c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. "washington jou" continues. host: jonathan greenblatt is the ceo and national director of the anti-defamation league. talk about the mastic extremism. thank you for your time. what did you think about the information that was received and reaction from representatives? guest: we have been tracking extremists for decades. i would describe what january 6 was as the most printable terror attack at in american history. these white supremacists, they

told us what they were going to do. then they did it. you need to listen to these people and take what they say seriously. when the capitol hill police uncovered a plot to attack the capital, it is in their interest to take it seriously, require legislators to leave the building. it underscores the threat of the mastic extremism and their pension for violence. host: going forward, what happens to work on the capitol if these events impact what they do day today? guest: the secret service could neutralize those threats. i think we will have to see fortunately or unfortunately, a perimeter unfold around our

government buildings like the u.s. capitol to prevent these kinds of attacks from obstructing the day-to-day process of government. host: a perimeter like we are seeing now or harder? guest: i would venture to guess it would be harder. you might not need the tall chain-link fence with barbed wire on top, there are different ways you could harden the perimeter. domestic extremism is a clear and present danger. what we have seen is these individuals, these groups, they are willing to commit acts of violence to undermine democracy completely. we have to take that threat seriously. host: one of your associates is quoted in usa today, a senior research fellow saying looking at these kind of threats and also the story saying it would be wrong to think the q community had given up.

could you talk about the information you look for when you look at these threats? guest: it is fair to say that extremism today in america, the right wing variety is the one that we are most worried about. right wing extremism, you have white supremacists, you have armed militia groups, you have citizens. one of the new forces serving as an on-ramp to bring more people into this dark world is qanon. qanon is this mutating conspiracy theory. it is only a few years old. it spread dramatically thanks to social media. it is this notion that there is this deep state. there is a pedophile ring among the democratic party. they are trying to take over the government. there is long-standing

anti-semitic ideas. it is very hateful mythology. because it has spread so rapidly, it is constantly morphing and mutating. it is very dangerous. this idea that somehow the real inauguration will take place today, that notion which is popular really got accelerated thanks to qanon. there's a number of people out there who believe that somehow, someway that president biden wasn't truly inaugurated on january 20. that today's the day donald trump himself will come back and be inaugurated. you have to understand the nature of the conspiracy theory is when the facts disprove the rationality, they move the

goalpost. they change the story to fit the new narrative. march 4 becomes the symbol of a new hope. nothing is going to happen today. they will come up with new, irrational explanations. the qanon theory will live on. host: if you want to ask our guest questions not only about the events of yesterday but the larger issue of extremism in the united states, the work of the defamation league does in assisting, i think there is a story related to events in miami. could you talk about the work you do in the space? guest: we are the oldest anti-hate group you we have been fighting all forms of bigotry

since 1913 when the organization was first founded. a big part of what we do, we try to protect minorities. we do it in schools. we also monitor extremists. we have been fighting since the 1930's. adl helped to crack open the kkk in the 1950's. today we are using intelligence to monitor all variety of extremist groups. we've really got to keep our eye on the ball. after four years of donald trump who elevated these individuals to the mainstream, extremist threats will persist for a long time. host: greg is in colorado, democrats line.

caller: two points, number one, if they don't believe the president is sworn in until march 4, how to donald trump get sworn in on january 20? in my opinion, these people attacked members of congress, the vice president, just like we acute -- accused of muslim people of doing, they lost their right to be american citizens. they lost their rights to constitutional protections. we should not treat them any more or anymore different then we treat any other terrorist. we find out where they are at. hate to say it but george w. bush said you have to fight

terrorism no matter where it is at. it is in our backyard. treat it the same way we would treat anybody else. these people are killing americans. they are terrorists. don't call them domestic terrorists, right-wingers, militia groups. host: thank you. guest: i think he is hitting on a couple of important points. what happened at the capitol was not a riot. it was an attack. they were militants. it was the most printable terrorism attack in american history. extremists of this variety have it proclivity toward violence. previously the most violent attack was committed by timothy mcveigh. the bombing that murdered hundreds of people. this was in the 1990's.

