mr. irving. mr. irving, the appropriations committee and ultimately the congress, for your request for salaries for operating expenses in every fiscal year, is that correct? >> yes. that is correct. >> mr. stanger. >> yes, that is correct, sir. >> thank you very much. so, i have to think that we had -- not that we have inadequate resources, but a failure to deploy the people that we were supposed to. i look at those who appeared, i looked at the lives that were lost, the police who fought, who protected our capitol saw this as a violent and i would say planned and organized attack on the united states in the united states government by domestic terrorists, i hope they're all going to be prosecuted as fully as they can. but when we see people encouraging them, including from the former president of the united states, who urged his followers to fight and to show strength, i really wonder why we didn't take this seriously enough to be prepared for them, the hours it took to bring in the national guard an

mr. irving. mr. irving, the appropriations committee and ultimately the congress has met your request for salaries and operating expenses in every fiscal year, is that correct? >> yes. that is correct. >> mr. stenger? >> yes, that's correct, sir. >> thank you very much. so i have to think that we had -- not that we had inadequate resources, but a failure to deploy the people that we were supposed to. i look at those who appeared, i looked at the lives that were lost, the police who fought, who protect our capitol. we saw this as a violent and i would say planned and organized attack of the united states and the united states government by domestic terrorists. i hope they're all going to be prosecuted as fully as they can. but those, when we see people encouraging them, including from the former president of the united states who urged his followers to fight and to show strength, i really wonder why we didn't take it seriously enough to be prepared for them. the hours it took to bring in the national g

mr. irving and mr. stenger, did you all have conversations with congressional leadership, either democratic or republican leadership on this question of supplementing law enforcement presence, bringing in national guard either on january 4th or realtime on january 6th? >> on january 4th, no, i had no follow up conversations and it was not until the 6th that i alerted leadership that we might be making a request and that was the end of the discussion. >> mr. stenger. >> for myself it was january 6th that i mentioned it to leader mcconnell's staff. >> so there's been some disagreement about what time phone calls occurred. i know senator portman asked earlier, presumably everyone has phone records. i think it would be helpful if each of could forward the relevant phone records to this committee and chief sund you also referenced in your testimony that you sent an email to congressional leadership. if you could forward that to the committee as well, i think that would be helpful. thank you. >> thank you. se

mr. irving and mr. stenger, mr. irving, as i understand it, you have some disagreement with the characterization about the concern about the optics, so i would invite both mr. irving and mr. stenger to relay your best recollection of that conversation on january 4th. >> senator, my best recollection on january 4th was a phone call from chief sund indicating he had received an offer for 125 unarmed guard that could be positioned around traffic perimeter checkpoints at the capitol. my recollection again is, as we followed up with mr. stenger, the three of us engaged in a conversation whereby we looked at the offer in light of the existing intelligence. and the decision, the collective decision among the three of us, was that the intelligence did not warrant the national guard. and my recollection is that ended the discussion relative to the offer, and the only question on the table is should we perform any follow-up? and mr. stenger recommended that we ask that they be placed on st standby. and that was t

mr. irving and mr. stinger both. let's start with mr. irving. why was the request for national guard assistance not approved at the same time you approved the expansion of the perimeter? mr. irving? i think you are muted. now you are definitely muted. now you should be fine. go ahead. >> thank you. senator, i did not take the call from chief sund on the 4th as a request. chief sund called me to tell me that he had received an offer from the national guard to provide us 125 unarmed troops to work traffic control in the perimeter of the capitol. shortly after that discussion i said let's include sergeant-at-arms stinger as chair of the board and another senior official with quite a bit of experience. the three of us talked it through and during that call the number one question on the table was did the intelligence support it. did the intelligence support that additional offer for those 125 troops? >> did you discuss this with anybody except sergeant-at-arms stanger and chief sund? >> no, just this one ph

