i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is.

president trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. what happens when the president disregards the court's rulings as illegitimate, when he disregards the rule of law? that breaks our republic. president trump is a 76-year-old man, he is not an impressionable child. to my republican colleens, you are defending the indefensible. there will come a day when donald trump is gone, but your dishonor whether remain. no man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again. he is unfit for any office. >> hi, everyone, so, 5:00 in new york. if the disgraced twice impeached four times indicted ex-president

has a nemesis or counter, someone who will hold his feet to the fire with facts, it is indisputable done most capably by liz cheney. she was -- that was just a bit of what she had to say and do there, fearless. viewers of this program are well versed in cheney's remarkable work in shaping and helming the january 6th select committee's investigation and questioning we heard, as well as the production and execution of the public hearings. what we have not hear yet, until now, is what it was like, what that existence was like from her perspective. what it was like when an angry mob stormed the u.s. capitol on january 6th. in her new book, "oath and honor," cheney shares her harrowing experience on the day, on january 6th, writing this, quote, there was a commotion at the front of the chamber.

speaker pelosi's security detail evacuated her. i have never seen or heard of a speaker being evacuated from the chamber. it was clear we were facing some kind of security threat and there was no question what had caused it. i looked over at representative jason smith, sitting in the front row. jason had been one of the members arguing in favor of the objections. the c-span cameras captured me and i pointed at him and said, "you did this." i was angry. "you did this." congressman jamie raskin looking down at his phone said, quote, liz, there's a confederate flag flying inside the u.s. capitol. i couldn't believe it. that hadn't happened even during the civil war. my god, jamie, what have they done? the unmistakable sound of rioters pounding on the doors outside the chamber was getting louder and louder. inside, capitol police were slamming doors shut and locking them. we were being locked in.

jim jordan approached me. quote, we need to get the lies off the aisle, he said, and put out his hand. i couldn't believe what i was hearing. really? he and his co-conspirators in the white house and congress had provoked this attack on the heart of american democracy, and now he thought i needed or wanted his help? i swatted his hand away. get away from me. you effing did this. as jim scurried off. there was another announcement from the capitol police. we have tear gas in the rotunda. please be advised there are masks under your seats. please be prepared to don your gas masks. there was an awful din in the chamber as the whine of the gas masks mingled with the sounds of members calling loved ones and preparing to fight the mob. the pounds outside of the doors seemed to grow louder. i remember thinking it sounded like the mob had a battering ram. suddenly, people were running in

the aisle at the back of the chamber. the mob was battering the doors to the chamber itself, atteting to invade. members of congress and plainclothes capitol police officers were rushing to find whatever they could, benches, desks, chairs, to barricade the door and defend the chamber. what sounded like gunshots, but was likely stound of glass shattering, filled the air. people began yelling, shots fired, get down. a member of congress, his voice filled with fury, yelled at the mob, stop it, you sons of bitches, stop. there was only one person they would have listened to. the man who provoked this attack, the man who mobilized this violent mob and sent them to the capitol. the man who for months fed his supporters lies that the election had been stolen from him. the man who told them that they had to fight like hell to save their country. that man was sitting in his dining room at the white house two miles away, watching tv coverage of the attack on the

u.s. capitol. donald trump refused to tell his mob to leave. it is heartpounding, i've read it three times. it is essential that you read it, and we are honored to have you here to talk about it today. i am marked, as i'm sure you are, and it comes through on these panels, by the accounts of 9/11, and for the first time, you seem to give some texture to the way that the law enforcement officials who protected the capitol that day, in some ways, rushed inside the burning towers, if that's a fair parallel to draw. >> well, you know, one of the things that i talk about in the book was a very intense reaction that i had actually, the first time i saw the video of vice president pence being rushed down the steps, evacuated from

his office in the capitol, and the image that immediately flashed in my mind was my own father -- >> to the -- >> exactly, when the secret service was evacuating him. and while of course on 9/113,000 americans were killed and this isn't to compare those two things, but i do think it's really important for people to understand and i talk about the speech president bush gave that night from the oval office, where he said the terrorists can attack the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot attack the foundations of our democracy. and i think that what we saw on january 6th was a direct attack on the foundations of our democracy, and as you have covered so well and extensively here, that threat remains and continues. >> i mean, i think one of the reasons we've been so fixated, i think is fair to call it a fixation, on your efforts to root out what's underneath how this came to be, is because we