it was to disrupt the very nature of our democracy. we are tracking these people. we are listening to what they are saying. we should take them seriously. they want to kidnap and kill elected members of congress. they want to see the vice president of the united states. there is nothing political about this purpose. we need to move past president trump, whose pension for these people is inexplicable. they are a threat to everyone, regardless of how you vote. host: california's next, this is sharon. caller: good morning, i would like to say first off that i kind of want to clarify what the qanon movement is, at least from my perspective.

i think the way it is being represented is not correct. it is really more about the journalist movement, the truth movement. i do talk to a lot of different people. i don't think q has posted anything in quite a while. the group is to try and solve problems with information rather than violence. i could tell you that my understanding of q and on is the absolute office it of violent. it is a shame to see that it is associated with white supremacists. host: hold on the line for a second. i want you to follow up. go ahead.

guest: i appreciate the question. the qanon movement may describe itself as a citizen journal movement. it really is little more than a conspiracy laundering agreement. qanon has the best if you will, it brings together classic notions of anti-semitism, xenophobia, a hatred of government. this notion that there is some deep state manipulating events. a group of people diabolically rearranging events. there is not a shred of truth to any of this. what is important to note is it is certainly true that many of the millions of people who shared these memes on facebook or are spreading theories on reddit and other platforms, if we look at the rally, the people wandering through the capitol

building, many had q flags. it creates a cover that you will -- if you will, for violence. even if the people pushing these ideas online don't commit the acts themselves. caller: one last thing i just want to say is in the late 90's there was two women that were a part of m 19, underground communist group that did bomb the capital. those women were pardoned by president clinton and they went on to become -- to this day they are still communist leaders. when he is saying the worst attack ever happened on the sixth, one example of a communist attack that was way worse.

guest: i am not familiar with that attack. there have been other attacks on the capital. i think what we need to acknowledge here is multiple people were killed. scores of capitol police officers were violently assaulted. three took their own lives in the days after the attack. the very process of confirming the election. the legitimate election of the president was interrupted. you have to go back to the war of 1812 to find anything remotely similar. host: there is a story this morning taking a look at the united states response. they highlight the fact that the biden administration said in his violence to further ideological goals such as those of

political, religious, and social. it also says nonetheless, current and former officials say that law enforcement has been slow in recent years to address that threat. have you describe that disconnect? guest: it is my opinion that the threat of domestic extremism has not gotten enough attention. president biden talked about the threat of white supremacy. a few days later the new director of national intelligence announced they would be coordinating a broad approach to examine the threat. i think merrick garland earlier this week -- chris wray on capitol hill. they're talking about putting resources against it. government moves slowly. we believe congress should pass

the domestic terrorism prevention act. this is circulating on capitol hill. it would formalize offices, authorize offices in different agencies to regularly report on this. it is one step in the right direction. you need to make sure they are resourced effectively. we don't need just a whole government approach. we need a strategy to tackle this threat. it starts with the president. making sure they are attacking it and giving it the attention it deserves. we need legislation from congress to help deal with this. we need to take other steps. there should be no extremists serving in government. not in law enforcement, not in the military. we need to adapt and adopt prevention measures to prevent

academic programs. people who are being learned by kieran on -- q and on. we believe facebook is the front line. the social media companies need to end their complicity with the scapegoating and allowing them to flourish on their platform. host: let's go to indianapolis on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a question i'm hoping you could help me with. the policemen who are out there shooting blacks in the back, unarmed black people, why is it that not more whites are against us along with standing up for blacks who are being shot in the

back? why is it they seem like they just don't care? guest: i think it is a very fair question. it is a painful issue. there is no excuse under any circumstances whatsoever for law enforcement to shoot unarmed people, let alone in the back when they are running away or thrown on the ground. what we saw last summer with the killing of ahmaud arbery, the murder of george floyd, the murder of breonna taylor. the fact of the matter is we have to deal with systemic racism in law enforcement. we work with law enforcement to track extremists, to investigate hate crimes. this is systemic racism in these institutions. for too long they have been part of the problem. there have been so many good people in these institutions.

