Actually do apply to domestic trim scenarios. The question is when can the federal government get involved in charging . F its a terrorist attacks but involves explosives, federal officials, transportation hubs, in those scenarios, federal law can be charged in those scenarios. The practical gap, theres two, guns and other forms of violence. Domestic terrorism using the most common method of attack would be guns, that is not covered at the federal level. Secondly, you may have heard of something heard the Material Support statute. It gets complicated. The one everyone has heard out that flat out supports to a Foreign Terrorist Organization that has been designated as such. We dont do that with domestic terrorist organizes. That is a separate gap and whether any of these gaps should be closed and i think we will talk about. You mentioned federal, federal, federal. Where there is a murder using a vehicle or a gun or an edged weapon, states will prosecute that. Theres no scenario involved in active violence that is going to violate general Purpose State laws. In our most recent tragedy here in el paso, there are capital murder charges have been filed by the d. A. Doesnt matter that we cant file a domestic terrorism charge in order to seek the death penalty. Going back to previous cases of Mass Violence in the United States, there has been talk about what needs to be done and not much has happened because of that. Lisa, you wrote that regarding domestic terrorism, its time to turn from talk to action and confront this threat. What specifically do you have in mind . What should be done to fill some of these gaps that bobby mentioned or other elements of domestic terrorism. Ken who had my role and that piece you wrote was really about calling on all of us, political leaders, citizens, to put aside political and part aside the partisanship and do our duty as we how we put it to focus on the most urgent threat we have as a nation, gun violence, Mass Violence, russian attacks on our democracy, all of those things that we need more bipartisanship and nonpartisanship. On domestic terrorism in particular, i think there are few things we should do, we need to call it by its name and i would cite a good move by department of Homeland Security just last week in issuing a strategy paper that says in quite clear language from the department of Homeland Security, domestic terrorism and mass attacks are as great a threat as foreign terrorism. That is given the headlines and the incredible tragedy that communities like el paso, dayton and others have faced has been apparent but hasnt been said enough certainly by the federal government and experts at the federal level. So we have to call it out. I think we need to put it on the same priority list. We have to put it on the same plane as foreign terrorism, which is not to say we should be ignoring or downgrading our approach and our focus on foreign egg domestic terrorism. There is a lot of you namity on this panel on that score but we need to recalibrate. Leadership gets to one of the things that we need to do and ne is a path to domestic terrorism. Mary has written on this. But doing that, i think will apply the same moral to acts of violence that are directed with the intent to intimidate a civilian population, the same program that we have for foreign terrorism. We also need to restore the job of the Homeland Security and counterterrorism adviser in the white house. So that role, the one i had has been downgraded. The person who serves in the now downgraded function of that job i think has been put into witness protection after he had to make a statement about the whole sharpeygate. There is a position but doesnt report to the president. Correct. They are calling the Homeland Security adviser and he has been downgraded. What does this mean . Is this bureaucratic baloney . No. When i was in that role, the idea was and president bush started this to have one person operating at the most senior level in the white house whose job it was to focus 24 7, wake up every day and focus not on the next summit or foreign leader engagement but on reports to the homeland and i did, which is why president obama gave me the name dr. Doom, every time i saw him, i was bringing him bad news. Structure matters and how you spend your time matters. I met with him every morning in the oval office and briefed him on terrorism threats, cyberthreats. Terrorism was always at the top of the list. It means there is focus in the white house at the top at the leadership level. Means that you have somebody in the white house that can convene the cabinet, operating with my level with the empowerment from the president of the United States to coordinate our response to on terrorism events in this country and abroad and coord fate policy. Ou need to have that policy in one person. Other things that need to be done, funding in communities and Grassroots Efforts to intervene when people are going down the bad path. If any of you in the last couple of years read or heard anything about the need for a domestic terrorism you have been beating this drum for a while. Tell us what specifically do you have in mind . What would a federal domestic terrorism statute have and whats the benefit of doing it . I tell you, i was thinking about this and lisa was before me holding the role of assistant attorney general, we were thinking a lot about domestic terrorism and whether there was a gap that needed to be filled. In august, 2017, most of us in this room recall the rally in charlottesville which ended with a vehicular domestic terrorist attack and ran his vehicle killing heather and wounding dozens of others. And i watched that and i saw what