in this case getting back to the video again, after ahmaud arbery fell, the mcmichaels turned their backs -- again, a disturbing image -- and they walked away. it was callous, and it occurred, as far as the court is certained, basin upon the evidence, because confrontation was being sought. i think in closing arguments it's interesting to note that the most violent crime in scintilla shores was the murder of ahmaud arbery. so sentencing does not generally provide closure. i think miss wanda cooper-jones said that. in many cases they're seeking closure. the mother, the father, the community, and maybe even parts of the nation, but closure is hard to define and is a granular concept. it's seen differently by all perspective and the prison of your lives. it may be best perceived as an exercise in accountability. we are all keptable for our own actions. sometimes in today's day and age, that statement is lost upon many. and today the defendants are being held for their actions here in superior court. today demonstrates everybody is accountable to the rule of law. taking the law into your own hands is a dangerous endeavor. i'm not sure how this comes across, but i'll say it anyway. i think ultimately with regard to the murder of ahmaud arbery, it holds us all accountable. i've read somewhere, and i don't remember where it was, that at a minimum, ahmaud arbery's death -- his death should force us to consider expanding our definition of what a neighbor may be and how we treat them. i argue that maybe a neighbor is more than the people who just own property around your house. i believe -- also believe that assuming worst in others we show our worst character. assuming the best in others is always the best course of action. and maybe those are the grand lessons from this case. i will let others spend as much time as they want writing about it and talking about it, but those are my general thoughts with regard to this case and sentencing. that said with regard to the sentence in this case as to travis mcmichael, mr. mcmichael, the court sentences you as follows. count 1, malice murder, life without possibility of parole. count 2, felony murder, vacated by operation of law. count 3, felony murder, vacated by operation of law. count 4, felony murder, vacated by operation of law. count 5, felony murder, vacated by operation of law. count 6, aggravated assault merges into count 1. count 7, aggravated assault, the court sentences the defendant to 20 years consecutive to count 1. count 8, false imprisonment merges into count 1. count 9, attempted false imprisonment, five years concurrent to count 7. that is life plus 20. greg mcmichael, the court sentences you as follows. count 1, malice murder, the defendant was found not guilty. count 2, felony murder, life without the possibility of parole. count 3, felony murder, vacated -- i say vacated, vacated by operation of law in all cases. i'm not going to repeat it. count 4, vacated. count 5, vacated. count 6 merges into count 2. count 7, aggravated assault, 20 years consecutive to count 2. count 8, ten years concurrent to count 7. count 9, five years concurrent to count 7. that is life plus 20 years. roddie bryan, i do want to separate a little bit because the court is making a different recommendation, and despite the back-and-forth mr. goff and i had during this case, i do want to raise the point he made with regard to the sentence. as far as the remorse, i think roddie bryan stands in very different shoes. it is obvious from the beginning that he questioned the tragedy that had occurred at the scene and was on -- i can't remember whose body cam, but the body cam questioned whether or not what had occurred had occurred and then took steps early on in this process, i think, that demonstrated that he had grave concerns that what had occurred should not have occurred, and i think that does make mr. bryan's situation a little bit different. however, mr. bryan has been convicted of felony murder, and i do not believe it can be disputed based on the facts of this case that the verdict was an appropriate verdict based upon the evidence presented at least. when i say appropriate, i mean is legal. i believe there's been some discussion about the differences between mr. bryan and the mcmichaels. there may be some differences, but it does not change the fact that was it not for the fact that mr. bryan used his vehicle in a way to impede mr. arbery's course of travel, this may not have ever occurred, and that is sufficient for felony murder. he did cooperate with law enforcement. i'll point out mr. goff 17 (10) 1b. the court sentences mr. bryan with life without the possibility of pa right. krounlt 4 is vie indicated. count 5 is vacated. count 6 the defendant was found not guilt. count 7 merges into count 3. the defendant is sentenced to ten years consecutive to count 3 on count 8 and five years concurrent with count 8. both of those counts, though, will be suspended sentences, which gives mr. bryan life with the possibility of parole sentence. those are the sentences. the court having pronounced sentence first with regard to travis mcmichael. mr. mcmikial, you're hereby notified under the law of georgia you're entitled to appeal your trial. if you choose to do, so you must file within 30 days of this date. you're also informed you have the right to retain a lawyer of your own choice on post trial appeals to the appelet court. if you cannot afford a lawyer, the court will provide one to you. you'll be given a transcript of all trial and pretrial transcripts without cost to you if you cannot afford a transcript. you may file a new motion for a trial or apply for a court of review. you're also advised the statute of limitations to the habeas kour pos is four years in the state of felonies and one year for misdemeanors. the statute runs from the date