[whistling] when you have technology that's easier to control... that can scale across all your clouds... we got that right? yeah, we got that. it's easier to be an innovator. so you can do more incredible things. [whistling] -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com the news continues. let's hand it other to laura coates and "cnn tonight." nice to see you. i am laura coates and this is "cnn tonight." we're seven hearings in and we're going into a great deal of alleged election interference, the president's refusal to accept his defeat at the polls,

not accepting the counsel of his real advisers, not the imposters, but those who were actual advisers, not just yes people wanting to tell him exactly what he wants to hear, even when there's clearly no evidence to support what he wanted to hear. but we have heard about the attempt to exploit the legal process, the department of justice, local election officials, and a relentless pressure campaign to what he called an attempt to stop the steal. the fact that nothing had actually been stolen, i mean, details. details, it seems. i'll leave you all to decide whether the hearings so far have threaded the needle or maybe moved your own needle. but we are seven hearings in and we're learning tonight that the january 6th committee's upcoming eighth hearing will turn to the number 187. that's 187 minutes where the president of the united states was radio silent. i mean, crickets. well, at least publicly. but what exactly was he doing for over three hours?

after the capitol had been breached and while he wait was attacked, while officers were valiantly fighting to protect members of congress and everyone inside that capitol? as witnesses described this mortal combat, almost a medieval-like combat, just what was the commander in chief -- the one who swore to do this -- >> i donald john trump do solemnly swear -- preserve, protect, and defend -- >> the constitution of the united states. >> -- the skugs of the united states. >> so help me god. >> so help me god. >> that -- that one. what was he doing for those 187 minutes while the american capitol was under siege? and so far we've heard mark meadows said, well, he didn't want to do anything. >> i remember pat saying to him something to the effect of, the rioters have gotten to the capitol, mark. we need to go down and see the

president now. and mark looked up at him and said, he doesn't want to do anything. >> and why wouldn't he want to do anything? why is that? >> he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. >> well, the committee seems to suggest that perhaps the reason he didn't think they were doing anything wrong was because, well, he inspired them to do it. >> he wants the american people to march on washington, d.c. on january 6, 2021. >> and now donald trump is calling on his supporters to descend on washington, d.c. january 6th. >> if necessary, storming right into the capitol. >> and just what was that call to action? well, a tweet. >> donald trump's 1:42 a.m. tweet electrified and galvanized his supporters, especially the

dangerous extremists in the oath keepers, proud boys, and other racist and white nationalist groups spoiling for a fight against the government. >> and although it was 1:42 a.m. -- i mean, the late hour should not fuel you. it wasn't a roommate's drunk dials. what happened january 6th? the committee says that was also no coincidence. i mean, you don't think that people just happened to have, say, the materials to build gallows outside the capitol at the spur of the moment, right? or that everyone just so happened to come prepared to march at the capitol on the same date at the same time? that's because the march at the capitol was the plan all along. and if the testimony is right, fringe right wing leaders knew it, people in the white house knew it, twitter employees may have known it, donald trump knew it. in fact, he repeatedly pushed to even join the march. >> i was aware of the desire of

the president to potentially march to the -- or accompany the rally attendees to the capitol. >> okay. all the people who may have known it, he didn't make those plans public, which might just have given law enforcement a chance to prepare that this was going to happen and in the numbers that it did. we'll talk to one of the officers who was attacked at the capitol in just a moment. but he knew before january 6 that a large crowd would march to the capitol on what? on the day they were supposed to certify the college results. i mean, look at this draft tweet. >> the committee has obtained this draft, updated -- undated tweet from the national archives. it includes a stamp stating, president has seen.