happened and i thought this is the same kind of terrorism that we have been seeing across europe and other places on behalf of Foreign Terrorist Organizations like isis for the last couple couple of years. The vehicle had become a weapon of choice in the lot of attacks in u. K. , france, germany. I immediately wrote about it that very next day to say we have a gap in our statutes because if this person, james beforein charlottesville he committed his attacks like the shooter in el paso had pledged before he committed his attacks, i can guarantee either or both of them would be charged with crime terrorism. Or attempting to attack on ehalf of a foreign organization. Crimes are away of expressing their condemnation of activity ta is beyond what is permissible in a society of laws and of the rule of law. So there is that moral aquifflens si in the way we approach terrorism. People will say is it just that . A lot comes from that. But you need to know what the threat is so you can appreciate and understand even if you dont appreciate the efforts that Law Enforcement and our Intelligence Community and our government put forth to combat that threat and more importantly the way that you as Community Members can be aware of the threat and looking out for things you might see in your own community. We know in the area of International Terrorism that as many as 70 of the cases, there was a family member, a friend, teacher, coach, religious leader who saw something going wrong in that persons life before they decided to commit a terrorist act and the same thing holds true when we are talking about attacks that are not based on a Foreign Terrorist Organization but on ideologies, extremist ideologies, whether it is white supremacist, which is the most thal ideology and has been that way or Animal Rights extremism. When you commit an act of violence in order to intimidate or coerce such terrorism. The gap is twofold. Right now and you will hear this a lot that there are 51 crimes that would apply to domestic terrorism but those are very specific, involves use of explosives or attacks on u. S. Government property or officials. No crime that applies to use of a weapon to commit a mass shooting to intimidate or coerce if it is not tied to a foreign organization. There is no crime that would apply to stockpiling weapons intending them to be used in committing a mass shooting for ideological purposes. So as i could seef of a statute and i talked with people on capitol hill and civil rights and civil liberty groups and i have been trying to talk to as many people i can to see if we cant have a proposal that sort of satisfies all the concerns. The basic outline of this would be that you are criminalizing things of violence, murder, kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, aggravated assault, but when done with the intent to intimidate or coerce would influence government, and when done in the United States or u. S. Territories, this would be terrorism within the territorial jurisdiction of the u. S. And i say that because it would also apply to a terrorist attack on behalf of isis al qaeda. Crime of violence here in u. S. To intimidate or coerce. It would form a predicate for Law Enforcement to use the types of tools they use to combat International Terrorism, we can talk about those, online, undercover sting operations. And i understand that but first are aimed at prevention. There is a predicate and can do some of that now. But when they know this is the statute that they are predicating their investigation on, it gives them a wealth that is more direct as opposed to calling it Something Else in order to use those tools and allow for the criminalization of the stockpiling of weapons, knowing and intending that those are to be used in committing a crime of terrorism within the u. S. Jurisdiction. And that is probably more complicated than we want to get involved with here. But you may recall u. S. Coast guard lieutenant was recently arrested for stockpiling arsenals, assault rifles and other weapons and written extensively where he would be accumulating weapons and targets and ultimately a series of mass shootings. Because there was no applicable federal crime he was charged with possession of a silencer, Unlawful Possession of drugs and had drugs in his home and Unlawful Possession of a firearm by a drug addict. These are all max five years offenses. Those are minor offenses and they are not crimes of violence. The magistrate judge ruling on whether to detain him prior to trial said im not going to be able to detain him. You have not charged him with a crime of violence. It was appealed and the district judge said i will detain him but it is a serious concern when you commit a e wants to mass attack. Last thing and i know we need to move on. What about hate crimes . The government has been more aggressively using those recently. The u. S. Attorney john bass after el paso say, we are investigating this like domestic terrorism but he said so we will be looking whether to charge him with a hate crime and you might think why that . He didnt have a terrorism offense and hate crimes can fill that back. The tree of life synagogue shooter has been charged with hate crimes. But they arent going to fill that gap and serve a different role within our criminal justice scheme and we can talk about that. T that is one option a fruitful option and good option that is being used. There is the mechanics of government which is how does the federal government and might surprise you that amounts of money and resources are dedicated to resources and yet, we have nick here who wan the National Counterterrorism center, was the deputy before that and