charter has invested billions in building infrastructure, upgrading technology, and powering opportunities in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a television service, giving you a front rosita dimock -- front row seat to democracy. >> our newsletter "word for recounts the day for you. scan the qr code at the right bottom to sign up for this email and stay up to date on everything happening in washington each day. describe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect to this -- to subscribe any time. host: joining us this morning is katherine keneally, a strategic

analyst here to talk about domestic threats and strategic groups. what is your group and what sort of tracking do you do of these groups we are talking about? guest: thank you for having me. the institute of strategic dialogue is a local organization that looks at extremist threats across the ideological cash. both ms to extremism -- both domestic extremism and right-wing extremism. we tried a variety of groups as well as a loose network of individuals affiliated with extremist. what the end goal of the informing policy is identifying threats. these threats can be specific individuals, a specific trend we are noting, or it can just be threats to the election.

there is a broad range. at the end of the day, it is getting a better understanding of what the threat of extremism is, how we prevent it and how we respond. host: how do you track these groups and keep tabs on them? guest: the internet is a very expensive place. most of our efforts are primarily online. so, through our individual research, we have a large group of researchers who are in spaces from meta, instagram and other normal mainstream social media platforms. this is how we often describe them. groups or platforms like telegram or fortune. these extremist sites where manifestoes are posted before they attack. we look at groups operating on

there as well as the trends we are observing on those platforms. it is a very, very expensive way of looking at it. because these groups can be so difficult to track. host: can you give us names of some groups that you track that are hopeful names to people who are watching this morning? guest: i think it is important that we do look at these groups but that we understand there is a broader umbrella or broader spectrum of groups and individuals that are online. yes, that can be groups like the proud boys, patriot front, to our operating not only online but engaging in real-world activities like but we saw in idaho a couple weeks ago and proud boys attending lgbtq+ events over the summer. in addition to that, what is

really important to hit home here is it is not just the groups that are concerning. we see individuals jump from group to groups frequently depending on where they live, who they are networking with. the group is less important. what is important as the spread of these bullies and the spread of this violent rhetoric and extremist ideology online that people are radicalizing through. that is split is really more important. because, in reality, you could look at every article and know everything about patriotism but you are really only getting a tiny sliver of what that threat is. guest: -- host: you meant and what some people may say are conservative groups or right-leaning groups. are there left-leaning groups or people who are posing a threat? guest: sure. the far left and the far right

both pose a threat in some way. what i think is an important to characterize his yes, both are politically charged. i will not disagree with you. i think it is important to know this indicates there is an interest in violence with "far". that data shows that what we are seeing online is the far right poses a much greater threat. we are seeing everything from the attack in buffalo, to el paso, to the attack at the ohio fbi facility last week. you are seeing and proud boys attending lgbtq events such as dry cream -- drag queen events. we are seeing an increase in numbers of threats targeting election workers which we saw during the primaries that makes election officials leave their jobs. these threats by this extremist

rhetoric, which is certainly increasing, is largely emanating from the far right. host: what do you think is bubbling under the surface that our decision-makers here in washington are not taking seriously enough? if that even exists. guest: the threat of domestic violence extremism is very urgent and it is very real. i do want to stress that it is not new. we have seen this type of extremism for decades, if not longer. we have seen a resurgence of the kkk. we had the order in the 1980's carry out a string of bank robberies and assassination against a jewish talk host. we have seen militia groups engage in standoffs with the government. it is not new. what is new is we are seeing an

increasing shift from rhetoric, this violent rhetoric we have seen post donald trump's weren't in an mar-a-lago, to action. that is largely driven by an increasing number of americans who believe it is socially acceptable to engage in violence in response to police, social policies, and events they do not believe in. that is a very concerning trend we are seeing because if you look at recent polls, if you are going online, where people are feeling emboldened to engage in violence. that is socially acceptable which most of us think that it is wrong to engage in palm -- violence when hearing about a new immigration policy. but we really need to pay attention to is why did you feel emboldened to engage in violence? why do people feel that is something that is ok and what we