the conviction becomes final. to be clear on the record. i'm going to go through the statement with regard to each defendant. as to gregory mcmileal you're hereby by law entitled to an appeal. you have the right to retain a lawyer of your own choice to represent you on your post trial motions and appeals to the promote appellate court of georgia. if you cannot afford a lawyer, the court will apoint one for you. you're entitled to and will be given a transcript of all pretrial, trial, and post trial matters at no cost to you if you cannot afford a transcript. you may file for a new trial or appeal to the appropriate appellate court of georgia. you're also advised that the statute of limitations for the habeas kour pos is n this state is four years in the case of felonies and one year for miss demoans. it runs the date the conviction becomes final. mr. bryan, you are hereby notified by the court in georgia you may appeal. you're also informed you have the right to retain a lawyer at your own choice to the appropriate appellate court of georgia. if you cannot afford a lawyer t court will appoint one for you. you're entitled to and will be give an tran skrint of all pretrial, trial arngd post trial matters at no cost to you if you cannot afford a transcript. you may file a motion for a new trial or appeal your case directly to the appellate court of georgia for a court of review. you're advised the writ of habeas kour pos is four years in the case of felonies and one year for misdemeanors. the conviction runs if date the sentence becomes final. i don't have a blue or black pen. the court has executed the statement of appeal for travis mcmichael, greg mcmichael, and william r. bryan. if i could please have counsel and the defendants execute the statements of appeal to confirm they've been given -- or that notice has been given. >> anything further from the state? >> yes, your honor. the state would ask for a condition imposed along with the sentence, and that is this, that the defendants are not allowed to make any money off of their actions such as a book deal, a movie deal, social media deal, or anything along -- any way, shape, or form make any money off of this experience, this conviction, and this trial and that should any money be made, that it go into a fund for the arbery family, and i have -- i've had this condition imposed before, and given the nature of this case, we just seek to make sure that based on their actions, having been found guilty of murder, that they do not then reap some sort of profit or benefit off of their actions via such remuneration to -- from -- to or from anyone in the form of, like i said, book deals, movie deals, consulting fees, or telling their story to someone in exchange for money. >> there's a statute on this, but maybe i'm wrong. >> it's not a statute in other cases. >> let's do this. submit something more formal to the court. i'll go ahead and take a look at it. >> thank you, your honor. >> when the court does that, my only concern is how that will impact mr. bryan's ability to raise money for his defense. i wouldn't want to be in a situation where he couldn't do that. >> no, i understand the request, but i -- without -- i don't want to just offhandedly grant the request without understanding exactly what the terms are that the court is seeking, so i'd like something in writing from the state what exactly the terms are that the state would be seeking with regard to the decision and then address that once it comes in more formally with defense counsel. >> thank you. >> any further questions for mr. travis mcmichael? >> no, your honor. >> greg mcmichael. >> no, yourself. >> all right. we are adjourned. thank you. i'm hallie jackson in washington, and you have just watched the judge deliver sentences for the three men convicted of murdering ahmaud arbery nearly two years ago, that verdict in brunswick, georgia, bringing us news that both mcmichaels will serve life in prison within no possibility of parole. mr. william roddie bryan will serve life in prison within the possibility of parole. i want to bring in my panel. the judge as he delivered the sentences starting a full minute of silence, representing as he described it, part of the time that ahmaud arbery was jogging that day in that neighborhood in georgia. from that moment it seemed as though it would be likely that the judge would do what he ultimately did, is deliver these two sentences, life without the possibility of parole for the two mcmichaels. i wonder how you thought this went down. >> i thought it was very appropriate. i think the judge did a very good job of delivering a very clear sentencing decision as it related to all three defendants. there were three things that stuck out to me. number one, the judge did an excellent job of methodically walking the court and putting on the record exactly what it was that caused him to make the decisions in each of the cases of each of the defendants that he was responsible for. and the reason that that's so important is what it does is it really closes the door for any appeal on this stage of the trial being what they reach for for any of the defendants. it's all crystal clear. the second thing i noticed he did a fantastic job of, he made a clear distinction between the notion of justice or as i understand justice and he called it closure and accountability. he made a point to point out that, listen, we can maybe not necessarily guarantee closure, whereas i said justice in this case. what we can do is hold these individuals accountable. that was affirmed by the decision he made with every one of them. and the last piece of what i saw that i noticed was outstanding about what this judge did, he created a distinction and difference with respect to william roddie bryan on why he gave him parole with ash -- and where the judge