police has increased the intelligence division that would help coordinate what they know and the threats that members are getting into their office and share that with local, state, and federal law enforcement. host: let us talk to a caller from toledo, ohio. good morning. caller: i was there january 6 standing by the capitol building where they had the gates. i was out there the whole weekend and i was talking to police officers and they were told to stand down on january 6. i witnessed it, they opened the little gate thing and let the first 40 people come in, told them what the yellow robes were and them 40 started up the building, way before the rally was over with. then when they let the rally go, what do you think the rest of

the people did when you see the first 40 people going up the building that the officers let in. guest: i understand your perspective i watched hundreds of hours of the tapes and one of the things you are talking about is the bicycle fence. it is no more defending against people moving than tape across it. it is like if you're walking on the street and it says the sidewalk is closed, crossed to the other side. the hope is that everybody is voluntarily compliant. when you saw some of those pictures, as i did of police in some areas, and right where it was on the east steps on the senate side. i think there was substantially more than 40 people. maybe you were at a different spot at a different moment that i did not see, so i will not doubt what you saw.

it did not surprise me that when three or four officers confronted with 40, 400 or 1000 that they are not in a position to fight or use deadly force, nor should they. there were some decisions to try and buy time to get help to move the bicycle fence. we learned that because we did not have the proper intelligence or it was not interpreted properly, we do not have enough officers on duty to reinforce. there was not coordination with other law enforcement agencies that the calvary could not come. i understand completely how two or three officers would say i am going to move this and let them know we are having a problem, but they were not in a position to flight out. there are other pictures that you will see where officers were standing by the door when people were coming in, very rapidly

where an individual officer was saying you are not allowed to come in here, but that officer or two officers were not in a position to do anything to try and hold those people back. they use their judgment. as we do more into -- investigation and some officers have been charged with conduct unbecoming or failure to obey. if officers laid down on the job they will be held accountable. but i daresay that the hundreds and hundreds of officers up there did their best to hold people back under terrible circumstances. host: yesterday, we had a " washington journal" the organizer of the rally. he talked about how he is working with capitol police. i want to play what he said and

ask you a question. here he is from yesterday. [video clip] >> we will do everything to keep our people safe. we have been working with the capitol police, park police and metropolitan police. we have worked with them to put on two successful rallies without any incident. we will continue that. we have a large diplomatic security force also there, the same people that provide security for many of the media people that you work with on a daily basis. we have plans to keep everybody safe. >> is that a security force that they have hired? >> they are looped in with the interpol 10 police. >> are they armed? >> not to my knowledge. when you have your colleagues do remotes they need security. and we want to keep all of our people safe. i believe it is my

responsibility to do everything i can do to keep attendees safe. we are asking when people leave to leave in large groups, and if you see anything suspicious, someone acting oddly, we have television studios, start recording. so, we have our eyes open. the capitol police has done a good job coordinating us. despite the political leadership the capital is doing its best to keep this a safe rally and protect the people, because there is no intent for violence. our whole purpose is to show people that the first amendment matters and you can still peacefully protest. the community organizing can be done successfully and you do not have to resort to apathy or violence. [end video clip] host: does the capitol police work and coordinate with rally organizers? what does it look like if they do?

guest: it is not just the capitol police, what we learn about crowd management is to work with the people having the event. capitol police is good at that and so is the metropolitan police. he is laying out some smart things and the capitol police, metropolitan police, and the park police, i left them out inadvertently. they own a big chunk of the greenery. they would work to understand how many people would be there in the department would indicate that. what type of broadcast systems. and what type of security. he referred to diplomatic security, but he is not talking about it as part of the state department, but if you go to a baseball game or football game there will be people in yellow jackets that say security. and that generally is the people

under the employment of either the venue or in this place -- this case, the march. he has people who are marshals, and they sometimes have aclu or other attorneys acting as referees to keep everybody calm and interact with police, if things are going bad. or, if the law enforcement think that there are some things that have to change because what is going on, you would want to go to the leadership or these marshals or security people and say, ok, we had an agreement to do this, but for instance the weather is getting bad in a storm is coming in, we need to do something else or there is a part of your group that seems to not to want to stay within the confines of the rules, whether they are supposed to remain on the sidewalk and street and they work through that, that is a good thing, basic crowd

management 101. who is going to be there, what is their intent, and who is it i can talk to to make sure that we play fair. host: one of the things we saw after january 6 were people bringing weapons into the district of columbia and weapons down to the national mall. can you remind us what the law is about bringing weapons into washington, d.c.? guest: i'm going to show my ignorance because i am not there anymore, i am operating out of chicago and today i am in arkansas. under the law you cannot bring a weapon within 1000 feet, i think it is, of a sanctioned event. it gets a low bit more confusing about the current state of affairs in washington about concealed carry and how your concealed carry law from another city or state applies. i do not want to give bum