have said that absolutely none of that time was directly focused on domestic terrorism. Nick, how does the public understand how the National Counterterrorism center wasnt focused on this threat . Im the nonlawyer of the bunch here, but i would fully subscribe to the set of comments made before me that we need a better legal framework. The way our government approaches the set of domestic challenges that we face is different than the way we approach our set of International Terrorism concerns and a couple of things that happened in the last couple of years that brought that home to me. When i would go abroad and meet with my counterparts and think about International Versus Domestic Terrorism and would look at me if i was bringing a lexicon to the table because they didnt make any such divide but talked about terrorism and the kinds of terrorism. Why are you americans complicating this by thinking of it in two different ways. When i thought about the tree of ife synagogue massacre and i thought how are my friends and colleagues in the house responding when an event happens like that. I knew in the white house situation room sitting along side mary and lisa, we would have kicked and swung into action if there was an individual tied to isis or walk, the c. I. A. , every National Security agency would have been around the table with us trying to figure out what piece of this can we help solve or address. On the other hand, as soon as that person is identified as being a domestic terrorist and al qaeda, to isis or all of us pushed ourselves back from the table and said f. B. I. Over to you. And it becomes an f. B. I. Malter to treat as a Law Enforcement set of challenges and i dont say that in any way of being critical. We tend to leave them alone on the Playing Field when dealing with this set of issues. To their credit they are ramping up that game. You have seen f. B. I. Officials talking about that, but i think the rest of the government may need to catch up in temperatures of its ability to contribute to solutions. Why is it important to have a whole of government approach in that area . One of the things we learned in the entire period since 9 11, no one tool in the tool box is actually sufficient to deal with any of our National Security problems. We couldnt bomb or fight our way out of our International Terrorism problem nor northern aid. Intelligence was part of the equation. The same is true with domestic terrorism. The department of Homeland Security has stepped up its game with the document last week that acting secretary released that says that the department of Homeland Security will be approaching this set of domestic terrorism issues with renewed urgency. Will that follow with resources, programs, personnel and dollars all of us bureaucrats sue as metrics to find out if you are serious and i thought about my own organization, the National Counterterrorism center and i thought all of that effort and energy that created that after 9 11 and told in the early days focus overseas. Focus on this International Terrorism problem. And that is living where we live today makes no sense. Why would you have your Counterterrorism Organization with some of the best mind and access to the best information on terrorismrelated matters and wall them off from this set of terrorism concerns that we agree is at the top. If you go around to American Communities right now, including texas, you have the right to be inspired by isis and al qaeda. The approximate threat is posed by individuals motivated by white supremacist ideology or antisemitism. Bringing it into the f. B. I. Is not a Silver Bullet and doesnt mean the good guys are here and well fix the problem but it comes closer that whole of government approaches to these solutions. If you are dealing with these solutions, whole of government means the department of health and Human Services and could Bring Mental Health resources to bear and the department of education being part of the equation because some of this stuff is happening in our schools, middle schools and high schools. Whole of government is what you ought to be demanding whether democrat and republican and some of us have been talking about that. Back to you, lisa, you have written about the importance of getting cooperation in working with social Media Companies to talk about the environment that breeds domestic terrorism. How can we build on that model of working together within the government, sometimes well, sometimes not and build on those successes to improve that relationship with the private sector . There are so many of the same threads that all of us have seen in the International Terrorism front in the fight against al qaeda, the fight against isis that are now going to the domestic terrorism fund. Nd the individuals are getting radicalized the same way in the domestic terrorism context and you have seen now unfortunately for years with regard to isis. When i served in the white house and working closely with mary, nick and others, we were really focused on this problem of individuals radicalizing online d isis literally abusing social media platforms which was designed to promote free speech, promote community, Free Expression and literally being abused and turned to a completely opposite purpose by radicalizing and inspiring individuals to violence and spew hate and to inspire actual attacks. We are seeing that now in the domestic terrorism context and it makes sense when you think how much time we all spend online. The same individuals who are disaffected, who are looking for some sense of community which by the way is why i hate the term lone wolf, whether they are nspired by isis or white spreemsy. They ar