the draft tweet reads, i will be making a big speech at 10:00 a.m. on january 6th at the ellipse south of the white house. please arrive early. massive crowds expected. march to the capitol after. stop the steal. >> i mean, presidency in critical moments. for donald trump it might come down to those 187 moments, the 187 minutes when everyone from his family to his advisers -- again, the real ones, the people he watched on tv who were pleading with him, the 187 minutes when he seemed to have made a conscious decision not to use the tremendous powers of the presidency. ft and these powers, they were well known to the president of the united states. i mean, he'd used them before, like when he mobilized thousand of national guard troops in washington, d.c. or dispatched unmarked dhs forces at cities all across the country. or when he mobilized the

military at the border while championing them to use extreme measures. >> they're going to use lethal force. i've given the okay. you know, you're dealing with a minimum of 500 serious criminals. >> a minimum of 500 serious criminals. i'm thinking in my head all the people who have been charged or investigated from that particular day on january 6th. but serious criminals, he says, as opposed to, what, the paramilitary forces moving in formation or those with body armor and zip ties on them walking into the capitol? or those whose actions would ultimately leave five dead and police officers left with life long injuries. i wonder why didn't this warrant a similar mobilization from the commander in chief. maybe because he thought it wasn't personal enough. >> they're not here to hurt me.

take the mags away. let my people in, they can march the capitol from here. >> well, look, secret service, they did not listen to him, okay? they didn't just take the mags away, we're told, or let them all in. they were armed in some capacity, at least the ones he's referred to at that moment in time. but there was a mob that hung on his every word and tweet less than a mile away. >> what made you decide to leave? >> basically when president trump put his tweet out, we literally left right after that come out. you know, to me, if he would have done that earlier in the day, 1:30, you know, we wouldn't be in this -- we maybe wouldn't be in this bad of a situation or something. >> maybe. and if that was the power he held, i'm wondering why did he wait 187 minutes, tell them to

leave, or at the very least to stand back and stand by. >> i recall him being reluctant to film the video. >> so, it actually would take three attempts to get a video that finally said this. >> go home. we love you. >> well, my next guest was a top investigator for the january 6 committee. he left just a few weeks ago actually to launch an independent bid for senate in missouri. john wood, thank you for joining me. it's nice to see you. >> thank you, laura, glad to be here. >> john, i have to ask. i have talked about this important moment, 187 minutes. why are they spending, this committee, that part of time in the next hearing focusing on that? i mean, what about it is so encompassing? is it going to be the most inside look we've had to look to date about just exactly what the president was doing? >> i think the 187 minutes are absolutely crucial because there

are a lot of questions the committee's looking into about why there were security failures, the things that could have been done in advance possibly to have stopped this attack. but once the attack was underway, there was really only one person in the world who had the ability to stop it, and that was donald trump. so, the question is, why didn't he do more to stop it? what was he doing during that 187 minutes? was he asked to do something more? and if he refused, why did he refuse? the 187 minutes is kind of looked at as bookends between when the breach of the capitol occurred and when donald trump finally issued that statement asking people to leave. but as that clip shows, even that request that people leave was not very strong. he said something to the effect of, we love you, you're special, and then asked them to leave. so, there are a lot of questions about why donald trump, who is the one person who had the ability to stop the attack didn't do more sooner. >> it was not a condemnation. we love you does not say, stop what you're doing, it's the

wrong thing to do. it's kind of the idea of maybe it's the good parent saying, you've just destroyed this part of the house, but we still love you. it's not the kind of thing you want people to say. but i do wonder about how much of this is new. a lot of people have been watching on bated breath, the idea of each of these hearings. and you were part of this investigative committee just weeks ago. how much of what we're learning now is new? and is there a fear -- and i know full well as a prosecutor, privacy and recency. you're going to tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you just told them. but there is a tendency that redundancy can come into play and undermine what's happening. how much of what we're going to hear next will be new? >> i think we will hear new information. at each one of the hearings so far, the american people have learned new information about what happened on or around january 6th. so, i expect the same to happen in this last hearing that's going to be coming up next week. you know, it'll be hard to top