are seeing is much of this rhetoric, especially after mar-a-lago, is that high, mainstream individuals are amplifying this rhetoric. amplifying this violence that is directed at everything from the government to democrats to people of color and members of the lgbtq community. these are high-profile individuals who have power and they are emboldening americans to act on the words they are saying to get legitimacy to the violent records they are sharing. that is something that enough people truly are not paying attention to. if we do not, i am quite concerned that this will get out of hand. host: i want to show you and our viewers a moment from the january 6 committee hearings that took place on july 12. committee member jamie raskin asked jason van tilton half, a

former oath keepers spokesperson about the motivations of the oath keepers founder, stuart rose, in the january 6 attack and president trump's group. [video clip] >> in the run up to january 6, stuart rose publicly important trump to end -- invoke the militia act. i want to get your thoughts about this in the context of your prior relationship with stuart rose. and understand that you had conversations with roads about the insurrection act. why was he so fixated on that and what did he think would enable the oath keepers to do? >> i think it gave him a sense of legitimacy that it was a path forward to move forward with his goals and agendas. i think we need to quit mincing

words and talk about truth. what it was going to be was an armed rental -- armed revolution. people died that day. there was a gallows set up in front of the capital. this could have been the spark that started a civil war and no one would have won there. that would not have been good for anyone. he was always looking for ways to legitimize what he was doing, whether by wrapping it in the trappings of it is not an militia but a community preparedness team, there are not an militia but at educational outreach group or a veterans support group. again, we have to stop with the dishonesty and the mincing of words and call things for what they are. he is a militia leader. he ran visions of being a paramilitary -- he had grand visions of being a paramilitary

leader and the insurrection act would have given him a path forward with that. the fact that the president was communicating, whether directly or indirectly, messaging gave him the nod. all i can do is think the gods that things did not go any worse. >> what to the oath keepers see in president trump? >> they saw a path forward that would have to legitimacy. they saw opportunity, in my opinion, to become a paramilitary force. [end of video clip] host: katherine keneally, the outcome of what you saw from the former president and the leader of the oath keepers and this paramilitary group. what is the threat of that? guest: i think that the threat that we saw during january 6 with a variety of groups,

including the oath keepers, feeling like they could obtain legitimacy through this act is a concern. one thing that i want to stress is that there was any attempt to do so, that was one of the many reasons why the january 6 hearings are so important and why americans, if you have not washed or have not paid attention, go back and do so. it is a concern. the oath keepers are just a small subset of the number of individual groups who showed up to obtain power, sought to promote their ideology on january 6. those efforts have not ended sense. we continue to see a number of individuals, groups, recruits ratifying other individuals. that is why paying attention to what happened at mar-a-lago is so important because a number of individuals are using mar-a-lago and spreading territorial claims that -- from everything to the

fbi is corrupt to most importantly, the u.s. government will be coming after you next. when in reality, that we should be doing is looking at this and recognizing that all americans should be treated equally under the law, whether you held presidential office or not. the use of big events is not a similar to something we have seen in the past. you can look back to 1992 with the ruby ridge -- the killing of key weaver -- it sent a very similar message and it was that the u.s. government is going to come after you next. if they are going to kill a mother who is this ideological failure to them and holding their 10 month old child, they are coming after you now. that point in history was a major surge in recruitment for far right groups and militia

groups. that is what we are seeing with mar-a-lago. they are using this moment to recruit individuals on this theory that if this search warrant can happen, they are coming after you next and that is why you have to act. that is why it is important to pay attention to this because it is a very important moment in very important for us to recognize they are doing that so we can stem the flow of radicalization and shift to extremism. guest: jerome in d.c., an independent. caller: good morning. host: good morning, question or comment? caller: i was wondering what data is your guest's organization has accumulated in reference to the black lives matter movement? guest: that is a great question. the black lives matter movement is really -- we look at

extremism across the ideological spectrum. extremism, by definition, is groups that seek to and cite societal change typically through violence. not through peaceful protesters. it is important to know that while there have been incidents, black lives matter is not something we track. in reality, tracking has a negative connotation in the first place. we do look at all extremism across the ideological spectrum. host: what about antifa? guest: similar to that, in that again we look across the ideological spectrum. regardless of whether it is far light -- far right, far left or conspiracy. the important case is indicators of violence. sharing propaganda that is

calling for specific acts of violence. it could be trying to look for endeavors against violence. the key here is violent action. should we see specific groups radicalizing online for that purpose, we are looking at that. guest: ross in kansas city, democratic caller. host: weaker television please and then go ahead. caller: i was actually calling. i think you switched topics on me. but, the problem that i see is that while they rated trump -- raided trump's place, because he already proved that he is a criminal. then, also, prepared to use the big lie with making this racial

tension grow. also, trump knew that he really stole the election and just will not give up the ghost. and, right now, she is just raising money for his own copper -- coffers because, i just feel that way. i know that is just terrible because he has raised millions of dollars trying to perpetuate his -- saying his candidacy. but, in the past, he has not paid his bills. host: i'm going to jump in. katherine keneally, the racial tension aspect of those comments. guest: for a variety of these ideologies, race is an essential key to this.