mr. irving those that one oh 9:00 p.m. i understand there is a little bit of dispute about the timeline but you do say that he advised you he needed to run it up the chain of command. >> that is correct. >> mr. irving, when he said you need to run it up the chain of command, to whom were you referring? >> senator i do not recall the phone call at one oh 9:00 p.m. was on the floor. my phone records do not reflect a call at that time. had i received a call at that time i had everyone with me , the leadership we would approve that immediately. so i have no recollection of that call or i don't have a record of it. >> you said you spoke with him later approximately 1:30 p.m.? >> that is correct after i left the floor and on that call he indicated to me that conditions were deteriorating and he might put in a request at a later time. >> and then you said you had to run it up the chain of command? >> no. not to my recollection. and then to receive updates of those conditions to determine whether he needed to make a request or not

mr. irving and mr. sund. the secretary of homeland security has the authority to designate events with national and international significance as national special security events. but that didn't happen for january 6th, even given the threat information readily available ahead of time. designated events are eligible for expanded federal support related to the security of the events. so prior to january 6th did anyone from the department of homeland security contact you about a potential national special security event designation? and we'll start with you, mr. sund, and then move to the others. >> thank you, ma'am. no, i am not aware of anyone from dhs reaching out, if we were going to request that to be a national security event or if they were going to identify and designate what they call a special event rating to the event, no, i'm not aware. >> thank you, mr. stanger and mr. irving. >> no one contacted me. >> thank you. >> and the same with me, senator, no contact with me or my office. >> thank you for t

mr. irving. it was actually an in-person request on the 4th, and it wasn't until the evening of the 4th that i talked to general walker, that he informed me that if needed, because mr. stenger wanted me to look forward and they could 125. >> but those 125 individuals from the national guard that were prepared to be able to move faster because they were in streets and other places doing traffic duty at that point, you had already been informed that the city of washington, d.c. and the mayor's office had made a request of d.o.d. and d.o.d. approved it, that none of them would be armed, none of them would have heavy gear on. there would be no military vehicles available to them, they had to use unmarked vans and other government vans, and there would be no helicopters used. those were prohibited that day for the 125 individuals that were already on the street, is that correct? >> no, at the time i did not know that was the restrictions being placed on them. and two, when i talked to general walker, t

mr. irving and mr. sund. the authority to designate events with national and international significance as national special security events but that didn't happen for january 6th even given the threat information readily available ahead of time. designated events are eligible for expanded federal support related to the security of the events. so prior to january 6th, did anyone from the department of homeland security con tack you about a potential national special security event designation? we'll start with you, mr. sund, then move to the others. >> no, i'm not aware of anybody from dhs reaching out, requesting if we wanted follow-up, that this wanted to be a national special security event or we were going to request that to be, or if they were going to identify a special event rating to the event. >> thank you. >> no one contacted me. >> thank you. >> same with me. no contact with me or my office. >> thank you for those answers. i look forward to following up with department of homeland security about thi

mr. irving and mr. stenger to relay your best recollection of that conversation on january 4th. >> senator, my best recollection of the conversation on january 4th was a phone call from chief sund indicating that he had received an offer for 125 unarmed guard that could be positioned around traffic perimeter checkpoints, the capitol. i recollection again is that we followed up with mr. stenger and the three of us engaged in a conversation whereby we looked at the offer in light of the existing intelligence, and the decision amongst the three of us was that the intelligence did not warrant the national guard. and it's my recollection that depended the discussion relative to the offer and again the only question on the table is, should we perform any follow-up, and mr. stenger recommended that we ask that they be placed on standby. and that was what i understood. >> so to the best of your recollection did you make the comment with the optics, and what did you mean by that? >> i cannot remember my exact ve