the drama of cassidy hutchinson's testimony from a couple weeks ago. so, maybe it won't be the biggest hearing ever. but i think it's really going to be significant, and it's going to help fill in those pieces of the puzzle about what happened on january 6th. >> one of the things we heard yesterday about congresswoman liz cheney was that the former president had called a witness that we've yet to hear from and that the person, i think, did not answer the phone or didn't go through. they told their attorney who then told the committee about what's going on. there had been some bread crumbs prior to this that had been laid out by congresswoman cheney and others that there was the notion of the former president is watching and the air of intimidation of some kind. i haven't yet -- i don't know who that witness potentially and whether it actually is intimidation. but had this been brewing for quite some time on the committee? was it known that there were other aspects like this that were happening? >> i think this was recent

information. we did hear from cassidy hutchinson's testimony that she had been given a message indirectly from somebody saying we know you'll be loyal or something to that effect. and then this information that the vice chair, liz cheney, just announced at the most recent hearing. so, this is new information. it's possible that there have been efforts all along to influence witnesses, but i think it's something that either is fairly new in happening or recently came to the attention of the committee. >> and we're learning a little bit more about the discussions happening between doj and the committee. they are not obviously on the same, you know, platform. their roles are different. one is legislative. one is prosecutorial. there should not be the overlap essentially to maintain the credibility. but we're learning now that there is more of an effort to share information at least from the committee to doj. why hasn't that been happening all along? any idea? can you speak to that?

>> well, yeah, these are two separate investigations with two very different purposes. and each of the investigations is ongoing. so, i think the house select committee was reluctant to share any information while they were in the most active phase of their investigation. of course their investigation is ongoing, but as they're wrapping up these hearings, they're getting towards the end of the active investigation and starting to focus on report writing. so, the justice department is going to have to pick things up. they're going to get a lot of evidence from the committee, but they're also going to get evidence through their own tools. and the justice department has to make decisions about whether to bring indictments. my own personal view is that that should be as free of politics as it possibly can be. and i'm concerned that whether the attorney general decides charges should be brought or should not be brought against people like donald trump and his close associates that he'll be accused of being political either way. so, the best thing that he can do at this point, i believe, is to try to take politics out of it as much as possible. and the way to do that is to

appoint a special counsel, somebody who's very highly regarded, and as apolitical as possible who can conduct an independent investigation without any influence or decision making from the political appointees at the justice department. >> so, not sidney powell? >> not sidney powell, no. >> i got it. thank you, john wood. i set you up. sorry. my sarcasm was supposed to translate over the air waves to you. i guess it did not. thank you for being here. i prirchlt. now, everyone, i want you to watch this and ask yourself, did it sound like the committee is sending a not-so-subtle message to the justice department? listen. >> president trump is a 76-year-old man. he is not an impressionable child. >> well, ahead, the pressure building on merrick garland as the doj investigation goes on.

legal perspective and trump white house insiders join me next. artburn... frank is a fan of pepcid. it works in minutes. nexium 24 hour and prilososec otc can take one to four days to fully work. pepcid. strong relief for fans of fast. if you have type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure

you're a target for chronic kidney disease. you can already have it and not know it. if you have chronic kidney disease your kidney health could depend on what you do today. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga is a pill that works in the kidneys to help slow the progression of chronic kidney disease. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections in women and men, and low blood sugar. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may lead to death. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. and don't take it if you are on dialysis. take aim at chronic kidney disease by talking to your doctor and asking about farxiga. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪

alright, limu, give me a socket wrench, pliers, and a phone open to libertymutual.com they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need... and a blowtorch. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis persists... put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable,... i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. check. when uc held me back... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc got the upper hand... rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections,

including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older... with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq... as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save.

