reporter for "politico" on with us now to talk about the january 6 select committee. kyle cheney, although these aren't the first public hearings, certainly since last year and certainly the most nifty ones they held in public, correct? guest: that's right. this is the first when they have done since they conducted their investigation and actually have some findings to share with the american people. host: what do you think the format of this hearing will be? will they have witnesses on thursday night as well? guest: we actually don't really know. i suspect they will. they haven't announced any witnesses. they have cap details close to their vest. i think they want to have maximum impact, which is why they're trying to keep it somewhat mysterious as long as they can. i do suspect we will see different topic areas at each of the hearings that will break down the different leanings of their investigations. host: do you have any idea on the numbers of people the committee has interviewed, obviously in private, ahead of this hearing? is that give us an indication of where they are headed in this investigation? guest: yes. they interviewed over 1000 people. i think we only know of may be a couple hundred of who those people are, just based on tracking the committee, the lawyers, all of that. we do know they got some very distinct lines of inquiry, things about what donald trump was doing in the -- preceding january 6 and trying to overturn the election. also, the proud boys and oath keepers getting involved. the money trails. there are different lanes that i think we will see broken out in these hearings. host: we mentioned that this is a select committee, not a permanent standing committee. this was selected by the speaker. tells about the genesis of this committee, particularly the choice of the republican members of the select committee. guest: sure. this committee was never supposed to exist. after the attack, there was bipartisan outrage at what happened, which somewhat retreated a little bit as donald trump reasserted his grip over the republican party. what you initially saw was a call for a bipartisan commission, like the 9/11 commission, that would independently investigate this and come up with some findings that were free of the partisan render. the republicans ended up sinking that legislation. what happened instead was that speaker pelosi said we have to have some investigation, so i'm going to appoint a select committee. it happened there was there were supposed to be nine at democratic appointees and five republican appointees. maybe it was seven and five. when a minority leader mccarthy said his to the panel, pelosi vetoed them, -- vetoed two of them, which is within her power. so, senator mccarthy withdrew all of his picks and boycotted the committee. host: kyle cheney, a senior legal affairs reporter for "politico." we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8001 is for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for immigrants, and for independents and others, it is (202) 748-8002 . what is expected and when there they expected to wrap up and publish their findings? guest: we are anticipating six hearings or maybe eight. they are escalating. i think that will remain in flux, depending on how the hearings go and which witnesses they get confirmed. we don't really know much about who they are going to call, but we are expecting some high-profile names eventually. one thing that is very important is that it is not the end of the road for them. they're talking about a timeline that involves releasing their actual report in september. again, that could change. that is fluid for them. there are certain things that may even extend beyond the legal fights they are having to try to get more information going into october or beyond the midterm election. host: as thursday's hearing comes up, who are some of the members you will be watching most closely? guest: the happiest ones are chair bennie thompson and vice chair liz cheney, and cheney probably more so because as the lead of one of two republicans on the committee, and perhaps one of the most prominent leadership roles on this committee, how she messages the results here and tries to connect with republicans at home who may or may not be tuning into these hearings at all, she has pulled no punches about her own colleagues and their complicity in what happened leading up to january 6. the way she talks about republican involvement is a very important message, because it connects differently than that neo-democrats in calling out donald trump when you hear her doing it. host: what about other members on the committee? who do you expect the toughest questioning to come from? guest: i think cheney wrath is an interesting one to watch. he led the investigation into trump, and adam schiff similarly led this. those two have a long history of pursuing intense investigations of the former president. i think lofgren is another one. she is another health staffer. -- house staffer. host: jamie raskin has written in his book leading up to the impeachment that he was furious that some of the earliest leaks that came out of that group and tried to shut down the leaks, but it has been just the opposite with this committee. there has been regular information on who is testifying , the information they are gathering in this committee. do you think that has been part of a strategy at guest: the junior six committee? guest:i think it is hard to tell. more than 1000 witnesses. we still can identify more than maybe 250 of them. some of those are the witnesses themselves or the committee declaring who they subpoenaed, who is being deposed, and people watching who is coming into the building. the leaks that have come out, we again don't necessarily know the sources of a lot of them. sometimes, it could be from the committee, it could be from the witnesses themselves or their attorneys. different motivations are involved. i think what we have seen is like the text messages from mark meadows, the former chief of staff, that has been a consistent source of a drip of leaks. that is some of the most important information the committee has obtained. the committee has released strategically some of its own transfer of information in court filings. that has been a way for them to signal to the public whether investigation has gone, what they have uncovered. some of it is very intentional. host: (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and for all others, (202) 748-8002. tom is in harrisburg, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. i am part of the independent group and still very neutral. i look at polling. the january 6 issue, like the issue of others, pulled high engineer is six. number two, i'm finding there is a boomerang. trying to help the people democrats are trying to hurt is evidence in here -- evident here in pennsylvania. he won in a landslide. host: call cheney. -- kyle cheney. guest: i think that connects with the average voters at