don't have near the same tools to fight a domestic threat that has safe harbor, not just inside one of the two parties, but at the highest levels of that party. the current speaker, who you write new and riveting things about that i want to ask you about, today talked about blurring the faces on the security footage and the footage of january 6th. what do we do about that? >> i think it's a really important point, because i think that the way that we defeat this threat is through the truth, and for making sure people, as you said, remember the violence of that assault, and so, for example, you know, mike johnson has continued to claim that he's for transparency, that he's releasing the videos from that day, he had to release them. i don't know what he's waiting for. >> he's waiting to blur the faces. >> right. >> which he said is time consuming. >> yeah.

the other thing to note, the department of justice has already got all of these videos -- >> right. >> but i think it's really important, because what he's doing is actually -- he's released a very small amount, and he is suggesting, you know, every day that goes by, this suggestion that somehow he's going to release something that will change what happened that day, that will change the facts. and there is nothing that will change that violent assault, sol -- i call on him to release -- release them, do it now. >> i want to ask you about what you reveal in greater detail than i understood before reading all this, and that was his role in the objections, and his -- this sort of sticks in my brain from covering dominion, but the known falsity. it would appear from his own lawyers, the unconstitutionality of the objections. can you talk about his role? >> it's interesting, because i was so troubled by how destructive it was that i spent a lot of time on it in the book, and, of course, the book was finished and handed in in

september -- >> before he was speaker. >> before he was speaker. and he's someone who was a friend. we were elected the same year, and he holds himself out as a constitutional lawyer, but i watched throughout this period, time and time again, he would advocate things he knew were wrong. he would advocate positions he knew didn't have basis in the constitution. and when i would confront him and tell him that his legal reasoning was inaccurate, was wrong, he would often, you know, suggest that he agreed. and he did is the same thing with kevin mccarthy's chief counsel. he knew that he was making arguments for which he didn't have a basis, but he continued to do it. he was -- he was desperate in many ways for donald trump's approval, to be sort of in donald trump's inner circle, and i do think putting someone like that in the speaker's chair, as much as it pains me to say, is really -- is really dangerous

for the country. >> is he more dangerous than kevin mccarthy? >> he's smarter. >> that's not saying a ton. >> and i think that, look, both of these speakers, i think johnson has clarified the situation, he's made absolutely clear that the republicans in the house cannot be counted on to defend the constitution. now, certainly, as i write in the book, at every moment when kevin mccarthy had the opportunity to make a tough decision, he made the wrong decision, so -- this is not in any way a defense of him. i think both men are symptomatic of what's happened to our party. >> and what has happened? >> the party has become in many ways seized by a cult of personality. and, you know, i had a discussion, i talk about in the book with conde rice, who we both worked with, and this was

in the spring of 2021, and we were talking about this, she's obviously an expert on the former soeflt union, and i asked her, i said, are there any examples in history where a country has come through this kind of cult of personality? and she was quiet and paused and said, you know, not without great violence. but we have never seen it before in the united states. and it's what we're seeing now. >> do you think -- i've asked people that study democracies the same question and -- do you think that the violence is ahead or behind? >> i think that it may well still be ahead, i think the fact that, you know, you begin with former president trump and the extent to which he continues to make actually even more aggressive and more extreme attacks and claims, the kinds of things he knows caused violence on january 6th. you see -- you know, even if you

look for example at what was going on in the speakers race, when members of the house republican conference were receiving threats if they weren't saying that they would vote for jim jordan, and in one of the most chilling reported episodes, and i talked to a member who was in this meeting, when members were saying to jim jordan, look, we're getting threats of violence if we don't support you, warren davidson from ohio a jim jordan supporter, reportedly, you know, responded and said, well, that's not jim jordan's fault, that's your fault. and think about, you know, what that means, that acceptance of violence in our political system. >> i want to ask you what it means, because i -- i don't know if i read it and felt -- i will say, i read it and i felt all of the parallels to this time of great threat to the country that we served in government at the same time, and that was post-9/11, but what's so disorienting about this chapter is not just that we have fewer tools to address this threat, but that it masquerades and it