mr. irving some questions so i can get this clear in my head. in looking at your written testimony, you testified you spoke with mr. irving, both at 1:09 p.m., i understand this a little dispute about the timeline here but you do say mr. irving advised you he needed to run the request of the national guard, you need to run it up the command, is that correct? >> correct. >> mr. irving, mr. son said you need to run it up the chain of command, to whom are you referring there? >> i do not recall a phone call at 1:09 p.m. when i was on the floor, my phone records do not reflect the telephone call at that time had i received a call at that time, i had everyone with me, we would have approved it immediately. i have no recollection of that call or record of it. >> you say i think i spoke with mr. sund later approximately 1:30 p.m., is that right? >> yes, after i left the floor. on that call, he indicated to me conditions were deteriorating and he might be taking a request at a later time. >> okay, you didn't say you needed to run it up the chain of comm

mr. irving and mr. stinger to request assistance to the national guard? >> that's always been the case we only request for very specific events like the inauguration that requires a declaration of emergency to utilize resources. >> is a statutory requirement? >> i can look into that and get back to you. >> i don't know if there is but i do know if you get the approval to expand the perimeter and you don't have the assistance to do that then obviously that is a problem. why didn't you contact the third member the architect of the capitol? >> thank you for the question. my conduit to the police was to the house and sergeant of arms they had communications with the department especially law enforcement issues and also the fact that mr. stinger at one - - mr. stinger at the time was a chairperson but outside the monthly meeting that we would have a less issued specifically to the architect regarding the building structure my conduit was regularly the house sergeant arms. >> why the architect is on the four.

mr. irving on the 4th. mr. irving, i believe, testified the other day that he did not take that to be an ask for emergency declaration. talked to mr. stanger. they -- i do not believe that the chief ever spoke to the architect of the capitol prior to that. i believe that's what mr. blanton testified to yesterday, who is also on the board. so, the ask would have to come from all three. the capitol police board issued a verbal declaration of emergency to give authority to national guard deployment on 2/10 on the sixth. >> rosa -- >> please, the board seems obsolete. the board seems to be non-functioning. >> and i think we're getting to the point here. so, whether it's tim or chief pittman, it sounds that there was an official denial of the senate meeting for the emergency order? >> no, no, no. i apologize. the demonstrations were discussed. there was no request at that time for an order. >> there was no request -- there was never a vote by the board. i think this is what's really important about getting to the bot

mr. irving? >> senator, from my recollection, i did not receive a request for approval for national guard until shortly after 2:00 p.m. when i was in michael stenger's office. >> mr. sund, do you know when you asked for national guard assistance? was it 1:09, or was it 2:00 p.m.? >> it was from mr. irving. i believe he was in the company of mr. stinger. >> why would you not remember that, mr. irving? >> senator, i have no recollection of a conversation with chief sund at that time. i did not get a request at 1:09 that i can remember. the first conversation i had with chief sund in that time frame was 1:28, 1:30, and at that -- in that conversation, he indicated that conditions were deteriorating. he might be looking for national guard approval and approval of our neutral aid agreement with local law enforcement. >> the chief of washington d.c.'s police department robert conte expressed his surprise at the way the request for the national guard was treated in a conference call that he participated

mr. irving in the company of mr. stenger as well. >> mr. irving, why would you not remember that? >> senator, i have no recollection of a conversation with chief sund at that time. i was on the floor during the electoral college session. >> reporter: today the acting chief showing up with evidence -- the phone logs saying they did call for help. >> on january 6th, chief sund first reached out for national guard support to the house sergeant at arms at 12:58 p.m. >> reporter: tonight we're learning 800 insurrectionists made it inside the capitol that day. other lawmakers insisting police had the intelligence but failed to act. but the acting chief saying today there was no intelligence indicating an attack of this size and scale. >> we acknowledge that there are a lot of things that should have been done differently. >> let's bring in rachel scott live at the capitol tonight. in addition to that sobering warning today, another major story from the hill. the house has passed the equality act designed to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. what are its