ow this just in, we're getting brand-new reporting on president trump's actions following the january 6th committee's hearings. going to go straight to ryan nobles, who's on capitol hill. ryan, what are you learning? >> reporter: we're learning tonight from multiple sources connected to the january 6th committee that the individual who donald trump is alleged to have called shortly after cassidy hutchinson's testimony, and that person declined the call s a member of the white house support staff, a professional support staff that works in the white house on a daily basis. and that individual is someone who normally was not accustomed to getting phone calls from the former president. that's why they declined the call and then referred the information to their attorney. remember, laura, that the committee provided this information at the end of their

hearing on tuesday night. they didn't provide any information about this person's name or why they believed that there was an example of witness intimidation, but it said that it was something that made them very concerned. and that is why they referred that information to the department of justice. this provides us a little bit more context as to why they were concerned. this was someone who was not in regular contact with the former president. but it is someone who had unique insight into what was happening in the white house during that period of time and specifically aspects of cassidy hutchinson's testimony that they could either corroborate or maybe say something different about. and so that is why when they received this call that they were concerned, declined it, and then referred that information to their attorney. now, we know that the committee has had some communication with this individual. we don't know how extensive that communication is. the chairman of the select committee, bennie thompson, told us earlier today that this

person has not been formally deposed. that is much different than an informal conversation that is not under oath. the committee has had numerous conversations like that with other witnesses that don't necessarily rise to the level of a deposition or public testimony under oath, which we have also seen. but this is significant because it does give us unique insight into why the committee thought that this was a problem and why the committee decided to bring that information to light. chairman thompson also told me earlier today that we should expect to learn more about this phone call and why they believe it is a problem in the days and weeks ahead. so, this is a significant development, something that many people have been trying to figure out. and we can now report that the person who received this phone call was a member of the white house support staff who at least had some knowledge of cassidy hutchinson's testimony. laura? >> ryan nobles, well done. thank you so much. let's bring in our panel, elliott williams, olivia troye, and david urban.

first of all, they still called this person a witness. so, my ears peek up immediately. a member of the white house support staff, we're learning, someone is not accustomed to getting calling from the president declined the call. my personality, i would have answered it and hit record and listened as well. that's just me. elliott, the idea of having this call come in, what do you think about this? >> it's big. unlike you, laura, i see any number i don't -- i pretty much screen everything. different people -- i don't know if i would have taken the call. needless to say, this is a big deal for the president's intent, which is the one thing -- the big thing you need to prove to get to witness tampering. does the person intend to delay, prevent, hinder, tamper, or get in the way of someone else testifying. if this were ivanka trump or mark meadows or another person he was trying to call, it might not be so alarming even if they were to be a witness in a proceeding. the fact it appears to be a

junior support staffer ought to raise alarm bells for everyone. we talked about this just the other day on the program, just looking at the identity of who the person might be could really go far to getting close to witness tampering, at least investigation. >> the idea that tampering, that intimidation of some kind -- the idea -- it's not the most shocking thing in the world. >> i love elliott's enthusiasm. >> right. >> but, you know, number one, if it was a support staff person, i'm not sure how they're categorizing that. i saw sheila craig had testified at some point who was the white house photographer. >> we haven't heard from her -- or him. >> i'm not sure who it was. but just hear me out. so, when they say the president called and declined the call, i have to tell you, like, your phone doesn't say donald trump potus on your phone. so, i'm not sure how they knew -- oh, the president called. i declined. >> here's the thing, they knew enough to call their lawyer when they got the call.

>> here's the characterization i just heard. it's someone who was not used to deal being the president, not used to being in those circles. so, currently the president's assistant is molly meekals, right? so, you would get a phone call from either her phone number or a number you recognize. so, this is why i'm kind of questioning, how do you know it was the president? how do you know it was the president's assistant? how do you know it was coming from mar-a-lago? >> are you skeptical about something? you skeptical? >> i'm just saying. >> this is breaking news. olivia, though, on this point -- >> i don't know. i will say, when i heard that, my first reaction is, okay, he's worried. he's worried about this -- what this person knows. and so that, to me, stands out. because why are you reaching out to this individual? what is it about that person? whatever they know, whatever they saw, whatever they witnessed, are they the person -- was it the phot photographer? were they the person who runs