burrows in under legitimate functions, the speaker of the house, the front-runner for the republican nomination. and i wonder if you can talk a little bit about what you see as the way forward. >> yeah. you know, part of the challenge is, as you point out, it's very disorienting. you remember after 9/11, republicans and democrats together stood on the steps of the capitol and sang "god bless america." after the attack -- >> and voted 100 to none, the 99 to none, to the patriot act. >> this is a situation where you have the republican party actively trying to ensure that people -- actively trying to whitewash what happened on the 6th. and to collaborate with the former president. and i think that's a really important point, because the threat that he poses wouldn't be so significant if people had done the right thing, had said, no, he's not -- that's not who

we are. but instead, there's obviously this embrace of him, and this collaboration with the very damaging efforts he's undertaken. >> the threats of violence happened in the context of the speakers race, just now, the threats of violence are cited in a filing today from jack smith. it seemed part of the work of the committee to prove that the violence was the obstruction, of the official proceeding, and that was premeditated, that opposing the results of the election, and today jack smith goes back even further than 2020, but the committee develops evidence going back to july, and email, putting this plan in place, you're going to refuse to concede. rudy giuliani was drunk on election night, he's the one that they put out there to parrot the lie. everyone that you presented as a witness told trump the same thing, and i worked on those campaigns, you know, you bring

out the data guy, then you bring out the political guy, tells you where we fell short in the counties, and then you bring out the campaign manager and then you enlist the family to break the news. all of those people went to trump and told him that they lied. was that all -- were they not in on the fact that he never intended to accept the results, that it doesn't matter what they told him that night? >> you know, i think that what we saw and what was so important about the work of the committee was understanding and developing and uncovering the evidence that showed how big this plan was. and how expansive it was. and certainly, as you point out, you know, and in the committee's report, we put a chart in this report, very specifically, to say, you know, with specificity, these are the claims that donald trump was making, here's the day on which he was told, that specific claim was false, and here's the day, right afterwards, where he made it

again, to show he knew what he was saying to be untrue. and that was all part of this much broader plan that involved the pressure on the state legislators, it involved pressure on the vice president, on the justice department, and this was a story that wasn't developed by democrats, you know, we heard this evidence from republicans, and so, the republicans who, for example, were leading his campaign, his white house counsel, his acting attorney general, the most senior people around him, told him, this is -- you know, you have lost, and the claims that you're making are false. and i think that, you know, certainly those claims -- as well, one of the things we pointed out, was the extent he knew the potential for violence on january 6th. he certainly knew enough, as did some people around him in the white house, to cancel that rally. he knew that there were weapons in the crowd.

and yet, he told them to march on the capitol. and then, of course, sat for over three hours and refused to tell them to leave. so, there's no question about his intent, and there's also no question about the level of depravity, just from a human standpoint, of someone who would sit, watch that violence on tv, and not tell the people to leave. >> you also developed evidence, and jon karl released a tape that watching on tv was his second choice. his first choice was to be there among it. why is that important? >> i think that the extent to which we saw testimony, for example, from an official at the white house whose identity we protected, that made it very clear that what would have happened, that if he had marched up to the capitol, you would have been talking about a very different sort of situation. now, it certainly would have been an extension of what he did do, but there's no question that he -- he wanted to be there, he

was very angry that he couldn't be there, and that people within the white house were very concerned about the extent to which we could be talking about an actual coup if he, in fact, were at the capitol leading this effort, physically himself, to attempt to stop the counting of electoral votes. >> did anyone play out for you what he thought he was going to do there? >> we asked a number of our witnesses about that, and i think that -- it's something certainly i would anticipate that jack smith can get to the bottom of. there were all sorts of things that were proposed in terms of, you know, where the staff with him, as you know, when the president travels, there's staff that goes with him, where the staff was going to hold, and whether he was planning to go onto the floor of the house, what he was planning to do. i think that it's very clear that it was meant to be sort of the next step in his effort to stop the counting of electoral