but it's the premises or white nationalists, whatever you want to call the key suspects is essential to this. it is important to take away here is that words matter. when high-profile individuals, trump or whoever, spread conspiratorial things or violence, hostile rhetoric directed at people of color or immigrants, it is important to know that while they may be not directly calling for violence, it does embolden certain individuals to take action against those groups. and, in a lot of ways that is often violence. the key here is noting that words matter. what type of mainstream media and other groups say, it matters and has an impact that is really important to know. host: here is a headline from abc, jumping off what the callers said.

why is it that they are able to capitalize on what happened at mar-a-lago? guest: similar to was i previously noted about the shifting narrative and claims that the u.s. government will be after you next. this can be used to radicalize extremists and also be used as a fundraising effort. when you are told that the government is going to be coming after you next, when you are online in these echo chambers, be it from strange media or social media or your friends or whoever you are following online, whatever you are reading, and you are repeatedly being told this is going to happen to you next, it is fear mongering. that is essentially what we are seeing here. the use of this event can spread to your surroundings and is

being used by them to fund raise because they are spreading this fear that really is unfounded. host: overton, nebraska. jerry is a republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: i know you do not want to talk about the left extremists like antifa. but, we are in courthouses and the hundreds of hundreds of cops that were hurt and the left turning people against the police. i know you do not want to talk about that but you have to be fair on that. host: let's take that point. guest: i hear you. i come from background of an nypd intelligence analyst and there has -- a threat to law

enforcement is something i take seriously. andy recognize the across -- i do recognize the across the ideological spectrum, law enforcement is targeted. the difference that we need to note is that the messages are being used by these groups are different. yes, we have been seeing an increase in the number of law enforcement that have been targeted and entered in the last year. but the difference in the message is what is important to pay attention to. frequently, the far left engage in demonstrations, protests that do sometimes result in violence. more frequently with the far right, but what we are seeing with the far right is an increase in propaganda. a very dark propaganda, featuring the murder of police officers in a video that is being used to radicalize individuals to specifically target law enforcement.

if we look just to last week, when an individual attempted to kill a fee i agents in response to west -- hill fbi agents in response to what happened in mar-a-lago, those are the tactics we are seeing. yes, i will absolutely say that the far left, when actions are taken, they do sometimes target law enforcement. but if you look at the data and what is being spread online, it is not beating the level of threat we are seeing with the far right. host: here is a joint bulletin issued by the fbi and homeland security department. since the eighth of august, 20 22, the fbi and homeland security have identified multiple articulated threats and calls for the targeted killing of judicial law enforcement and governmental officials associated with the palm beach search. anchoring the federal judge who approved the search warrant. the fbi and dhs have also

observed the personal and to find information of home addresses and identification of family members disseminated online as additional targets. what you make of this joint bulletin? is this unusual and what is the efforts here? what is the goal in releasing this? guest: i want to stress that again law enforcement as frequently targeted by these groups. we can look back to june when there were 31 patriot act members arrested in idaho. that similarly led to calls for doxy which is what you sent, releasing the virtually identifiable information of the officers involved. it also resulted in a number of threats targeting these individuals. what it make of it is similar to what i am noting is specific high-profile mainstream individuals that are emboldening these people to target law

enforcement officers as well as traditional figures. it is -- it poses a major threat. again, it involves the targeting of the fbi office in ohio last week. this poses a risk not just for the officers and the agents but their families. and, this increasing hostile environment -- hostile and violent rhetoric is not only going to hurt them but has become socially acceptable. this will not be the last time we see law enforcement targeted. if we are not paying attention to that now, the next event that happens -- who knows when, could be tomorrow -- is something we are going to continue to see. host: anthony in north carolina, democratic caller. caller: thank you.