the white house communications? do they know the switchboard, the actions that happened? the dereliction of duty there? do they have first hand testimony? she's probably aware of that. given cassidy hutchinson's outstanding testimony, knowing trump they're going down the list because this is how it works with this inner circle. i've seen it first hand. they're going down the list and saying, who's vulnerable? what information do these people know? and we've got to get to them first is what i'm thinking. that's where my thinking went. >> again, i just don't know how we know it's the president. >> i don't know. >> i hear you -- >> it's up in the house -- >> you're right. i don't have -- i couldn't charge this at all. but let's assume for sake of argument there's some foundational reason that they knew that it was the president of the united states -- let's assume that for a second. i know it's an assumption and they have to connect the dots for me as well. if that's the case, should he be worried? >> yes. donald trump is not getting arrested tomorrow for witness tampering. and i'm with you, laura.

you could not charge this right now. look, i was at the department of justice a long time and have dealt with witness tampering cases. and during an ongoing proceeding, number one, you have the justice department investigating all this. number two, there was a hearing yesterday or the day before in which a number of witnesses came forward and it's ongoing. and a call from someone who might be the target or subject of this to a junior staffer? no, man. >> if he knew -- >> it's at least suspicious -- i think all the dots this committee is trying to connect on these hearings. they get more tenuous and tenuous, right? i mean, this is -- again, we don't know whether the president called. was it his assistant who called? who knows what the president said? they didn't take the call. you can't charge him with anything. >> i think this should be a song "it wasn't me" by shaggy. it's a good song but it could be the next -- i don't know your karaoke style. if you're doing that, i'm going to be there for it.

i have a lot of ifs. if it were the president that actually called, if the president knew this person was a witness -- mind you, we haven't heard from the person yet, so we don't yet know. this is why i want to know what the call was. it made them raise enough alarms to have them contact their committees and tell the committee. there's been ideas before about the bread crumbs of so and so is watching, i want you to know they're watching you. innuendo is not going to cut it in a legal courtroom. >> i sat here for the first impeachment, second impeachment, bombshell coming tomorrow, never comes. >> seditious conspiracy, it wasn't me, obstruction against the united states, it wasn't me. >> why is your a frank sinatra version? >> laura, come on. >> we'll choose everyone's karaoke songs in a moment. we're going to continue this conversation after a quick break. i'm going the hear them all sing. and, kyle, well, he's keeping calm witith another day

to adjust his balance if h he overdraws by more than $50. overdraft assist from chase. make more of what's yours. time. it's life's most precious commodity, especially when you have metastatic breast cancer. when your times threatened, it'hard to invest in your future. until now. kisqali is helping women live longer than ever before when taken with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant... in hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali is a pill that's proven to delay disease progression. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain... a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. your future is ahead of you,

so it's time to make the most of it with kisqali. because when you invest in yourself, everyone gets the best of you.

there's a reason comcast business powers more businesses than any other provider. actually, there's a few. comcast business offers the fastest, reliable network... the protection of security edge... and the most reliable 5g network. want me to keep going? i can... whether your small business is starting or growing, you need comcast business. technology solutions that put you ahead. get a great offer on internet and security, now with more speed and more bandwidth. plus find out how to get up to a $650 prepaid card with a qualifying bundle. hi, my name's steve. i lost 138 pounds on golo and i kept it off. so with other diets, you just feel like you're muscling your way through it. the reason why i like golo is plain and simple, it was easy. i didn't have to grit my teeth and do a diet. golo's a lifestyle change and you make the change and it stays off. golo's changed my life in so many ways. i sleep better, i eat better. took my shirt off for the first time in 25 years.