votes and to seize power. >> one of the earliest things you write about is the toppling of the civilian leadership at the pentagon, the firing of mark esper and the installing of miller, patel, there's one other. what is your belief of what was planned for the four of them? >> well, that's one of the episodes in the book where i watched what was happening, real-time, and it was a significant enough concern to me just watching the news coverage as he was taking those steps, that, you know, we worked to get the living secretaries of defense to send a very public message about the extent to which people would face personal criminal liability if they took steps to involve the military in and election. we learned later that it was -- it was far worse, and i think actually, the letter itself likely prevented something far

worse. >> can name chris miller in the letter. of the secretaries. >> yeah. it was an intentional public warning. there were some suggestions that maybe what the republicans should have done would be to go to the white house privately and speak to trump and tell him, it's time to concede, but anyone who had dealt with him knew that wasn't going to happen. but again, the fact that the secretaries of defense had to write this public letter warning about the -- the illegality, the un-american nature of using the military to influence the outcome of an election, and later on, we learned, in fact, that when the secretary of the army, when the chief of staff of the army had issued statements in mid-december saying, again, what's very obvious, the military has no role in the outcome or the conduct of u.s. elections that donald trump sent johnny mcintee to deliver a message, which was, if you, apparently, if you do that again, you will be fired.

which tells you, again, about his intent. >> and chris miller confirmed they would be receiving that message. >> the president tore the letter into four pieces. >> right. i have to sneak in a quick break. we'll be right back. quick break. we'll be right back.

i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein! those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ugh. -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein, 30 grams protein, 1 gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals. and a new fiber blend with a prebiotic. (♪♪) he hits his mark —center stage—and is crushed by a baby grand piano. you're replacing me? customize and save with liberty bibberty. he doesn't even have a mustache. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ oh booking.com, ♪ i'm going to somewhere, anywhere. ♪ ♪ a beach house, a treehouse, ♪ ♪ honestly i don't care ♪ find the perfect vacation rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah.

♪♪ we come from a long line of cowboys. ♪♪ when i see all of us out here on this ranch, i see how far our legacy can go. now on sale at ancestry. (aidyl) hi, i'm aidyl, and i lost 90 pounds on golo. i struggled with weight loss and weight gain my entire life. with all the yo-yo dieting i did in the past, i would lose 20, 30, 50 pounds just to gain them over and over again. thanks to golo, i've been able to steadily go down the sizes in my closet and keep the weight off. for the first time in forever, i feel in control. (announcer) change your life at golo.com. that's golo.com.

in our nation's 246-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than donald trump. he tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. he is a coward, a real man wouldn't lie to his supporters. he lost his election, and he lost big. i know it, he knows it, and deep down, i think most republicans know it. lynn and i are so proud of liz for standing up to the truth, doing what's right, honoring her oath to the constitution. when so many in our party are too scared to do so. >> i don't know that i would live to see the day when your father called out a republican losing candidate for the presidency, and at the time, president, and the entire party then enabled him. >> yeah, i mean, it is -- it's

emotional. i think that in many ways, it's heartbreaking for my dad, for my mom. that that's where our party is today. and, you know, the -- my dad chooses his words very carefully. >> oh, i know. >> and so, i think that kind of a warning tells you how dangerous it is fundamentally to the survival of our democratic system to have a president who is willing to do the things donald trump did. >> let me ask you this. how did donald trump earn your vote in november of 2020? >> you know, i was representing wyoming, i voted with him in the house of representatives over 90% of the time. and there were many policies that he advocated that those in his administration, you know, some of them he may not well have even know about himself, but his administration was putting in place, energy policies, economic policies, funding for the defense department, that i thought were important and that were the

right ones. there were certainly times i disagreed and i spoke out when i did, especially on issues of national security. but i think that once we saw, certainly once we saw january 6th, but increasingly after that election and the leadup to january 6th, it became overwhelmingly clear that he was actually willing to do whatever it took to stay in power, and i think although i certainly regret my support for him, there's no question now that anyone would say, we don't know what he'll do. maybe we can trust that he'll uphold the constitution -- every day, he tells us what he'll do. and we watched it all unfold in real time. >> rachel had a great, i thought, term about your sight lines, right, like, you have access to pockets and places that as a former person that worked in the administration that i don't have. and some of those are people