this is inexcusable. i can't speak for all white people. but they need to be outraged. we need to demand these law-enforcement enforcement agencies do better. holding culprits accountable. so these issues will continue to not persist again and again. host: mark up next in kentucky. caller: good morning. do know it is interesting speaking of george floyd's murder, may he rest in peace. i hope his family as well. the technique the officers were employing at that time is a specific place technique, assignment of the knee to the artery. do americans know that our police officers across the country take field trips to of

all places israel, as crazy as that sounds and cross train with israeli forces? that specific maneuver was one they we learned in israel. guest: a few points. i think it is certainly true. it is interesting because the guys on my team. individuals who run the law enforcement analysis was a two decade veteran of the fbi who described to me after we watch that video that this was inexcusable in any circumstance. that technique is not learned anywhere. what happened was unconscionable during and it was -- it was outright murder. many of our law enforcement officials do education programs in many different countries. there is not a shred of truth.

there is not a scintilla of fact to the notion that american police do tactical training in israel and learn how to apply techniques like that. i don't know where you read that or where you heard that. what i could tell you i someone who has worked with a lot of u.s. law enforcement and israeli organizations, too, it is an absolute outright fiction. host: we have a viewer on twitter who asks who decides what constitutes extremism. who decides what is hate speech? guest: that is a fair question. we think of hate as an antipathy towards individuals or groups of people based on characteristics. their race, religion, gender. i will be honest, in the united states, the first amendment gives us so many rights.

it has given us so many privileges. we have to be willing to tolerate hate speech we don't like. we also need to clarify. there is a difference between freedom of speech and slander. there's a difference between freedom of expression and those that would incite violence. we need to draw some black lines. those things are not ok. when you suggest you want to hurt people because of how they pray or where they are from, who they love. that crosses a line that isn't protected under the first amendment, permissible in any place of business. people who make those kinds of threats seriously. they don't believe in the legitimacy of our government. they take action to try to undermine government at all levels.

that kind of extremism, everyone would recognize. that is not normal political behavior that we should be encouraging. host: oregon on the republican line, barbara is next. caller: someone was talking about hate speech. somebody should talk to nancy pelosi, who spread hate speech about trump for four years. she is the drama queen. she drove it for four years. she was the one i believe that is behind the insertion on the capital. she has made fear and all of this stuff happen. nancy pelosi has driven, manipulated evidence. lied, and brought false charges

against our president. that is a crime. nothing like this would even be happening. we need to take the fence down and stop listening to her obsessiveness about fear, she is the one driving the wedge between this country. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: nancy pelosi indisputably was not responsible for what happened on january 6. she did not call the rally, she did not encourage those people to try to seize the capitol building. she did not assault police officers. she had nothing to do with this. the bigger point i might take away is extremism and hate preceded donald trump and it will persist after donald trump. yet to recognize what happened is not normal. it is not something you see on a typical or political spectrum.

republicans and democrats, liberal and conservative, americans who care about the way society function should see the function and realize the threat it poses to everyone. they aren't asking them what party they affiliate with. they are checking to see the partisanship of the person inside. mike pence and nancy pelosi, -- from mike pence to nancy pelosi, wanted to kidnap and kill everyone. we do ourselves a disservice when we try to fasten this as the political spectrum, it is well outside the normal view of politics. host: how do we combat the rise of domestic extremism when misinformation spread by the internet are taken as truth by so many? guest: this is literally the

$64,000 question as they say. we try to understand, how did this happen? the part i think is broad, let's call it economic instability. jobs, the economy, the ability to earn a standard of living. you have changing demographics which fueled the anxiety. it is social media that allowed these conspiracies to spread like never before. conspiracies exacted -- existed long before we had facebook. facebook has been the biggest facilitator of this madness. we need from facebook, google, twitter, reddit, other platforms , we need them to take this stuff seriously. not allow the spread. you have already seen this.