it's golo. it's all golo. it's smarter, it's better, it will change your life forever. all right. let's bring back elliott williams, olivia troye, and david urban. we've got big news out saying it seemed to be a white house staffer, they believe, who was the person that received a song. they did not accept, told their attorneys about it, they then told the doj. olivia, you mentioned you think

it indicates the president was scared. you know how this white house operated. the idea of assuming this was the president that called, what makes you think they're so frightened? >> i think it's paranoia by them. i think they're concerned. i think they're worried somebody is going to corroborate what cassidy hutchinson said in their testimony. i think it's twofold too. i think that individual is probably nervous and scared too. i think -- i think that's probably why they referred it to their attorney. i think they're probably concerned. they're worried about what happens next. if the president -- you know, if the former president is calling you, it's probably not for a good thing, especially during the hearing we saw that there had been messages of intimidation to some of the witnesses they displayed. so, i think when you take that into context, i'm thinking he's thinking, okay, who else knows about this that can justify it or corroborate her information and make it look even worse for him. >> you're nodding along. you think there's fear at some point? >> again, i don't think the president fears much, unfortunately. >> valid point.

>> i don't. i don't think the president fears much. i don't think he's sitting back at home saying, i'm afraid of this or that. i don't think he -- i think he looks at this as a challenge. he's been through all these impeachments and nothing's happened. and every day, as i said before, there was indictment coming down. this is going to be the end of donald trump. here it comes now. wait until tomorrow. it's the end. all right. so, again, i think donald trump sits and looks at this and says, okay, very interesting. i think most republicans, as i've said, across america aren't paying attention. they're not tuned in. they're kind of -- they think this is first impeachment, the second impeachment. they think this is just kind of a -- more of the same. >> i don't -- i don't want to interrupt you, but i want you to explain. a part of me just can't buy that. i understand the idea of the presumption of a partisan witch hunt. i get that. but up until a few months ago, liz cheney is not really a r.h.i.n.o. adam kinzinger is a republican.

these are republicans who are testifying. that doesn't matter you think? >> i don't dispute that. i think the testimony we've heard is compelling, watching these folks come up and say their piece. i just think it doesn't matter to a large amount of people. i think that, again, they're weighing -- they're looking at their current economics or their circumstances in their life, right? the previous -- some previous segments today said, look how bad america is feeling about the economy, about the future of our country, about all these things. and they weigh that against this guy, donald trump, well he may have done some things wrong, but things were better then. my 401k was better. i could fix my washing machine, we didn't have these bad things happening. i think that's how people live in the real world. there are a great deal of people who are concerned about what happened on january 6th. they do find it troubling. but i don't think they make a connection that there's a nexus between donald trump saying do this and people breaking through the windows of the capitol.

they're grown adults. >> talk about the first impeachment, which was more abstract, international. people didn't have their heads around it. there was a concrete thing that happened on january 6th. and it's not just charging people breaking through the wall. we were talking about when we were having our throwback to 2002, i named two or three crimes. there's obstruction of justice, intimidating an officer, obstruction of official proceeding, obstruction of congress, all these crimes that came up in connection with january 6th. it's a fair criticism that you have vandalism charges and destruction of property, but a whole number of crimes that people watched on television took place. i think it's fair that trump derangement going back to the first impeachment is something many people don't really have much use for anymore. but this is something different. >> we'll see. obviously the committee's job is to help enlighten and give the information. they're not prosecutorial. >> right. >> but their job will be to essentially speak to the court of the public electorate. thank you, everyone. we'll be back nay moment.

what do you and we all make of this moment, this one, when a convicted rioter went over to some of the officers and apologized. is this committee doing enough do you think to investigate how so many officers were even put at risk? one of those officers are going to join me next and talk about it.

my tribe has lived on this land for 12,000 years. we call it oleyumi. you call it california. our land, our culture, our people once expansive, now whittled down to a small community. only one proposition supports california tribes like ours. while providing hundreds of millions

in yearly funding to finally address homelessness in california. vote yes on 27. tax online sports betting and protect tribal sovereignty and help californians that are hurting the most.