that left for cause over national security issues. i mean, mattis leaves over cause. john bolton fought with donald trump because he wanted the taliban to go to camp david. he also called bill barr, thought that donald trump's foreign policy was corrupt with russia and turkey, could he look into it? general kelly. and i know you worked on the armed services committee, your relationships -- that letter from the former secretaries of defense was put together by you and your husband and your father, because you know these people. and you were raised in their world. looking back, do you think -- even putting aside the conduct around ending our tradition of a peaceful transfer of power, that there were national security reasons not to have supported him? >> look, i think certainly there were -- there were times when he did and said things that i thought were fundamentally wrong. and i said so at the time, when he stood next to vladimir putin in helsinki and said that he

trusted putin more than his own intelligence officers. and so, i think that, you know, if you list all of those people that worked for him, one of the things that we have to do over the course of the next year is put that back in the forefront of people's memory, so that they understand, these people, who swore an oath to the constitution, who know him best, understand that he is not fit for office. and that truth has to make -- has to be spread out there much more broadly than it is. >> i mean, there's been animating sort of call -- it has been the calls from inside the house. and in the beginning, they were few and far between. it was anonymous, who we learned was miles taylor. it was comey asking to let mike flynn go, it was the people trump fired because accountability inched to close to him. do you look back at any other efforts to hold him -- witness tampering is a cuple of

chapters in the mueller report. >> i don't think there's any way you can look back on the trump presidency with any sense of sort of, you know, any idea that it should have happened. again, as i said, i supported the policies in many instances, but i think clearly it would have been better for the country had he not been the president. and, you know, partly what we're dealing with now is a sense of people becoming numb to how serious the threat is. also people enabling him, and there's a really direct connection, as you know, between members of congress, you know, set aside those who are actively collaborating, we've talked about them, but there are others who just simply won't say anything, who know what he's done is wrong who will say privately that they know that, but who have been hoping he'll just go away. and -- >> mitch mcconnell seems to fall in that category. >> i have a lot of respect for

mitch mcconnell, i've known him for a long time, but his belief, you know, i think he probably thought impeachment itself was enough, i think if he had voted to convict, if he had pushed to have the senate come back into session, it would have made a big difference, and clearly -- you know, i knew at the time, it's more clear now, that ignoring trump will not make him fade away. that he is a threat that has to be defeated. >> he is running as retribution -- >> yeah. >> against people like you. he is running on charging general milley with treason. he is running on dismantling the department of justice and the fbi. these are not scoops from investigative journalists, these are the campaign messages. steve bannon has said they describe themselves as the trump-dividians. that was after launching the trump campaign in waco.

just with your vast knowledge of threats that are fostered and furthered by permission structure for extremism, adjacent to the acceptance of political violence, adjacent to conspiracies and lies, what is the threat? what is your warning? >> you know, the threat is exactly what you've laid out. the threat is that this is a man that we -- we don't have to guess what he would do. and in some ways, the extreme nature of the claims that he's making, of the lies he's telling, of the calling for general milley to be executed, those things are so extreme that what happens, sometimes, in our body politic is that people ignore it. people say, well, that's just him. and i think that the challenge that we're facing now is very clearly understanding and recognizing he means what he says, the people who invaded the capitol, frankly, on january 6th, you know, you can look at scores of those defendants who

have said, we came because he told us to come, he told us to do this. 1 he knows that people will follow his instructions. and if he's elected again, those guardrails, those individuals, for example, who stopped him, won't be there, and think about what it means to have a president who won't enforce the rulings of the courts? it's insane. >> it will be the unraveling of our constitutional system. and i -- every time people hear my former republican colleagues talking about the weaponization of the justice department, i really urge them to stop and think about what that is. that's republicans attempting to do donald trump's bidding, attacking one of the most foundational and important aspects of our republic, and the judiciary has been almost without exception in this absolutely stellar in terms of understanding the importance of this threat, and i think that's been something we should be very proud of as americans, that --

with an exception or two, it doesn't matter if these judges were appointed by democrats or republicans, same with the justices, they understand this threat and they are conducting themselves in the fair and impartial administration of justice that the country requires, and they have to be protected against the kind of attacks that you're seeing from donald trump and republicans. >> well, i was going to ask you, to your point, i mean, the 61 cases they brought, he lost all 60, because inside the court of law, facts to this point still mattered, and we still have this unprecedented threat from trump. he seems to have found an ability to work around those legal defeats. what do we do about the rest of it? >> well, i think that there's several things. one is, all of us have to make the kind of a commitment that will require putting partisanship aside. we have to say, not just with respect to him, but certainly with respect to trump, republicans who suggest that

