opportunity to hear testimony about the events leading up to the insurrection, and donald trump s possible role in fomenting and pushing known election lies. known because even his family members and top republican aides were learning were adamant there simply was no there there. now, trump is not on any of these ballots. but the connective tissue is a platform that echoes his sentiments. but as much as the committee has tried to convey that what we saw on january 6th is a continued threat, the question is whether these hearings impact the voters at all. perhaps giving them any pause about electing a trump-backed candidate, assuming of course they even watched these hearings. and even still, the 2020 lies are casting a very big shadow over many of these 2022 races. particularly in south carolina, where the polls have now closed but votes are still being counted. so here s where that revenge part comes in again. you have two incumbent republican members of congress in this dee
state republican incumbent precisely following trump will find themselves on the menu. these are the first so-called trump s revenge primaries you can say. the january 6th committee hearing gotten underway, the first time since the broader electorate had the opportunity to hear testimonies about the event leading up to the insurrection and donald trump s possible role in fermenting and pushing known election lies. known because his family members and what aide were learning. trump is not on any of these ballots. the connective tissue is a platform that echoes his sentiment. as much as the committee tried to convey of what we saw on january 6th, is a continue threat. the question is whether hearings impact the voters at all? and even still the 2020 lies are casting a big shadow over many of these 2022 races. in south carolina, the polls are closed but votes are being counted. you got two incumbent republican members of congress in this deep red state. tom rice is one of ten re
came back and asked he gave you a warning, first of all, for speeding, allegedly. i m a lawyer, so allegedly speeding. he gave that you warning, of course, and then he asked if he could pray with you. and you snapped that photograph. he wasn t even aware of that very moment. what made you want to take that picture and capture that moment? well, you know, for two reasons. the first reason, my dad was very, very private person about his journey battling cancer. he battled colon cancer for two years. and so he was very private. and i was actually shocked that he disclosed that information to the officer. matter of fact, i asked him, dad, why did you tell the officer your condition? and he said i wouldn t want you penalized for taking care of me. i never want you to get in trouble. i wouldn t want that on my conscience. that was the first and foremost reason, because even in his sick
his voice was a little raspy. he looked like he was tired and a sick man. at that moment in time, my heart just went out to him. in fact, you battled your own health conditions as well, and so you had recognized some parts of yourself within his experience. and you didn t even realize, i understand, ashlye, you were so taken aback by the fact that he came back and asked he gave you a warning, first of all, for speeding, allegedly. i m a lawyer, so allegedly speeding. he gave that you warning, of course, and then he asked if he could pray with you. and you snapped that photograph. he wasn t even aware of that very moment. what made you want to take that picture and capture that moment? well, you know, for two reasons. the first reason, my dad was very, very private person about his journey battling cancer. he battled colon cancer for two years. and so he was very private.
right to lawyer, if one can t afford one, one will be presented for you, anything you say can be used in court, the usual miranda warning and that s normally given whenever anyone is arrested and if the government doesn t do that, if the police don t give that you warning, then anything you say cannot be used in court. but there is an exception. the law says basically if it s more important to protect public safety to get information about whether there are continuing threats, then you can question someone without the miranda warning and you can still use the evidence in court. this has been true in recent terrorism cases. you think about the underwear bomber case, abdulmutallab, the government questioned him without a miranda warning, the courts ruled that evidence as part of this public safety exception. so, they will say are there any other people working with you? do you have any other explosives out there? is there another danger to the public? and the people who will ask the ques