information, but i know on the capitol hill complex, no one may bring a weapon except for law enforcement officers and even a law enforcement officer has rules and regulations. i am fairly competent -- confident that that 1000 foot rule applies for a demonstration in any sort, even if you are permitted under someone's law to have a weapon that is a prohibited area, the same way it is not prohibited to have a firearm within a certain distance of a school, or smoke within a certain distance. i would have to talk to a current officer. host: you are right next to my friends in fayetteville, so i would like to give a shot my friend -- a shout at my friends from fayetteville. let us talk to amanda from little rock, arkansas on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, i just

want to ask him about on the sixth, did you all have a different kind of rule for different kinds of people? now, white people could show up in the capital with guns and arms to the teeth, but when lack people show up, with a sign, i mean, what is wrong with this picture? why do you all give white people who think that they are lily white and will not cause problems, but when black people show up with signs it seems like that makes you all upset and want to kill us or something? guest: thank you for the question and that is a complicated one when you get into the race discussion, let us be real clear upfront, there are

not different rules, and so i know even after january 6, the conversation began about seeing all of those white insurrectionists got a break and did not get locked up and it had been a black lives matter group then we would've handled it differently, and i think that the basis of that question is incorrect. a law enforcement officer, the capitol police or anywhere are supposed to serve everybody equally, and to the extent that any time we do not do that then we need to be held responsible. now the question -- one of the questions that i think you are going at that i have heard a lot about is why warrant mass arrests made on january 6? it would have eliminated the issue i am seeing that a lot about people were allowed to walk home. and mass arrest is a complicated process that you have to prepare

for. and that was not properly prepared for on january 6. and so, the decision was made, there were arrests made both on the mall area by the metropolitan police, and there were some made up on the capitol, but a mass arrest requires a lot more people, a lot of time and preplanning that was not done so that you could do that on january 6. even if you had three times the amount of officers up there, perhaps ultimately 1000 four instead of 1000 4000 and 5000. every time when someone arrests one individual, you do not gather the crowd and push them onto a bus, you have to individually search and manage that person, have the proper gender with the person so you can do the searches. they have to be numbered so you are taking one officer off duty

per arrest to get them into the system and to get them where there will be processed. that is a lot more detail then you probably you you want. one of our goals is not to have arrests and echoes back to crowd management and as even the organizer was saying, let us keep it peaceful and understand the rules and if there are rule breakers, people who wants to shoot mace or throw objects or pick up a rock then we need to do something about that. we have a collective responsibility, maybe a duty to intervene when someone is around you doing something wrong. host: donald from charlotte, north carolina on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello. ok. first of all c-span, do you have

a program from the protesters' side of the issue? host: we had the organizer of the protest going on on washington journal yesterday. you can go to c-span.org and hear what he had to say about the event going on from yesterday. caller: i am not talking about that. you just had a snippet, but from a program, an entire program as you have given to the people from the protesters' side. you are giving all of this to the democratic side, not the

republican side. host: we gave a whole hour to him yesterday, so if you want to see what he said you can go to c-span.org and pull up yesterday's edition and see an entire segment dedicated to him and what he had to say about the event. caller: no one was charged with sedition. and, someone referred to the aclu, that is a leftist organization. also, i would like to bring up the issue of the antifa. someone that i know was there and said that they had a bus.

and, that they mangled in with the rally or, as you call it, the insurrection. and, when -- they blended in. no one has, you know, nancy pelosi -- nadler says that antifa is a myth. so, and anti-if and blm -- an tifa and blm, they have killed, and burned, and looted.

but the left wants to keep that -- host: go ahead and respond. guest: i am not sure where to begin except that there is no evidence that i am aware of that people on the left infiltrated and were some of the provocateurs on the sixth. all the evidence that i have seen would not support that theory. i think i hear donald's question and that has to be fully investigated. but, i think by and large i do not know what else you can call january 6 but a group of insurrectionists and people were surprised when they saw themselves on tv and got caught up in that. i am not saying that the 10,000

plus down at the original rally that the president had were all insurrectionists. but, unfortunately many people got caught up in a very bad set of circumstances. i have seen people saying yes i did go in there, i did not break anything i just followed the crowd. and while they did violate the law they aren't some of the 500 that have been identified or charged. i am not sure where to go with that. i do not think there is a lot of people on the left involved in the attacking of the capital. host: one of the things donald has brought up is that no one has been charged with sedition that there are other charges brought against some of the people inside the capital. do you think they have been charged correctly when it comes to prosecuting the people who were taking part in the insurrection?