steven aer says he was a family man. after buying into the 2020 election lies, he says he answered president trump's call to come to washington and march on the capitol. after testifying yesterday, ayers apologized to some of the officers assaulted. that includes michael fanone. he's also the author of a book coming out this october. it's called "hold the line: the insurrection and one cop's battle for america's soul." michael, good to see you. i have to know what your reaction to that moment was. i was watching it in real time, watching all of you. and i -- i wondered what you were thinking in particular. >> i really wasn't thinking anything. i was caught off guard. i definitely was not prepared for that. no one had let us know that that was going to take place. and you know, i think a lot is being made about that moment. and i don't know, i'm more

concerned with focusing on the future of our democracy and ensuring the security of this country. i think there's time for, you know, kumbaya and holding hands. we can do that later, after we've held people accountable for january 6th and for the crimes that were committed that led to january 6th. >> in a way what you describe is pretty selfless n line with what you would expect from a police officer, to think it's not about me, it's about what's happening around. but to date, we have seven hearings in, we haven't really heard much, except for that first public hearing many months ago from officers like yourself testifying on the hill. do you think that the committee has given enough attention to what you all faced that day and any shortcomings about why there was such an outmanned and outgunned and out-weaponed force

that day? >> i mean, yes and no. the committee dedicated an entire hearing to officer testimony. they also included carolyn edwards' testimony in the first of the, i guess, you know, most recent set of hearings. so, i guess in that regard, i mean, they have represented law enforcement proportionate to the other hearings that they've had. but that being said, i don't think law enforcement's contributions to securing the capitol on january 6th have been appreciated appropriately by -- by anyone, most importantly the current administration. >> you know, on that note -- and you want to hear more about that -- i want to play for you what sergeant ganell -- we know he is an officer who sustained

injuries that are unable to be overcome. he cannot return to the force. you watched him -- it was heartbreaking to see the reaction even now that he cannot be a part of what he wanted to do. let's listen. >> it's a life-changing moment for me. i had to plan now instead of celebrating a promotion as soon as i pass the lieutenant test, now i have to plan my retirement and my life with those injuries. when i leave the department, it's not under my own terms. >> i mean, what is your reaction? you say this administration is not doing enough to recognize. could more be done to recognize what's happening to him? he's not leaving on his own terms. he was forced out based on what happened on january 6th to him

and so many others. >> i know gonell personally, and i'm pretty well versed in his experience. unfortunately, it's very similar to many officers' experiences when they suffer career-ending injuries. you know, he's had to jump through a lot of hoops with u.s. capitol police. i mean, it's very similar experience with my former department. you know, unfortunately, the agency isn't, you know, a hand-holding, loving entity. it's just an agency. and it works the same as most government agencies. it's indifferent to the personal experiences of its employees. >> wow. what could the administration be doing? >> i mean, listen, the police officers that responded on january 6th are solely

responsible for the safety and security of the members of congress that day, their staff. yes, we lost lives. fortunately, it was, you know, only a few lost lives. however tragic. we did not lose any members of congress, which we've seen over these hearings was the intended goal of many of those who came to the capitol that day. you know, i was the disappointed to see that, you know, president biden didn't include any members of the metropolitan police department or the u.s. capitol police, for that matter, in his recent honoring of, you know -- or awarding of presidential medals of freedom. i know that the congressional medal was given but only really in an honorary fashion. you know, we give awards in the military and in law enforcement for a purpose. and to recognize the sacrifices of the individual officers,

members of the military, and their efforts. and unfortunately, it's just fallen by the wayside. whether it's political or whether it's just, you know, indifference or moving on to more important matters. >> michael fanone, it's important to hear from you. >> thank you, ma'am. >> thank you. well, i wonder, will these be your choices in 2024? they look awfully familiar, don't they? well, look, new polling shows that neither of these men should assume anything is certain. the surprises in the numbers next. worth is giving the people who build it a solid foundation. wealth is shutting down the office for mike's's retirement party. worth is giving the employee who o spent half his life with you, the party of a lifetime. ♪ ♪ wealth is watching your business grow. worth is watching your employees grow with it. ♪ ♪

only two things are forever: love and liberty mutual customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. if anyone objects to this marriage... (emu squawks) kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ with less moderate-to-severe eczema, why hide your skin if you can help heal your skin from within? hide my skin? not me. dupixent helps keep you one step ahead of eczema, with clearer skin and less itch.