gave them the possibility of appeal. >> this judge had a lot to say. possibly some of it -- some of it the defendants might try to mine on an appeal, but most of it seemed pretty straightforward. in a sense he maxed out -- excuse me, he almost maxed out the mcmichaels. >> almost, yeah. >> almost, and by that i mean life without the possibility of parole plus 20 was pretty close to the maximum for each of them and essentially gave bryan the minimum. i know life with the possibility of parole doesn't sound like the minimum, but in essence it was. it was within the heartland of what the prosecution was seeking for bryan. believe it or not, the prosecution was seeking the absolute max, which would have been an addition of five to ten years for each defendant. i won't go into the details. but all in all, not too many surprises because at the end of the day, there wasn't a lot of wiggle room. there wasn't a big range of sentences that these defendants could have gotten. so no big surprises here. >> danny, you said something that perhaps -- because we did hear a fairly lengthy set of remarms from judge wamsly with regard to the sentencing. he talked about being neighborly, what it means to be a neighbor. he talked about the idea of the differentiation and why he was treating roddie bryan different than the mcmichaels. he said the defendants may find something they could mine on appeal in those comments. what do you mean by that? as a defense attorney yourself, what would you point to/from that? >> well, one thing i heard and probably will never be able to prove it, never will know for sure because the judge will never say is i think he viewed bryan as a more sympathetic figure, as someone who was different -- very different, and he said as much. but i think if the judge was being honest, he might say that he would have expected bryan could have been aquilted, at least acquitted on the murder charges, maybe on some of the lesser counts, but bryan had a very different set of facts. he was in a different car, didn't have a firearm, but, of course, he was convicted of essentially chasing the victim with the car and cutting him off, aggravated assault, and, of course, the federal government is charging them with federal crimes such as kidnapping, using a gun in the crime of violence. folks have called this a fetd real hates crime that the prosecution is facing but that's only a small facet of it. kidnapping, use of a firearm in a crime has nothing to do with a hate crime. so these defendants have yet another battle ahead of them and very soon. >> charles, i want to come on that in a minute. katy, i want to turn to you. this was emotional inside the courtroom even before the sentences were taken down. take us to what it was like inside there. >> reporter: absolutely. we heard from ahmaud's mother and father today on the stand who boast expressed grief at a deep level we have not yet heard in this trial, how they're proud of their son and how they're going to miss him every thanksgiving and christmas and how they're going to wake up with him being executed forefront in their mind. the judge has played it straight this entire time throughout the trial, has given no indication on where he stood on anything. he has stood very impartial with how he handled the defense and the prosecution. today was a different story. he called it a tragedy. he said the facts of the case are a boy with dreams was murdered, and miss comments about neighbors were particularly emotional as well. he said, when we assume the best in people, we're the best in ourselves. when we assume the worst in people, we bring out the worst in ourselves. this is something everyone can sort of take a minute and learn from. so he clearly did have something to say and he was going to use that time to sort of have a teaching moment not just for the mick michaels but for everyone watching today, and there were a lot of people watching as he made those statements. >> catie, thank you. here we are at 3:20 eastern time where catie beck is in brunswick, a trial that may not have happened where that video came out showing what happened. that really catalyzed what we're seeing now, which is three life sentences for the men ultimately murdering ahmaud arbery. >> it's important to remember that this case may not have ever got on the that point were it not for that video. >> that's right. >> right now the former district attorney in brunswick is going to be prosecuted because there was over a month's time that went by from the death of ahmaud arbery to the arrest of these individuals where there was no action taken by that office. if it weren't for the love of a black mother with respect to arbery's mom posting an independent investigation from the georgia bureau of investigations, this case may not have seen the light of day. and so while we can appreciate the verdict in this case and while we can appreciate the sentencing in this case, it's very important that we do not condition ourselves from a public standpoint that we meade the evidence in every incident in order to pursue accountability on behalf of people being killed. that is a very dangerous model that we kind of sort of set up. with respect to george floyd, there was video there. with respect to ahmaud arbery, there was video there. there does not have to be video and there's not always video, but that shouldn't keep us from holding the people accountable. >> as to the former d.a. that charles just mentioned, should there be an investigation more fulsomely into how these cases are handled, do you believe? >> of course, but this is the kind of thing you normally are never going to catch because most of these cases are not high-profile, and if a former d.a.'s investigator calls up another d.a. and says i'm in a bit of a pickle, then most of us never hear about whether they cut