home. they look at generous six as something in the past, and the real, visceral outrage over it has faded. i think the committee knows that. when you ask them what their goal is, they give a different answer. we need to do this for history, we need to document the truth of what happened, and that has been a -- an important thing for historians. i think what they want to do here is change that somewhat, at the very least. they think they can convince people that what happened was bad, but it is not over, it is something ongoing and there are still attempts to cede bad actors in elections that could create problems in the future. they want to show people who may be preparing to do something better orchestrated next time. i think they feel like they could potentially move some of those numbers. i feel like they did that during the first impeachment over ukraine, which was far more complicated and less connected to the average voter they are not january 6. they want to remind people what they felt like on january 6, when outrage was very real. host: next up is lynn on the democrats line, in ohio. lynn, make sure you meet your television and go on with your comment or question for kyle cheney. lynn in ohio, you are on the line. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning to you guys. this has been an interesting morning. i have one question. when we are investigating all of these events, why is it that nobody has brought in the fact that all of the male shooters, they are males? they are not females. can you answer that question? host: i think you are referring to our previous segment on gun violence. let me ask you, kyle cheney, is there any indication that the witnesses may include some of the actual participants at the january 6 attack echo -- attack? guest: i think it's possible. in my account, the people who have been charged and have pleaded guilty in participating in the mall but breach of the capitol, they interviewed with the committee and it's probably more than that. all the ones who testified to the committee have expressed remorse to their actions and said they have been duped into this by donald trump and the result of the elections. they want to discuss with the committee. whether they want to do that in a public setting, with the intense spot like the committee will bring, that is an open question. but i do think it is very likely that we will hear from or maybe cease video testimony from those people about why they did what they did on january 6. host: speaking of the former president, has donald trump commented on whether he will be watching and paying attention to what will happen on thursday? guest: i don't know if he is going to watch it he has essentially said he is going to push back on this. they will try to counter message the hearing and downplay the significance of january 6, and treat it a partisan affair, not a moment for the bipartisan resolve that the committee wants to present. i think there will be major pushback from him and his people , and their friendly media outlets, to try to undercut the committee. host: do you think it's likely we will get testimony from former vice president pence's staff? guest: i think that's very possible. i know they work very cooperative with the select committee. the chief of staff, the chief lawyer, they were two of the most important witnesses. we have seen some of their testimony and we know how crucial that has been to them. the vice president himself hasn't necessarily cooperated, but there is no way his people would have without his blessing. whether we see them again in public is an open question, but i think that would be among the group of the high profile potential witnesses. host: scott in arkansas, republican line. caller: good morning. mr. cheney, please, if you could explain to the listeners that speaker pelosi has authority over security of the capitol, and also truly explain why she is off-limits with that committee. thank you. guest: this is something of a misconception about the committee. first of all, speaker pelosi does have a role in capitol security, but this is the same role as leader mcconnell had on generous six. they both oversee appointees of the capitol police board, which is the group that had responsibility for security on the capitol campus. that board appoints the police chief, handles a lot of the security briefings and decision-making. while speaker pelosi certainly has a role, she has been emphatic that she has no day-to-day operational role in securities. she has delegated that to the senate side, to the sergeant at arms. you also have the capitol police. the one thing i think people don't fully appreciate is that the select committee has actually done a pretty intensive investigation of the security dynamics at the capital. we have heard a lot of counter messaging from the republicans about, why haven't we look at what went wrong on the january 6 committee -- january 6 security? there have been more findings on that then people have appreciated. they brought in security officials and their predecessors that were in charge on january 6 and have since been relieved of their roles. they have talked to security officials. i'm curious to see what they come up with there. it is not going to be a total ignoring of the issue. host: charles in new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a long-term listener. the senate, the house, the committee for the hearing, i believe that the committee was serious, they would not be holding what i think is going to be a reality show. everybody knows what a reality show is. everything is pre-scripted, the audience will be standing up on their feet yelling and screaming "we didn't know that." i would like a response on whether or not this is a particular way of showing it. guest: that is actually a great question, because i think the committee has struggled with this question. the issue is they have seen reports in the past that have had explosive and important findings to them that have landed with a thud. you look at the mueller report and that is probably the best guide about what they don't want to see happen. that included intense amounts of information for russian interference in the 2016 election, and potential contact between russians and donald trump's campaign. i think the committee salt that that report came out, it was very dense and text-heavy, there is nothing visual about it, and certain findings were manipulated and counter message area effectively. that essentially amounted to very little. i think what they want to do is avoid the fate of the mueller report. they know that the reality of capturing viewers attention in the public's attention means that there has to be a bit of a showmanship element to this, and that might be unsavory when you're dealing with something as serious and important as government investigation. i think they are treating that as the reality that we live in, and that is the way you get people to focus on something that might otherwise