mr. irving prior to the 6th. >> yes. >> and said, hey, we need more help. mr. d no, go ask the national guard to lean in and quite frankly i don't know what "lean in" means. if that is some kind of term i don't know. what does lean in me. it means shut up and don't ask me for any more help is how i take that. and my question here is, were you in agreement, because you're now the acting chief and part of the enterprise that we're into is about moving forward. at that time, were you in agreement with chief sund that you needed more support from primarily from the national guard? >> yes, sir. >> okay, thank you. my time is up. and i want the committee to know like yesterday we're going to take a little bit of liberties with the time to make sure the questions get answered. we have a smaller committee to allow us to do maybe do some of that. with that i'll yield to mrs. herrera beutler. >> acting sergeant at arms, if we could scale back, you know, when the communications failures, i'm not necessarily talking about like the tweets and the texts that came to members w

mr. paul irving. mr. irving served as sergeant at arms at house of house of represent trivs from january of 2012 through january 7th of this year. he joined the secret service in 1983 after briefly serving with the fbi. he served as head legal instructor for constitutional law and criminal procedure at the secret service training academy before joining the presidential protective division during the george h.w. bush and clinton administrations. following his white house serve, he served as assistant director for congressional affaired, assistantor for government affairs and assistant director for homeland security and assistant director for the secret service. he retired from the secret service in 2008 as assistant director and worked as a private security consultant until his appointment as house sergeant at arms in 2012. he is a graduate of the american university and whittier law school. i want to thank our witnesses for appearing voluntarily today and i look forward to your testimony. >> it is the prac

mr. paul irving. mr. irving served as the agent at arms at the u.s. house of representatives from january of 2012 through january 7th of this year. he joined the united states secret service in 1983 after briefly served with the fbi. he served as head legal instructor for constitutional law and criminal procedure at the secret service training academy before joining the presidential protective division during the george h.w. bush and clinton administrations. following his white house service he served as the assistant director for congressional affairs, assistant director for government affairs, assistant director for homeland security and assistant director for administration for the secret service. he retired from the secret service in 2008 as assistant director and worked as a private security consultant until his appointment as house sergeant-at-arms in 2012. he is a graduate at the american university and wittier law school. i want to thank our witnesses for appearing voluntarily today and i look forward to your testimony. >> it is the practice o

mr. irving on the 4th. mr. irving, i believe testified the other day that he did not take that to be an ask for a emergency declaration. talked to mr. stenger, they did not believe that the chief ever spoke to the architect of the capitol, prior to that, i believe that is what mr. blanton testified to yesterday and so who was on the board so the yes would have to come from all three. >> hello, i'm kate bolduan and thank you for joining us. at this hour we have been watching a house hearing get into the deadly insurrection in the capitol and what happened, where the failures were and where the failures are now and you could clearly sense that these house lawmakers from tim ryan to jamie her harrah beutler, and democrat and republicans alike, they are not happy with the answerser that getting so far. let's talk about this as we continue to keep our eye on this hearing as they're dealing with some technical issues. joining me now is andrew mccabe, and former fbi deputy director and charles ramsey. also the former p

mr. irving prior to the 6th. >> yes, sir. >> and said, hey, we need more help. mr. d, 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 rea

mr. irving, i believe. >> no. i did not get a request at 1:09 that i can remember. georgia senator jon ossoff summed up the issue. >> the capitol police board, so there is no individual who has rsonal responsibility for the serity of the u.s. capitol complex. >> that's the way i interpret it, yes. >> desjardins: another failure? an f.b.i. intelligence report the night before the attack clearly warned that trump supporters were “ready for war”" but, word never got through to either sergeant-at-arms or to the capitol police chief. >> i actually, just in the last 24 hours, was informed by the department that we actually had received that report. >> desjardins: the hearing is just part of the january 6 response. capitol police are investigating some of its officers. speaker nancy pelosi is calling for a 9/11 style commission, and she has launched a security review by retired army general russell honore. meantime, at least 5,000 national guard troops will remain at least a few more weeks. the temporary fencing and military-like zone for blocks around the capitol will sta