him a break or gave him advice or maybe swept something under the rug. that's the reality here. we only heard about this because it was high profile and these folks were scrutinized. meanwhile thousands and thousands of cases go on every day in state court. nobody's paying attention. certainly if i as a defense attorney ask, hey, can i get all the text messages between the d.a. and the police and everybody and the assailant, that's not the kind of thing i'm going to get in the run-of-the-mill case. i'm sure charles would say the same thing. so investigate all ye like. i'm not sure you're going stamp out the problem that d.a.s and law enforcement giving each other a little bit of a hand once in a while. that's the exception to the rule. most of it is good and fair, but that stuff happens. >> i want to play -- we mentioned we heard from the parents of ahmaud arbery in court delivering victim impact statements. wanda cooper-jones spoke as well. i want to play what she had to say. >> ahmaud never said a word to them. he never threatened them. he just wanted to be left alone. they were fully committed to their crimes. let them be fully committed for the consequences. >> and, of course, we now know that they were to the degree that the law would allow them based on the sentencing passed on by the judge. charles, when we talked about -- i remember doing live coverage when we got the verdicts back in november, al throw was that question of accountability of justice versus closure, right, there was a sense that at least this time there was at least some level of accountability in this instance. do you see this sentence as part of that story moving forward? in other words, what kind of a message does this send more broadly like in georgia where there's been historical -- a history of different treatment for people who are black and brown? >> well, i think it's a cautionary tale to those people who are concerned about whether racism and bigotry in the open will continue to be tolerated. you had a jury that was pretty much all white in this case hand down a verdict in favor of a black boy who was killed on camera by three white men. so there is some level of progress to be appreciated there. however, i think when you talk about what this means in the broader context, what i said was racism and bigotry in the open space, and i think we have to get beyond the point of being satiated by just that and understand there's just as much insidious and malicious activity that continues to occur, not just on black bodies throughout the united states but until we're content to address that and content to understand that's the target we have to stamp out, there's a lot more work to do. so this is, of course, an encouraging step to note there are people to recognize the need to hold folks accountable, but there's a lot more that needs to be done. >> danny, one of the things we know will happen next in the matter of, i believe, 30 days, they formally file for their appeals. it seems like mr. bryan's attorney who is a color person, that is going to happen. can you talk about what that appeals process is going to look like for those convicted felons? >> that's pretty typical. 100% they will file a notice of appeal. it's short document, a couple of pages, and their briefs will be filed. that will be many months down the road. what we can expect, with bryan, i can tell what way they're going to go. the verdict was against the evidence. there was insufficient evidence to support that verdict because they're going to say he was in his car, driving around, separated from the mcmichaels, had no firearm, didn't coordinate with him, and they're going to argue, and this is kind of an esoteric argument, it was the felony firearm that actually caused the death. he might have a shot. but overall when lawyers walk out on the steps and say we're going to file an appeal, it's going to be difficult to trial. >> thank you so much. this development coming late this afternoon out of brunswick, georgia, life in prison without the possibility of parole for gregory and travis mcmichael for murdering ahmaud arbery and life in prison for william roddie bryan with possibility of parole. we'll hear about president biden's mandate for the vaccine. most of them not buying it. we're talking with a member of the january 6th committee, one of the only republicans on it, adam kinzinger. there he is. standing maybe on a conviction firefighter criminal referrals. that's coming up. iction firefighter criminal referrals that's coming up i'm ok! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ only in theaters december 17th. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? once-weekly ozempic® can help. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ♪ oh, oh, oh ♪ ozempic® is proven to lower a1c. most people who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. and you may lose weight. adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. in adults also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, or death. ozempic® helped me get back in my type 2 diabetes zone. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription. oh hey there! i'm just reading wayfair reviews like it's my job. i love seeing people loving their home. my daughter and i never agree on anything. that's not true! but we did agree this rug was perfect. okay. stop being weird. mom and daughter agreeing on something. wayfair works miracles! ooh! check this one out. this chair is so comfortable. it puts both of my babies to sleep. look at you making a space that works perfectly for all of you! i could use a good nap. there's so much new in the new chicken & bacon ranch, but the clock is ticking, so we gotta hurry! there's new rotisserie-style chicken, new peppercorn ranch, new hickory-smoked bacon, new- did you just spike the footlong? sorry, i didn't want the delay of game. save big. order through the app. save big. the comfortable way to work out. -that looks fun actually. -looks like a paisley. -hey, a paisley, we'll take it. -yeah. oh my god, i could do this and watch tv at the same time. -exactly! -fantastic. oh yeah, i can do this. this is easy. and definitely better than the floor. -it feels sexy. -it feels good. i want this in my house. (host) wondering if the aerotrainer is tough? (engine revving) every day in business brings something new. so get the flexibility of the new mobile service designed for your small business. introducing comcast business mobile. you get the most reliable network with nationwide 5g included. and you can get unlimited data for just $30 per line per month when you get four lines or mix and match data options. available now for comcast business internet customers with no line-activation fees or term contract required. see if you can save by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. we're following mandates and mask mandates. pete williams is our justice correspondent. kara lee is at the white house. dr. david michaels served as the head of osha under president obama. pete, let me start with you. there were about three hours and 40 minutes of arguments today in front of the supreme court. there were a couple of interesting moments. i want to play one for you now. >> i would think that workplace risk is about the greatest, least controllable risk with respect to covid that any person has. >> of course, the risk arises at the workplace, but it's important to focus on the risk they're talking about. they're not talking about jobs where people do congregate in settings like that, that changes the nature of the risk. they say every single workplace where people come inside for even a little bit. >> it seemed like, pete, some of the more conservative judges were sympathetic to the challengers. is that a good assessment? >> yes. there were two, one being the osha requirement, one where there's a company with more than 80 employees. the they're saying the government doesn't have the authority to do that for a couple of reasons. some of the justices thought it wasn't targeted, that it didn't make any distinction where people are spread out, or come in much and assembly workers are standing shoulder to shoulder. second, it's not a workplace thing. it's everywhere. how does osha get involved with the workplace. it's not just the workplace. the court seemed skeptical about that. now, the separate one, the separate issue today was a different requirement from hhs that would apply to health care workers, about 20 million people who deal with medicare and medicaid patients, and there i think the majority of the supreme court will find that one can survive legal scrutiny here for a couple of reasons. one is, entirely separate statutes, much more focused, and as justice elena kagan said surely one thing the government can do is say to hospitals and nursing homes you can't kill your patients. >> on the osha piece of this, what is your response to the critics saying the vaccine requirements for companies is an overreach? >> i think just the way this hearing was held tells us everything we need to know. the supreme court has decided to close their building, require everyone who comes in to be tested that morning. in fact, the foreign for the state of ohio couldn't come into the building because he was found to have covid and he had to do it by telephone. and you have to wear a mask all the time in the building. powerful people like justices can say we can work safely, but frontline workers, everyone else has to go out and essentially risk their lives, and there are outbreaks going on everywhere. osha's job is to make workplaces are safe. you can have just a few people in the room, but if there's no ventilation, they're going to get expose and could get really sick. it struck me that these justices having no idea what real life is like, for what work is like for most people in the country. >> the supreme court was hearing those arguments and the incoming governor of virginia is going to join the challenge against them, and that is what he vowed to do during the campaign, hallie. the reason why it's significant coming today is because if the supreme court does make this a states rights issue, you can see what's going to happen here. where you live will depend how you experience the virus not just when it comes to mask but vaccine uptake and that's illustrated by where i am in arlington, hallie. it had pretty good vaccine uptake for first and second doses but they're having a challenge with booster shots particularly among teenagers. listen to one of the top health officials who i talked with earlier today. >> we're not getting a lot of interest because there's so much confusion on who's eligible for a booster. the cdc guidelines vary so widely by age. there's confusion by the public. >> reporter: there's confusion on state-by-state guidelines not only on vaccines but masks. here, nationwide when you look at adolescents as well, hallie, we're only about half vaccinated. that's important because as officials try to reopen schools across the country, secretary of education cardona told me that that those vaccinations are the most important line of events of bringing kids and adults back into the classroom. >> thank you. i want to go back to you. i know you and five other former biden advisers put out an op-ed to deal with a new strategy, what you call the new normal with living with covid indefinitely. can you talk about -- explain that and what needs to be done that we're not doing now. >> well, look, we know covid is going to be around probably forever. vaccinations are great and they're the most important things we can do, but they're not enough. we have to focus on once