somehow they would be willing to support him if he were the nominee, have to be held accountable. >> that's every republican running in the primary, i think, except chris christie. will you endorse anyone in the primary? >> i haven't decided yet. and i'm very conscious of not hurting someone by endorsing them. but again, the idea that you would say you're going to support a convicted felon if he, in fact, is convicted, which some of them have suggested. >> every one of them, but chris christie. have you talked to chris christie about endorsing him? >> i want to keep our discussions private, but again, i'm not -- i'm not endorsing someone, and i don't want to do that in a way that could potentially help trump. >> would you -- if the republican nominee is trump or someone who will pardon him or excuse him, would you vote for joe biden? >> i'm going to do whatever i have to do to defeat him. and -- >> trump. >> to defeat trump, and we don't know yet, exactly who the candidates are going to be.

and so, i think that that's the kind of thing that will become clearer certainly in the next couple of months, but i certainly would never vote for donald trump again and i'll do whatever it takes to defeat him. >> you're campaigning for some of the democrats who you served with in the armed services committee, was wildly successful. you are a powerful voice. you are more than a political player, you are sort of this call for duty, doing the right thing. i know there's some reporting that you'd consider reasoning yourself. is that something that you will consider even if it has the impact of aiding trump? >> no. i would not do anything that's going to help him. and i think we're at this really unprecedented moment where, you know, our system for so long has meant that we've got a republican candidate, a democratic candidate, and contemplating any kind of a third party run was something that, you know, most of us would never do. i think this is a different moment. but i'm not going to take any

steps, certainly, that will help him. i do think it's really important, though, that, again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan fashion, we work to defeat donald trump and we also work to defeat election deniers. and the threat of electing people who have the ability to determine whether elections are certified, for example, and who say they'll only honor elections that they agree with the outcome, you know, that also undermines our democracy. >> i have to sneak in another break, but i want to get in the weeds, i want to ask you about those people with their hands on the levers, because i think between you and judge -- i've googled the constitution more times than i care to admit. >> everyone should. >> the trump enables have found these little pockets, i won't say weakness, but what they view as opportunity. i want to ask you about those safeguards if you stick around a little bit longer.

we'll be right back. for the thinking person. viking - voted world's best by both travel + leisure and condé nast traveler. learn more at viking.com.

and we're back with the former vice chair of the january 6th select committee, former congresswoman liz cheney. i want to talk to you about jim jordan. he is fixated on, i think, the inferiority of his efforts and faux investigations to the select committee, seems to be holding himself out as someone

that could do something along the lines of what the committee did. he is now threatening to investigate -- let me read you some of what nbc is reporting. launching an investigation into what they say is collusion between fulton county d.a. fani willis and the january 6th committee. as we heard from jim jordan, collusion isn't even a thing. so what do you make of the obsession and the projection of people like jim jordan? >> i think that there's no question that jim jordan has something to hide, probably a lot to hide. if you go back and you look at, for example, the phone records, as well as, you know, what he has said himself about his discussions and his conversations with donald trump on the sixth, the very significant role that he played in the leadup to that, he was clearly one of the masterminds in terms of helping to facilitate donald trump's efforts to overturn the election, and, of course, refused to comply with the

select committee's subpoena. so, i think you have to imagine that he's doing everything he can to help donald trump, to do donald trump's bidding. and, look, i think that, you know, he has so many questions of his own to answer that, you know, people just need to go back and look at the record, look at how confused he has been when people pushed him, when did you talk to donald trump on the sixth, what was your role in all of this, did you make a request, for example, for pardons? but he's very clearly at the heart of -- of what was an attempt to seize power and overturn an election. >> do you think he has criminal exposure? >> i think that he has a lot of questions he needs to answer. and i talk in the book about his testimony in front of the rules committee, when we were working on the contempt resolution on steve bannon and i just would urge people to go back and watch the video of that testimony. he cannot get a straight answer out about his communications