guest: i have respect from the judge -- for the justice department and fbi meaning that career prosecutors and agents along with departments of capitol police mpd have been working through this and i am comfortable that they are involved in the correct charges. so, i do not have a problem with that but i also have great respect for the process that they will go to court and the prosecutors can prove it or they cannot prove it. so, the whole sedition question becomes interesting because it becomes a part of what use of force capitol police officers will use. there were conversations after january 6, why didn't the police officers open fire when so many people were rushing up the steps, why didn't the police mode them down, but that is not the way we want our police department to do. we wanted to use less than lethal de andescalate --

descalate and so that is a long answer to say i am comfortable with the charging and we will let the court system play out. host: roberto from washington state on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling from washington state. i have two comments. january 6 is an insurrection. am i good? host: go ahead. caller: i was watching the news on tv in el salvador. when i saw donald trump and say stand back, and standby. ok. and then, the night of january sixth, he was watching with his

family, daughters, and sons, watching and laughing when everything was happening inside of the capital. i saw that on tv. i hope you guys investigate and look into that. he was watching and laughing about what was happening. that is not fair, ok. he is responsible for everything that happened just by saying stand back and standby. host: where were this -- where will this investigation go? how far can it go? that is to you. guest: we have not had a good solid investigation. clearly, again, the fbi is the lead along with the other agencies and we have been looking at this tape and giving information and we are still working on that. i do not know if we have had the

last indictment. we have seen the attempt to have a bipartisan 9/11 type commission was rejected, if i recall on the senate side and no republicans on the house side. so the speaker did, i guess, the next best thing, informed a select committee with republicans and democrats. i watch that like you and others did, they are having hearings and issuing subpoenas. and i think we will learn about who is responsible. but, i am going to tell you, i do not need a commission to know that what i saw and what i heard is -- i watched the rally that was happening where members of congress or the former mayor of new york got up and had words that would incite people who are vulnerable to that, who do not have all of the facts when they were yelling and screaming and

rallying the crowd. we have to take back the government and get back and fight. i do not think those were good signals coming to people who were in the crowd who had been listening to all of this fake news and were not taking the time to listen to both sides. and they got caught up in the rhetoric of an instigator. and so, all the people who did the instigation ought to be held responsible under what the appropriate law would be. host: art from hamilton, ohio on the independent line. good morning. caller: i just wanted to ask his comments on reports that capitol police might have been providing information to the rioters that day and is there a chance they could be indicted for providing such information such as where the congressmen and senators were located. that is all i wanted to ask?

guest: if that occurred they should be held accountable, i just do not mean a couple of days off, they would not be the type of people who i would want on my department, i would want them fired. if they compromise the rules and laws, they should go to a penitentiary. i do know that there was in rough numbers, 24 or 25 investigations opened up against capitol police officers where they are looking into various things. i think those were reported two weeks ago or a week ago today where the capitol police indicated that six officers had been charged within the capitol police for either dereliction of duty or conduct unbecoming, or failure to follow orders. i do not know the specifics. there will be hearings and the appropriate action will be taken. in my heart having hired and

promoted some of those people, knowing them very well, i do not think that they rolled over to let this happen. i think they were overwhelmed, underequipped, and a lot of bad things happened all at once. i also wanted to say, again, at the end of the day, they with the help of others did prevail so that the process could continue. some people took the ultimate fall. the chief left, a very good man who i knew well and both sergeant of arms who were career 30 years from the secret service , both good men, they are the leadership, and that is where the responsibility began and i said on january 7 and eighth had i had been the sergeant at arms or the chief on that day, it would not have surprised meet for someone to say i have lost confidence in you and we are making a change. those people have worked hard

and probably should not be remembered for that leadership on that day which turned out to be their worst dairy of -- the worst day of their careers. all of us need to be held responsible when we use bad judgment or there are other failures about how we lead and take charge. host: we would like to thank former police chief terrance gainer for being with us and lending us his expertise as we prepare for the justice for j6 rally in washington, d.c.. it is great to see you and thank you so much. coming up, we will take more of your calls and comments in our open forum segment. you see the numbers on screen. let us know what you want to talk about. later on, christian science monitor's jessica mendoza and samantha laine perfas will

discuss their podcast series entitled stronger looking at the impact of the pandemic on women. ♪ >> coming up next week, homeland security secretary and the fbi director, and national counterterrorism director up here before congress on threats to the homeland 20 years after 9/11. we will have lifetime of -- live coverage of their testimony on tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern. and, the house homeland security committee at 9:00 a.m. eastern. at 2:30 p.m. eastern jerome powell holds a press conference. watch next week or listen on the radio app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream vid