mr. paul irving, former house sergeant-at-arms. the other witnesses are here and as many as our witnesses do via video. to our witnesses, your testimony is vital and we thank you again for coming. at the same time this is certainly not the last hearing that we will have regarding this attack. next week we will hear from witnesses from federal agencies including the fbi, department of homeland security and the department of defense that are critical to our understanding. the insurrection at the capital was more than an assault on democracy but was a life or death situation for the many brave law enforcement officers who show up here to do their work every day and at the beginning of this testimony we will hear from one of them. we will never forget the haunting shrieks of the police officer pinned in between the doors at the hands of the writers pleading for help. we will never forget officer sherry dunn who fought against the violent mob for hours and after it was over broke down in tears telling fellow officers he had been called

mr. irving?len ig, that one's so important because here we art again, a failure to connect the dots. the intel existed. it was knowable, what donald trump has invited his supporters to do and it was knowable what the extremists who were among that crowd had planned to do. the fbi office, as you and your colleagues have reported in norfolk, reported that they knew, the fbi office there, that they planned for war. can youth just talk about the importance of establishing some of these breakdowns in communication?an >> you know, i think this is indeed one of the most important questions that arise -- arose today, and arose immediately after january 6th. and it echos something elizabeth said at the beginning, speculation about d.o.j. and dhs, these two entities sort of beaten down by the president, you know, it's speculative and yet there's evidence to support it. but the key thing about this intelligence, nicole, is there were numerous warnings. it wasn't just the fbi. the capitol police's own intell

mr. irving, in the company of mr. stenger as well. >> first conversation with mr. he indicated that conditions were deteriorating. he might be looking for national guard approval. >> fuzzy time line here raising the stakes even more for next week's hearing, that one focused on the defense department in deploying the national guard. more on that in a few minutes. >>> new this morning, tiger woods is awake, responsive and recovering from surgery in a los angeles hospital after a horrifying crash on a dangerous stretch of california road. downhill and winding, authorities say it's a spot known as a spot to easy to pick up speed. overnight, the team reported that he had been through extensive surgery in his right lower ankle for, quote, significant injuries. >> tiger was conscious at the scene when emergency responders reached the scene early yesterday morning. cnn's josh campbell is live at ucla medical center in l.a. josh, the medical examiner said this crash could have killed tiger who thankfully was wearing a seat belt. >> reporter: absolutely, you look at the imag

mr. irving. >> i did not. >> today the post reports another warning about violent extreme is calling for an assault on congress. it was sent to a d.c. police email inbox and to a mental of the capitol police. the officials who testified today all agreed, the 1/6 attack was planned and that it involved white supremacists and extreme. i groups. >> we planned for an increased level of violence at the capitol and some participant may be armed. we got a coordinated assault beating police officers with fists, pipes, sticks, bats, metal barricades and flag poles. these people came for war. they came with equipment. you're bringing climbing gear, explosives, chemical spray that you're planning on our agency not being at what we call full strength. >> their testimony laid bare the chaos, the mistakes that tangled bureaucracy. in his written statement, that man, the former capitol police chief sund said he had spoke ton both sergeants at arms about a request for approval to call the national guard in right after 1:00 p.m. that account was not backed up today. >> i did not receive a request for an

mr. irving that he'd need to run it up the chain of command." now, irving pushed back against sund's account saying he did not recall speaking to him at that time, had no record of any phone calls or text messages from sund and never said he had to run sund's request up the chain of command. instead of reaching an agreement about what went wrong so we can stop something like this from happening again, those men were apparently quite focused on saving what is left of their reputations after this catastrophic failure we all watched on national television. and speaking of reputation saving senator ted cruz fresh off that now notorious and probably not all that relaxing trip to cancun who led a push in the senate to overturn joe biden's election, to deny him the seating of electors and voted to do that even after the attack, had this to say about preventable behavior. >> this hearing is nonetheless productive for analyzing the security decisions and law enforcement decisions that were made realtime and for learning from them what can be done differen