make your eyes bleed a little bit. host: they're coming at this in a different media environment than watergate, iran contra in the 80's. this is an error of media were people are changing channels and streaming. they have to capture people's attention in this hearing, which gets underway thursday night. guest: right. as i mentioned before, this is going to be a very expensive counter messaging push from pro-trump media that gets a lot of eyeballs. to contend with that, they're going to have to do a something that also can draw the gaze back to them and not allow others to drown them out. host: all of our viewers and radio listeners will have complete, uninhibited coverage beginning at 8:00 eastern on thursday night. the first of the public hearings of the select committee on january 6, 8:00 eastern on c-span, streaming live on c-span.org and our mobile app, c-span now. charlotte, north carolina, michelle is up on the democrats line. good morning. caller: hello. host: michelle, make sure you mute your volume, then go ahead with your comment. caller: ok. i am not looking at pulling on this matter, i'm looking at accountability. i think some of this has been swept over near the rug, what would've taken place then. [indiscernible] guest: i think that's right. i think the committee views part of their mission or their role as, again, laying out the truth of what happened for americans so that it doesn't get swept under the rug. you can't have a violent attack on the capitol, one that was seated for weeks in an attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, and not do and indicate -- an investigation into that, at least for history. i think they also know that the justice department is investigating various aspects of this in a way that seems to be growing and encompassing people at higher and higher levels. i think they're hopeful that even when they are done, the continues pursuing accountability on their part as well. host: so, we think the justice department will pursue legal action in the cases of steve banning, peter navarro for refusing to testify before the committee? guest: yes. they have both been charged with contempt of congress. steve bannon was to go on trial in july, and navarro probably much later in the year or maybe even next year. the bottom line is, it is very rare to see charges for contempt of congress. to see two arriving out of a single investigation, that hasn't happened in a very long time. the justice department has shown that they will stand up for the prerogatives of the committee in some circumstances. they did not do so in the case of the mark meadows indians give in -- and dan's covino. host: let's hear from jerry in new jersey, republican line. caller: hello and good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i went to the fbi site and it said that it was not an insurrection because there was not a single gun confiscated. my question is, with 40,000 hours of tapes, why can we not see any of it? that showed 10 minutes of it. but with 40,000 hours of tapes, something isn't right and they're showing no transparency. if they won't show the tapes, the only four people that were killed were bystanders at the capitol. so, why would they keep saying an insurrection when the fbi said it wasn't daca -- wasn't? and not one gun was compensated. host: we will hear from our guest. guest: there are couple of misconceptions there, which is actually at least, as far as i'm aware, six or seven people were charged with having firearms with them at the capital. the numbers probably much higher than that, but because people weren't arrested for the most part in real time, we won't know the full expanse of that. the first jury trial with a conviction was a man from texas who was convicted of having a gun with him when he stormed the edge of the capitol grounds. there is a bit of a misconception about where -- about were riders armed -- rioters armed. a number of firearms were seen and people have been charged for carrying. on the hours of tape, in fact, many, many hours have come out, mostly by court cases, the hundreds and hundreds of people charged. the government typically released or hosted many, many hours, hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage connected to those cases that have come out publicly. among the trove of about 14,000 hours of total surveillance footage, with even more hours from people's cell phones, other devices, body worn cameras, a lot of that has come out. not the full collection and we will probably never see the full collection, but members of congress have seen a lot of it. it is acceptable and viewable in all the cases that have emerged from the riot. host: obviously in creating a committee like this, there are a lot of staffers and extra hours on research and investigation, interviewing. we have an idea of the addition of a cost of the select committee echo guest: not the complete cost. i want to say they have just released their first three months of the year statements of disbursement. i want to say it was in the 2 million-dollar range for the first three months of the year. i don't know that that captures the full extent. a lot of the staffers are investigators, former justice department people who came to the committee, using their expertise. some people who come from other committees of congress, some extremism experts. then, you have the house legal office, the legal counsel that has done a lot of the litigation against donald trump and his allies. host: let's go to market in indiana, independent line. caller: greetings and inks for taking my call. i wanted to say that this can't be considered an independent investigation. if it was, i believe we would have looked into the riots from the left for two years. i am an independent, i vote both ways. there is something to this illegal activity of voting fraud. with that said, that's it. thank you for your time. i don't think "politico" is the greatest independent source we have to be able to dictate if it is fair or not. thank you very much. host: kyle cheney, what are you looking for on that first night of hearings this thursday? what do you think is the take away from that echo guest: i think it will primarily be setting the table. they have kept their cards pretty close. as for the showmanship element, to keep viewers interested in tuning in, i think we will learn new information on what they have uncovered. i think we will hear a lot about how they view this as premeditated, carefully organized and coordinated attack on the capital -- capitol. it was not necessarily just a random occurrence or spontaneous event. i think we are going to learn a lot about how they broadly view this sort of affront to democracy here. they will break down how they are going to organize the rest of their hearings. again, i don't who their witnesses will be, so it is all very fluid, but that is the table setting for the hearing. host: kyle cheney is a senior legal's affair reported for "politico"this runs just over 2.