we get past omicron is to prepare for the next surge, the next variant, the one after. that we need to put in these public health precautions including vaccination requirements but also making the air clean. when you turn on your faucet, you don't expect water to give you cholera. we should expect air to be clean too. so buildings need better ventilation. we need better information on when to wear masks and what types of masks to wear. people shouldn't be confused over that. we need better surveillance systems. we need to focus on long-term investments. java talked about not just the administration but what congress needs do. otherwise we're never going to get back to normal life here. >> and yet doctors michaels and carolina, president biden pushed back on what's the new normal, right? >> that's correct. the president, you know, he's promised we're going to defeat the virus, and yet asked today by our own peter alexander whether the coronavirus was with us to say, he had a bit of a different answer. take a listen. >> no, i don't think covid is here to say, having covid in the environmental and the world is here to stay, but covid, dealing with it now is not here to say. the new normal does not have to be. we have so many more new tools to deal with. >> here you have him saying well, it's not here to say and then it's not here to stay as it currently is. we're in the middle of omicron. the president says this is going to get better, but he's under a lot of pressure to figure out whether they're going to move into a phase where we are learning to live with coronavirus in some shape or form or he's going to stick with his line of defeating this. now, he has had a little momentum in one of the aspects of the administration's covid response. today the administration signed its first contract to get those at-home covid tests in the hands of americans. the administration promised 500 million of those tests, the first that are going to be out by mid-january. >> carol lee, thank you. pete williams. dr. michaels. thanks for being here today. new details on the big changes, taking over nights as the select committee gets set to take testimony from 300 witnesses public. that's what bennie thompson is telling "the washington post" in a new interview where he talks about a big potential move being considered, subpoenas from too -- two cooperating figures. >> if we can get the authorities and assurances that go with it, we'll do it. >> i want to bring in now republican congressman adam kinzinger of illinois, a member of the january 6th committee investigating the attack on the capitol. it's good to have you. >> thank you. >> can you give us any names or the soechbs the type of witnesses you're expecting to bring in? do you think it will include any white house staffers? give us a sense of that? >> i wish i could given you more details. i don't want to get ahead of the committee. i'll give you a layer, what is the role and what do we want to do. we want to take the information we know and we want to be able to paint a picture for the american people, and this is the key because, yes, any potential criminal referrals, all that stuff is important, but what's most important for our committee's work is to figure out what led to january 6th, you know, details about january 6th, and where have we gone since. and so we're going to put that display in front of the american people because they're the audience that needs to hear this. >> when you talk about the facts of the matter, former trump administration secretary stephanie grisham talked with her committee. since then she's publicly spoken what she spoke of in her words gleefully watching rioters storming from the capitol. do you feel like whatever she said cleared up questions about what donald trump was doing when they were silent at the white house? >> she and others. we want to get more information, talk to more people. i think it shows one of two things. so either the president, probably in his best-case scenario, was totally incompetent, totally indecisive and absolutely abdicated his responsibility to defend the constitution, or, and this is where we can get more information, you know, he was part of this, part of understanding what was going to happen. that's why the days leading up to january 6th in terms of him specifically, what did he know, who did he talk to are so important. you know, it's not -- it wasn't crazy to predict violence prior to january 6th. i predicted it. i know others did too. you have to look at social media. we know he stares at social media. it comes down to what did he know. that could be the defining moment as to what he did criminal or is it just terribly incompetent. >> this is getting to a key question i have for you, which is -- folks who watch the show know i interviewed dr. harry dunn who was at the capitol on the day of the insurrection. he said, listen, i can't have closure until i know more about the facts. there are some facts that come from, you know and i don't know. i wonder, do you feel like it is still an open question that former president trump was involved in perhaps preplanning and had some sort of prior knowledge of what happened on january 6th? it feels like now is that still an open question? >> i'll say this from my perspective and things that i know, there would still need to be from a kind of doj perspective more information to come out, depending on him. that's a big deal depend tong former president. but i think what we don't want to miss is the fact that the president of the united states has a responsibility, and he watched for 180 minutes as the capitol was basically occupied and borderline destroyed, and he did nothing. when the vice president has to make calls to send the national guard and he's watching television as the president, that in and of itself should be a