mr. irving? >> i did not. >> the former chief of the capital police says the secret service never would have brought then vice president pence to the capitol had they understood the threat but even if they had that information former law enforcement officials doubted they could defend the capitol that day. >> no civilian law enforcement agency is trained or equipped to repel an insurrection of thousands of individuals focused on breaching a building at all costs. >> he retired two days after the attack. >> we could have had 10 times the amount of people working for us and i believe the battle would have been just as devastating. >> this was pushback from the pentagon to send in troops. >> i was surprised at the reluctance to send the national guard to the capitol grounds. >> some contend he asked irving for help from the guards just after 1:00 p.m. on january 6 but irving disputes that. >> i did not receive a request for approval for not guard until shortly after 2:00 p.m. >> it was 1:09 or 2:00

mr. irving. >> i did not. >> then there is the issue of what took the national guard so long to get there. acting chief of the d.c. police robert contee said the first guard members didn't show up until 4 1/2 hours after he first consecutived. >> chief sund was pleading for deployment of the national guard and there was not an immediate yes, the national guard was on the way. it was more asking about the plan that what was the plan for the national guard, the response was more focused on in addition to the plan, the optics of how this looks with boots on the ground on the capitol. and my response was simply i was just stunned that, you know, i have officers that were out there literally fighting for their lives and we're kind of going through what seemed like an exercise to really check the boxes and it was not an immediate response. >> let me be clear. optics as portrayed in the media played no role whatsoever in my decisions about security. and any suggestion to the contrary is false. safety was always paramount when making security plans for january 6th. we did discuss whether the inte

mr. irving, with taking care of protecting lawmakers, this was a chaotic time, and you just didn't remember this moment? >> that is a really good point. and the chaos of that day kept coming up over and over again. so, garrett, i'm curious, what happens next with congress? they agree that the response was a failure. they agree that the intelligence was a failure. what do they do with this information? >> well, there's a couple of pieces to that puzzle. we're going to have another hearing of these same two committees next week where we'll learn probably more about the intelligence part of this and the national guard response. that hearing will include representatives from the fbi, dhs, and the pentagon. so it might help us put that missing piece in place. we're also still waiting on this report from lieutenant general russell honare. that's going to deal more specifically with security around the capitol complex itself. but i think if there is one thing we learned from this hearing today in terms of a kind of an immediate response here was the failure of imagination amongst the capitol hill

mr. irving? >> i did not. >> then there's the issue of what took the national guard so long to get on the scene. acting chief of d.c. police robert contee said the first guard members didn't show up until 4 and a half hours until after his initial request. >> chief sund was pleading for the deployment of the national guard. and in response to that, there was not an immediate yes. the national guard is responding. yes, the national guard is on the way. the response was more asking about the plan, what was the plan for the national guard. the response was more focussed on in addition to the plan the optics about how this looks with boots on the ground on the capitol. and my response to that was simply, i was just stunned that, i have officers that were out there literally fighting for their lives and, you know, we're kind of going through what seemed like an exercise to really check the boxes. and there was not an immediate response. >> let me be clear, optics as portrayed in the media played no ro

mr. irving, say to you, hey, we need to have a vote on this? my recommendation is we don't pass an emergency order for whatever reason. i ask the chief to ask the national guard to lean in, but we're not going to do anything here. he never brought that to your attention to ask if you should do a vote on this, obviously you didn't vote on it? >> that is correct. it never went to the board. >> because of the importance of this issue, we're going to take some liberties, not just the ranking member and i, but all members because we want to make sure we follow the line of questioning and we're able to tease out all these answers. every member of the committee will have similar leeway. ms. herrera beutler. >> i appreciate it. i know we'll be hearing from the board in different hearings, but everybody is going to be in a separate hearing. it might -- i don't know how changing this would be. it might be helpful to have everybody on the board at once in front of us. we can see how this goes. we're going to hear from the individuals. as this line unfolds