with the president, even in the course of 10 or 15-minute period of time, so -- i think that the facts are real challenges -- present real challenges for him. scott perry also said a pardon. do you think he has legal problems? >> well, we know the department of justice has seized his cell phone. we know he was very directly involved and engaged in the effort to put jeff clark in as the acting attorney general. obviously the text messages that mark meadows turned over to the committee have numerous communications with scott perry, so -- and clearly the department of justice is investigating him. >> mark meadows comes up in the book in a lot of interesting and important and crucial places. he is a skilled lawyer. what do you think his status is right now? do you think he's a cooperate or the? do you think he's -- will be charged? >> i think that, you know, we -- we were surprised that the

department of justice, you know, chose not to indict him after the house had held him in contempt. and at the time seemed that perhaps he was cooperating, there was the whole question, to what extent does a former chief of staff have immunity. and the department of justice does not believe a former chief of staff has the kind of, you know, full immunity that he was claiming. so, i don't know the answer to that question. i think that what we saw certainly in terms of his dealings with the committee was that -- it looked to us like perhaps his own counsel was unaware that he had this message communications on his personal cell phone, and, of course, when george committed to the committee that he would hand those over if they existed and then it turned out that they, in fact, did exist, once meadows

had turned those over to the committee, his refusal to come testify, you know, clearly was con item shus, but it was not surprising that george did not want him to be in front of the committee, given the extent of the information that we had and given the likely legal jeopardy that would put him in. >> do you think that jack smith uses meadows as a witness in trump's trial? >> i hate to predict, but i would say that meadows clearly has very significant information. he, you know, was at trump's side for so much of this, and we know that through other witnesses who did testify, people like cassidy hutchinson. >> right. >> people like pat cipollone, people who came in front of the committee and testified truthfully, we know the role that meadows played. we know the role he played with trump, so, he has significant information. >> i was thinking of cassidy's testimony to you, that meadows

gives voice to trump's enthusiasm for the death threats to, quote, hang mike pence. and that seems central to jack smith's case. >> yeah, and, look, i think that the testimony of cassidy hutchinson was so important for a number of reasons. one, because it gave us such insight into what people like mark meadows were doing. two, because before her testimony, pat cipollone had not agreed to come to testify in front of the committee, of course, afterwards, we issued him a subpoena, he did appear and he did testify truthfully and obviously was very concerned about protecting privilege, but you know, he, in his testimony, made clear that there was one person, essentially, in the white house, who did not want the mob to leave. >> the only one was trump. >> right. >> i have a million more questions and one more chunk of time. will stay? >> i will, thank you. >> we will be right back.

the company goes to the first born audrey. the model train set is entrusted to todd. mr. marbles will receive recurring deliveries for all of his needs in perpetuity, thanks to autoship from chewy. i always loved that old man. what's it say about the summer house? yeah, the beach house. the summer residents goes to mr. marbles. plot twist. i'm sorry, what? doesn't make logistical sense? unbelievable. pets aren't just pets. they're more. you got a train set todd. save 35% off your first autoship order. at chewy.

i think i'm ready for this. heck, yeah! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college. kids moving back in after college. (applause) finally, we can eat. ♪ you know you make me wanna... ♪ and then we looked around and said, "wait a minute, this isn't even our stroller!" (laughter) you live with your parents, but you own a house in the metaverse? mm-hmm. cool! i don't get it. here's to getting financially ready for anything. and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha? ( ♪♪ ) i'm adding downy unstopables to my wash. now i'll be smelling fresh all day long. [sniff] still fresh. ♪♪ get 6x longer-lasting freshness, plus odor protection. try for under $5!

(vo) if you have graves' disease, your eye symptoms could mean something more. plus odor protection. that gritty feeling can't be brushed away. even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes. up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com hi, i'm kim, and i lost 67 pounds on golo. when i go out with people, they expect me to eat like a bird. they are shocked by the amount of food i eat while losing weight. with golo, i don't need a cheat day because i get to eat the foods i like

any day of the week. she hasn't left us yet. liz cheney is still here. i want to ask you what you want to say about the book and about the story and about the choices that you've made. i also want to ask you to say something about the clear affection you developed for a lot of people that before january 6th you may not have agreed with on much. people like jamie raskin and nancy pelosi and zoe lofgren. >> well, i think in terms of my fellow members of the committee it was -- i'm really proud of the work we did and the way that we worked in a non-partisan fashion. and we began when the committee started by saying what are all