serious allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems such as eye pain or vision changes, including blurred vision, joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines without talking to your doctor. ask your doctor about dupixent. are you predicting a biden trump rematch for 24? >> i'm not predictive. i would not be disappointed. >> biden said he would not be disappointed with a 2024 rematch. is that what america wants? democratic congressman, joe kelly. david, i'm glad you're here. do people want that rematch? >> i certainly want joe biden to be our president in 2024.

it's up to donald trump and it's up to republicans to decide whether it should be donald trump again. >> is a good thing if he runs again? if it's not trump, -- >> i think it's a disaster for our country. i don't think it's a good thing for the country. i think tactically for the president, president biden, one of his greatest strengths. he is a good man. i believe one of the essential reasons that he won, because of the contrast between his decency and his dignity, his respect for other people. verses, the chaos and obscenity that is donald trump. i actually think that matchup

is at biden's benefit. >> there is decency and inflation rate >> jill biden ran on a bunch of promises and a bunch of things he's going to do. he's a very nice person to i'm not going to knock him as an individual. he is doing a terrible job as president. you can be a nice guy and so be terrible president. the poll numbers show that, clearly. he ran not being united. bringing america together. it became more divisive. if biden would have come in and did, build back better and a couple small things, you guys would've been in power for 100 years. inside, he came and tried to do too much. he got nothing done. >> you don't have an opinion about this? >> let's correct the record. first off, he came in the midst of a massive global pandemic disaster. he passed the rescue package.

>> because of the jump vexing. >> and his ministration deserves credit for the development of those vaccines. president biden, i think the administration did a much better job. past the biggest structure. under term, it literally became a tagline and a joke. the president is continuing to deliver. if republicans were willing to address some of these major issues, the climate, longer- term investments, taking on china, they are now holding china with a supply-chain role, thing if you do something on climate and a lower healthcare costs mama will not work on

anything. >> he's good. he's really good. the american people aren't buying it. it's as simple as that. they are not buying it. they are not buying it. that's why you will see all of your former colleagues the unemployed in a few months. they will all be looking for jobs because nobody in america wants to see what's being pursued by the biden administration. otherwise, you would not be losing all the seas. there would not be this fear amongst democrats nationwide. >> lore, the poll that you referenced have democrats up. 41-40. it is a poll that has it basically even. disastrous as my friend says things are for the president, he based on ultram. statement that may have been -- joe kennedy, dave irvin. thank you, so much.

we will be right back. >> tech: when you have auto glass damage, trust safelite. in one easy appointment... ♪ pop rock music ♪ >> tech: ...we can replace your windshield and recalibrate your advanced safety system. >> dad: looks great. thanks. >> tech: stay safe with safelite. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? safelite makes it easy. >> tech vo: you can schedule in just a few clicks.

and we'll come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> man: looks great. >> tech: that's service on your time. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ you never know what opportunities life will send your way. but if you have moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, enbrel can help you say i'm in for what's next. ready to create a bigger world? -i'm in. ready to earn that “world's greatest dad” mug? -i'm in. care to play a bigger role in this community? -i'm in. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, helps stop permanent joint damage, and helps skin get clearer in psoriatic arthritis. with less pain, you're free to join in. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have

an infection like the flu. when opportunities come your way, be ready to say i'm in for what's next. ask your doctor about enbrel.

hey, thanks for watching everybody. i will be back tomorrow. don lemon tonight starts right now. don lemon. hey, don. hi, i will see tomorrow. i will see margaret's store lock forma president trump to call in number of the white house staff who was talking to the january 6th committee. that's in addition to the person that committee cochair liz cheney talked about yesterday at the hearings with the sports staffer was not somebody who routinely communicated with him. he was concerned about the content that's according to sources. informed their attorney. this is a big development. we will have a lots more in just a moment and we have a reporting on