mr. irving. >> from my recollection, i did not receive a request for approval for national guard until shortlyer 2:00 p.m. when i was in my office. >> mr. son, did you know when you ask for national guard assistance, was it 1:09 or 2:00 p.m.? who did you ask for assistance? i'm not -- >> -- >> why would you not remember that? >> i have no election -- no recollection of a conversation with chief sund. my conversation with chief sund in that timeframe was shortly before 1:30 when i recall he was describing conditions outside, which were deteriorating. he may have been submitting a request and i carry that forward and that, as much as i can tell you, i have no record of calls from chief sund. >> did you discuss that request at 1:09 or when you got it from anybody else or did you and mr. stinger make that decision then? >> i did not get a request at 1:09. the first conversation i had with chief sund in that timeframe was at 1:28-1:30, and in that conversation, he indicated that conditions were deteriorating, he might be looking for national guard approval. i went to mike singer's office. >> this i

to irving for us, rafael romantics mrs.olita lebron andre cordero the gun wilderness and the accomplices goes the evil distinction of having perpetrated a criminal outrage almost unique in americas history. what an violence that stir the nation. look the saving slave houses project and a team of preservationists and 3d scanning technicians who documented several buildings associated with slavery. she was introducing the team to green hill when we arrived. this program is about 50 minutes. okay, so oh goodness. here's the so here's the auction. auction block and auctioneer stand so that's so that's the brick dependency. that's the duck house. the dark house. this is the wash house. this one has a neat feature. a drain in the wall. that is where they would dump the water out. this is the sleeve house. we are at green hill plantation which is that campbell county, virginia. i'm here with the company -- , they're here with me for the independent project. when i was in school from a masters thesis i started to do research with t

two irving foers, rafael mir anda, mrs. lolita lebron, andre cordero, the gun wielder and their accomplices goes the distinction of having perpetrated a criminal outrage almost unique in america's history. wanton violence that shocked and stirred the nation. >> you are watching american history tv. all weekend, every weekend, and on holidays, too. only on c-span3. >> gary ecelbarger talks about list book, "the great comeback -- how abraham lincoln beat the odds to win the 1860 republican nomination". he explains how lincoln bounced back from his 1858 senate race loss to become the presidential fom me two years later. the national archives hosted this event in march, 2009, and provided the video. >> good afternoon, my name is doug swanson. i am the public programs coordinator here at the national archives and i want

headquarters as a widespread search was launched for others who shared in the plot two irving forests, raphael miranda, mrs. lolita lebron andre cordero the gun wielders and to their accomplices goes the evil distinction of having perpetrated a criminal outrage almost unique in america's history. what and violence that shocked and stirred the nation? if you like american history tv keep up with us during the week on facebook twitter and youtube learn about what happened this day in history and see preview clips of upcoming programs follow us at c-spanhistory. visit c-span's new online store at c-spanshop.org to check out the new c-span products and with the 170th congress in session. we're taking pre-orders for the congressional directory every c-span shop purchase helps support c-span's non-profit operations shop today at c-spanshop.org. next on the presidency as president biden begins his new administration. we look back to past presidential inaugurations and transitions. first white house historical association historians matthew costello and colleen shogan. look at the five most noteworthy inaugural ad

mr. blodgett said his understanding from the former sergeant at arms irving that he said this never happened. boy, does this look like we have a violent situation brewing. and you sent counterintelligent officers to the rally that day. you must have seen the crowds that were gathering. you must have been gathering that intelligence back, that's in your testimony. yet, still we come down to this failure to be ready. that there is, you know, 140 helmets that are ordered. maybe 126 national guard might be able to come help. when we are at a significant likelihood of attacks. and however we tier that f.b.i. report, it fed into right into what you knew already. i see my time is done. we have white supremacy feeling the violence, that fueled the big lie about our elections. do you believe that institutional racism, the culture of white supremacy -- and i am not saying any specific person or one action -- do you believe that played a role in the discrepancy between the intelligence received, the assessment of the likelihood of violence and the preparation that left our officers really at the mercy