we have seen donald trump was taken off twitter, let alone facebook and youtube. the misinformation on the platform dropped something like 97%. it is a problem that is bigger than one person. there are correct steps we could take in order to mitigate this threat and dial it down. host: another one of your associates said it is encrypted boards where people are sharing information. guest: no question. we try to understand, how is this threat evolving and where is it going to go? we are watching extremists who used to parade out in broad daylight on facebook groups or other platforms shift communications to encrypted applications like telegram, whatsapp, this creates a brand-new challenge not only for

organizations like adl but law enforcement which tries to stop it in its tracks. we need to get better at the investigative techniques we use. host: is this a case where the companies themselves monitor themselves and police themselves? or if this legislative in your mind? guest: i say this as someone who used to work in silicon valley. i spent a lot of time in the technology field. the reality -- i believe in the power of markets. i believe in the need for self-regulation. it has proved to be an insufficient condition to really control this threat. companies absolutely need to enforce terms of service and do a better job monitoring these issues on their platforms.

we need some degree of government engagement. host: jonathan greenblatt joining us. he serves as the ceo and national director. caller: good morning. i'm wondering why the media are still using the word or label proud boys. is that politically on correct? isn't there women involved too? guest: that's a fair question. the proud boys are a militia group. that is the name they use to describe himself. they are very misogynist, very chauvinist, very antifeminist. they are fairly anti-semitic. they style themselves as a militia, an auxiliary militia. since the attack on capitol hill

, even before that, members were arrested for vandalizing black churches. this group is trying to figure out where they go from here. so much public pressure has come down and law enforcement has come down on them. they no longer have the president telling them to stand back and stand by. i think we will have to see what happens to the proud boys. do they fragment? do they fracture? many times these extremists like the proud boys thrive on perceived grievance. they were elevated under the trump administration. already, law enforcement has to crackdown. that will literally confirm their narrative that they are being oppressed. they will get new momentum in my

calling said see a sense of renewal. they are being put back into the margins. see, we told you so? host: he was relieved. political reporting that. the judge saying there is no sign he damaged any property. once they got there, it is not clear what leadership role the defendant took to all people inside the capitol. guest: i have to learn a little bit more. i need to understand more about what the judge said. the bottom line is the proud boys are absolutely a terror group. they have used violence and enemies who are overwhelmingly people of color. ordinary pedestrians were caught

in the crossfire. this is not a boy scout troop. this should be confused with the rotary club. the proud boys are a violent, misogynist, anti-semitic organization. host: from the republican line, this is george. caller: yes. host: you're on with our guest. caller: that lady that talked about nancy pelosi -- host: do you have a direct question or comment? caller: that lady was talking about nancy pelosi, i agree with her. president trump was giving the national address, she should've gotten charged with destruction of government property.

she ripped those papers up right behind the president. if that was anybody else, they would have to have them removed from office. host: we are going to stop there. you testified the events of january 6, will you recall of what you said that they and where we are now two months later? guest: one of the points we dated, that i made in my testimony a couple weeks ago about what happened were facts that were then confirmed by director wray. this was planned. it wasn't incidental. it was intentional strategy to try to disrupt the certification process happening in the capitol that day. to kidnap and try members of congress and their staff. we know that because we

were tracking what they were saying. the proud boys and the others who descended on the building that day. it was quite disturbing. it is already two months ago. living with the impact of this for the next 10 years. my hope would be that whether you are calling on independent, democrat, republican, and the visuals who perpetrated that crime are criminals. they were committing something as close to treason as you will ever see. they need to be identified, arrested, and tried. host: from florida, the independent line. tim is next. caller: i have a couple of questions. all i've heard him talk about so far is white supremacist. i've never heard him say it -- anything about antifa, the blm

movement, everything. i was born and raised in chicago for 15 years. i went through all of the integration of schools up there. then we moved south and i have lived south fork 28 years. you guys like to throw around this expression, systematic racism. that definition only came about a year ago. somebody made this request. when we were growing up -- everybody in america has prejudice against each other. you have prejudiced amongst the african-americans that are against other african-americans. the same thing with hispanics and white people. everybody looks down on everybody. identity politics has been a part of this system for probably

over 25 years. it is been portrayed by the democrat party predominantly. you had president obama that say republicans want to put you back in irons and chains. host: since you brought up a couple of points and then you made a direct statement there, we will let our guest respond. guest: one of the things is certainly true. extremism -- no side if you will, no political party, no ideology is exempt. extremism could happen on the right, the left, if you come from special interest types.