the things that can go wrong? and why have all of these committees, congressional committees, they mostly fail? and we knew this one couldn't. so to the extent to which the members of the committee said all right, we're not going to put ourselves front and center, we're not going to all ask questions at every public hearing, we're going to be focused on the evidence itself was really significant. we would not have succeeded without that. and you mentioned jamie and zoe and certainly speaker pelosi, who deserves great credit for -- i think it was a decision that wasn't without risk to ask me to be on the committee given we're at totally different ends of the spectrum. but -- of the political spectrum. but also her willingness to make the tough decisions when we had to to ensure the litigation was pursued aggressively, that ensure that the facts were laid out in a series of -- multiple series of hearings. and i think that what people need to know about this story is

partly how quickly we began this descent into a party that is an anti-constitutional party now in so many ways, how quickly it happened. i've worked in countries around the world. obviously i've read the history of instances where people lose their freedom, where societies and nations lose their freedom. and i think like most americans thought it couldn't happen here. but i think the story of what was going on inside the house republican conference between the election and the end of the year last year is really an important one for people to understand how quickly this can slip away. >> are we in more danger now or less than we were on january 6th? >> i think that we are in more danger now because -- because january 6th was in many ways sort of a first attempt. it was a failed attempt. but all of those things that we had in place, all of those individuals who were in place would not be there again. and in the days just after

january 6th donald trump -- everybody understood, many people, most people understood on the republican side that he had to be held accountable, that he was responsible. that's what the republican leadership was saying. and so from that perspective we were at a moment when we could have turned away from the danger. but that didn't happen. instead the party has embraced him. >> you talked about talking to condi about lessons of history. therar no lessons of history where a couple gets this close and this intoxicated by propaganda and conspiracies and permissive of political violence and disdainful of their own founding document, the constitution. do you think we break the mold and become the first example of a country that can do that? >> i think we have to. i think that the role of democracy in the united states of america is more significant and important than any other country in the world, that if it fails here it can't survive anywhere. so i don't think we have a

choice. i think that's why this moment requires such a different perspective on our politics and a different commitment by everybody to stand against this threat. >> we've covered your every utterance, and i didn't think there was more to learn in the book, and i was wrong. and i read the book, parts of it twice, and i didn't think there was more to learn by your appearance but there was. and i hope you'll keep talking, and i hope you'll tell us. and i think it's so -- i've walked a different journey. but to sit at a place where i've earned the trust of people who mostly didn't vote for the people i worked for and still respect and revere is still a humbling journey. and i've found some parallels to your partnerships with a lot of democrats. and i applaud you for everything that you've done and everything that you've said and everything you've written. thank you. >> well, thank you. thank you for everything that you've done as well. >> i hope the conversation can be continued. >> it has to be. >> it has to be. liz cheney, thank you so very much. >> thank you, nicolle. >> the book is called "oath and

honor." it's a memoir and a warning. it's vitally important. you read it with a pencil and fold pages and you'll go back and read parts of it over and over and over again as the next 12 months take our country on the journey of a lifetime. quick break for us. we'll be right back. eak for us we'll be right back. i'm not just accomplished. i am accomplishing. so i'm doing all i can to help lower my risk of breaking a bone. for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture taking calcium and vitamin d may not be enough. adding prolia® is proven to help strengthen bones and reduce spine fracture risk by 68% with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions like low blood pressure, trouble breathing, throat tightness, face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems as severe jaw bone problems may happen with prolia®, or about pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred.

talk to your doctor before stopping, skipping, or delaying prolia®, as spine and other fractures have occurred. serious side effects, like low blood calcium, serious infections which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain have occurred. i have so much more to accomplish. talk to your doctor about prolia®. she runs and plays like a puppy again. his #2s are perfect! he's a brand new dog, all in less than a year. when people switch their dog's food from kibble to the farmer's dog, they often say that it feels like magic. but there's no magic involved. (dog bark) it's simply fresh meat and vegetables, with all the nutrients dogs need— instead of dried pellets. just food made for the health of dogs. delivered in packs portioned for your dog. it's amazing what real food can do.

so here's the thing about tonight's show. i disagree with liz cheney about everything. my whole adult life on everything in p