huge, huge red flag to anybody. >> so given that, is it fair to say that at this point you do not feel like you have enough information right now to support a criminal referral against mr. trump? >> i don't want to say yes or no on that, i really don't. we want to gather all the facts we can. as you know, there are some outstanding court cases. there are a lot of people we have talked to. i don't want to get out ahead of all the information we gather and have. >> okay. i have a come more questions for you. former vice president pence, are there plans to have him come in? i know there are indications you would like to hear from him. >> we certainly would like him to voluntarily come in and talk with the committee. his staff has been more than helpful in shedding light on things. i wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want to in some way cooperate. i don't know if that means -- hopefully not a subpoena but maybe written answers to questions or a voluntary interview. we would love to hear from him. regardless of your opinions from him, he acted nobly despite the pressure and could have acted worse under the crisis but didn't. >> is that formal request for voluntary participation gone out yet or are you just saying you would like to hear from him? >> i would like to see him, hear from him. any request would be announced from the committee and would go out soonish. >> you and i spoke to exactly one year ago. it was a little earlier, january 7th, the day after the attack. we talked about the political climate and what you thought happened. i want to play what you said a year ago, congressman. watch. >> i think yesterday it became clear that the president is un-moored from reality and his oath. a peaceful transfer is essential right now to the continuation of this strong union. i think it's obvious that their own political survival demands what happened yesterday and it's going lead to something like this happening again or maybe worse. >> you saw what happened yesterday. i know that you were not there because i know your baby is going dom any day now. you're on labor watch. the cheneys were the only republicans seeing the event at the capitol. given where we are a year later, do you recognize your party? >> no, i don't. you know, it's gotten to a point where, you know, when i was 6 years old i became a republican because i liked the idea of strong national defense a limited go. i still believe in that. what has changed is the use of conspiracy, the absolute lack of courage to call it out, the fear that permeates leaders of the republican party against a man who is basically insane sending out press releases from mar-a-lago. it's unrecognizable. and it's sad because the republican party will exist and it's a major political party of the united states. we need conservative voices out there as well. and -- but it is lost in a lot of people's minds, any credibility, and it's going to take a while to get it back. look, we have a truth crisis in this party, and that is the first thing we have to get back to is truth. you can have different opinions, but you can't have a different truth. >> you describe it as sad, right? what has happened to the party. there's also something others would use is scary to describe, an erosion of confidence. republicans don't think their ballots are going to be counted. you wrote yesterday that things feel even worse than they did when the insurrection took place. how do we get to a place now where republican voters' faith in the election process is restored. the people you are talking about, the people who are identifying as conservative, as republican, how do we get past this moment this the democratic system? >> i mean, it takes -- it takes leadership, accountability. the january 6th committee is part of the accountability. i think media calling out lies is part of the accountability. people taking recognition of what they choose to believe and choose not to, that's accountability. because in self governance -- look at what is happening in kazakhstan right now and see what happens when people lose faith in governing system. the far right and far left, and everyone in between you have to have the basic concept that your vote is going to count and count fairly. when you undermine that through lies to people vie lens is not a surprise. it is up to leaders -- that's the name. your leader.you have to lead. and you have to tell people the truth. right now everybody has their head in the sand. what is winning reelection honestly worth if you can't actually do your job of telling people the truth or you are ashamed to look at yourself in the mirror? i can't answer that because i take a different approach. but i can't imagine being some of those that are scared to death of telling the truth to their own people. >> do you hear from them? candidly, congressman, to people talk to you much in your party anymore these days. >> a few less conversations. you know, we still have conversations. inevitably those that are i would call reasonable in what they know and understand and may say publicly, but not aggressively, they say, if i lose out, somebody crazier is going to replace me. that is true. but now is the time to speak out because it is either a slow train to crazy or a fast train to crazy when you have a chance to derail it. >> congress man adam kinzinger, thank you for being on the show. we appreciate your time. i know it is a crazy personal time for you as well. the select committee's investigation is mostly unfolding behind the scenes we did get interesting clues where it goes next from congressman kinzinger there. there was sleuthing on line that started almost immediately after rioters started infiltrating the capitol. trymaine lee is joining me now with a look inside those efforts and who is behind them. talk to us about what you learned