you look at the last several decades, we have seen animal-rights extremists, environmental extremists. today it is right wing extremists who pose the most significant threat. we had a record number of hate crimes and a record number of extremist murders. they were overwhelmingly committed, almost all of them by right wing extremists. we are still tabulating the 2020 numbers. is antifa a problem? sure. is there any equivalence between antifa and these other groups? there is not. antifa was not in the capital. they are not an organized movement that expresses violence and murders people. the last thing i will say is prejudice is not new. it could happen regardless of how you vote or politically

identified. it happens among all different groups of people. i thing we should distinguish between an individual having views and systemic racism. this is what institution enabled through practice, they are marginalized communities. we talk about systemic racism towards african-american people, you have to acknowledge there are patterns. the law enforcement system. employment systems. they historically discriminate against african-americans. it is borne out in fact. decades of judicial decisions of research and scholarship. i don't think it is any specific geographic place.

we just have to deal with it. we have ideas and strategies. the reality is something that is sort of impossible to ignore. host: stephen california texts us saying anyone wearing a mag hat publicly is an extremist. that is what he seems to be saying. guest: not every person who follows donald trump or wears a maga hat is an extremist, i never said that. i will clarify that right now. the reality is on that day you had the president encouraging the obstruction of our democracy. that is what he said. that is what he tweeted. that is what he repeated. that isn't actually a revelation i'm sharing here. what i found alarming was not that these militants rampage the

capital and the capital and assaulted these police officers, it represented not just a watershed moment for white supremacist because they were able to take the building. it represented the normalization of extremism. thousands of people came to the capitol who didn't participate. the hard core militants were able to sweep some of these people into that criminal event, it reminds me of what we are seeing in parts of the middle east. al qaeda and isis have radicalized large populations and brought them into our -- their acts of terror. not everyone that wears a maga hat is an extremist. if we see some of those people take trumpism and see this notion that you could undermine our institution. that you could denigrate our

society. that is deeply problematic, regardless of how you vote. host: i apologize for mispronouncing your last name. guest: that is ok. don't worry about it. caller: good morning. i was not born in this country. i am from europe. i just wish when they come to these programs -- antifa stands for anti-fascist,

i was born in spain. i saw one of the senators -- antifa is anti-fascist. the once you vote for trump who talk so much about antifa, that is what i want to know. the people of this country to clarify that. 99% of them don't know the difference. host: thank you. guest: first of all, i appreciate the person sharing

their story. i could only imagine what it was like to live through francos spain. fascism is not new. fascism, we see it in front, mussolini, hitler's, stalin was a fascist in many ways. we see these authoritarian governments around the world in turkey, hungary, russia, other places that resemble the classic fascist model that was so frightening and brought so much suffering to the world. i think some of the people that participated in that attack in the capitol, extremists what they say and the glorification of the authoritarian lr.ririan . from an independent judiciary, a free press, a civil service, to

a democratic congress. all of these things are quite frightening. they have echoes of history. you have to pay attention to that. host: this is jonathan greenblatt, he is the ceo of the anti-defamation league. you wantg, subtitle e, testing. contract tracing activities, section 2402, >> u.s. senate working on the covid relief plan calling the american rescue plan. they were tied 50-50. and vice president harris came and broke the tie and third tie-breaking point. senator ron johnson waived to reading of the bill and looks like the clerks in the senate are under way reading that 600-page bill that is expected to last five hours or so before

any debate begins on the $1.9 trillion measure. 20 hours of debate expected. follow all of that on c-span 2. now, executives from solarwinds, fireeye and microsoft testified before a joint house hearing on the solar winds hack that compromised u.s. government and private sector services. how and why the hack happened, whether classified government information has been compromised. this is just over 4 1/2 hours. >> the committee will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. mrs. maloney: good morning. i want to welcome everyone to this joint hearing to the committee of government