about the online fight, the internet sedition hunters, if you will, to try to stop extremists. >> hallie, i learned a lot about this entire mission. i had a chance to talk to one of the true o.g.s of white supremacists and nazis and fascists, darld lamont jenkins. he described the battle to expose some of these bad guys as truly a mission to elevate good and take down bad. i had a chance to speak with him just before the anniversary of january 6th. this is what he had to say. let's take a listen. >> the capitol riot untolded on national tv. online sleuths took to their keyboards headley exposing identities of rioters and exposing personal details about them in real time. many of those exposed as having been at the capitol that day lost jobs, friends, even family ties and hundreds were arrested. while we learned that many in the crowd were not associated with far-right extremist groups the practice of outing people on line can be traced to one man who has used it for two decades to get under the skin of white supremacists, fascists and groups associated with those ideaologist. d.a.r.e. darrell lamont jenkins. he is the founder of one project and a man referred to as the anti-fascist doxxing guru. >> behind the scenes as a people we decided we are going to find out who they are and we are going to let the world know who they are. and it produced some positive results. >> did you ever seriously seriously fear for your life? is there concern that you might, you know, get hurt doing this work? >> you have to be. you always are concerned. you have to be prepared for that. because they tell you that they are trying to kill you. they tell you that they want to hurt you. i said okay, but i'm still doing the work. i'll just be prepared for when you come. >> on january 6th, 2020, jenkins was not at the capitol. he didn't get an in-person view of the crowd so he had to rely on photos and videos posted by the rioters themselves to figure out who attended the insurrection. if he had been there he believes he could have been more helpful in assessing who was who that day. >> i still kick myself because, remember, a lot of the footage and the sounds and things that we have today come from that side. and that side was doing a heck of a lot to try to scrub their appearances. >> a year later, the work of understanding how the insurrection happened, who the rioters were, and where they came from continues. professor robert pape analyzed the identities of more than 170 people arrested after the riot. he says 80% of those analyzed so far say they are not members of groups like the proud boys or oath keepers. >> when we are seeing is over and over in our studies that this is part of the mainstream, not just fringe groups. >> and the fbi continues to hunt them down, combing through thousands of hours of photos, cell phone reports, facial recognition technology and tips from internet detectives like jenkins. >> in order for us to defeat the hate mongering that goes on in the country today we have to understand who they are, what they are about, where they are and how they operate. we can't do that without docs. >> hallie, one thing we should make clear, those at the capitol that day were committing crimes, all docsing is not good docsing. there are people weaponizing docsing, anti-abortion, anti-vaxxers and the like. people have been exposing information like social security numbers and, et cetera. but darrell says this war is not over and they are willing to take these folks down by any means necessary. thanks to all of you for watching this hour of hallie jackson reports. we will see you back here on monday. deadline white house starts right after the break. deadline white house starts right after the break. ♪ who would've thought printing... could lead to growing trees. ♪ maybe it's another refill at your favorite diner... or waiting for the 7:12 bus... or sunday afternoon in the produce aisle. these moments may not seem remarkable. but at pfizer, protecting the regular routine, and everyday drives us to reach for exceptional. working to impact hundreds of millions of lives... young and old. it's what we call, the pursuit of normal. ♪ ♪ as a professional bull-rider i'm used to taking chances. but when it comes to my insurance i don't. i use liberty mutual, they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wooo, yeaa, woooooo and, by switching you could even save 665 dollars. hey tex, can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ what happens when you block heartburn onl with one prilosec otcd. in the morning? heartburn doesn't stand a chance - day... or night. excess stomach acid can cause heartburn. prilosec otc works differently by preventing excess acid production. so don't fight heartburn, block it. prilosec otc. one pill in the morning blocks heartburn, all day and all night. i was injured in a car crash. all day and all night. i had no idea how much my case was worth. i called the barnes firm. when a truck hit my son, i had so many questions about his case. i called the barnes firm. it was the best call i could've made. your case is often worth more than insuran call the barnes firm to find out i could've made. what your case could be worth. we will help get you the best result possible. ♪ the barnes firm, injury attorneys ♪ call one eight hundred,est resul eight million ♪ when i get a migraine, i shut out the world. but with nurtec odt that's all behind me now. nurtec is the first and only option proven to treat and prevent migraines with one medication. onederful. one quick dissolve tablet can start fast and last. don't take if allergic to nurtec. the most common side effects were nausea, stomach pain, and indigestion. with nurtec, i take on migraines my way. what's your way? ask your doctor about nurtec today. happy friday. it's 4:00 in new york. one of the most