as an intelligence officer, who has a few years in that field, some keywords that we always have to look at our "truth" and "trust". therefore, let's look at it in this perspective. truth and trust are the ebony and ivory of leadership. only making music like a piano went side-by-side and properly tuned. and, these threats and extremist groups that we all would encounter or have encountered always have a musical background to them. any campaign has music to keep them going. then, constantly tuning, tuning things up and then finding

alliances so they can figure out who can be side-by-side. i always liked it when c-span does this. what is your top story for 2023? and several years ago, greta, you and i spoke and i talked about propaganda. propaganda is a way that you can destroy your adversary without having to build expensive systems. because, you just destroyed the individuals who are going to be using those systems. host: ok. katherine keneally, is shaking her head. go ahead. guest: the emphasis on truth and trust. i echo that. i think, you make a really fantastic point. the problem that we are currently seeing though is there are nefarious actors.

there are individuals who are using their microphones be it elected officials or individuals with their own media platforms that are spreading claims, the are frequently false or are violent the are vitalizing people and they are able to do so because they are viewed as a honest and trusted source. and, when people recognize that they have that power, it is much easier now that we have social media and the ability to reach her own profiles online and her own media sites. it is powerful. there are good people using this and that will using this. the problem right now is the that people using this are often in high positions of power. again, this continues to show

that words truly do matter. i really appreciate the point you made. host: kelly in texas, a republican. caller: good morning greta. a lot of c-span. i will be really quick. number one, an hour ago i saw liz cheney on your program. she was talking about how we must stand up with any means necessary to prevent donald trump from reentering the white house. to me, that is insurrection talk . maxine waters, of course get loud, get in their face, give them no peace. also, the protests that were allowed to continue in front of the justices homes that continued today and are illegal. two days ago, i cite hearing on c-span where he called out that the doj gave them the statutes of the laws that are being broke. because it is intimidating.

also, your guest mentioned how the right is saying the government is coming after you. as soon as the abortion ruling hit, all of the left said look out, you are next. the government is coming after you next. that is fear mongering also. you have to be on both sides when you are talking about the stories. host: go ahead katherine keneally. guest: thank you. i hear you. we look at extremism across the ideological spectrum. i am not here to comment on specific efforts to prevent trump from running again or specific policy efforts. but, i do hear you when you say that currently saw an increase

in violent rhetoric post the overturn of roe v. wade. you are absolutely accurate in saying that there was an increase in calls for violence. the difference is that this -- these calls for violence, these hostile responses to the overturn by and large we have seen a significant decrease in that sort of rhetoric since the overturn -- the increase in that sort of rhetoric since the overturn. how is that different? for mar-a-lago, versus the lgbtq events like dry-cleaning hours, we have seen sustains -- sustained violent rhetoric coming from the far right. the difference is that post roe v. wade overturn, there has been a decrease but we are not seeing that come from the far right. this is something that has been continuously and increasing over

the last few years and there is no signal it will sop. that is why it is something we need to pay close attention to. host: what is read message to political leaders of both parties about the words that you see? -- that they use? guest: clear and simple, words matter. i worry that they show people, look at the attack in ohio. if you look at the number of comments on the video threat he was watching in the two years leading up to the attack, he was watching a lot of high-profile individual who are in the mange and -- the mainstream. and you can see when he is walking -- watching videos that may be targeting democrats or specific policy, it elicited a very hostile environment. in fact, one of his responses to a video about monkeypox in june

in which he stated quite literally with legal force for freedom of the american way. americans did it before and can do it again. when you look at the videos the individual was commenting on, i think there are a lot of lessons that can be learned from that. that is what we would see on the surface is -- of a news media piece about monkeypox. how it is framed in that video, i am not here to shame, elicited a very violent response. in response to this video, there were a couple thousand responses that the individual posted. take a look and reassess her language before you say it and see how people might respond to this and how michael feel emboldened by what -- how might people feel emboldened by what i am saying. we are seeing media sites engage

in warlike rhetoric that is only making things worse. media should be here to report the news honestly and it should not be used to spread this more alike -- this warlike rhetoric that is the balding people to engage in violent action. host: donna in wisconsin, independent. caller: she brought up rudy -- up ruby ridge. everyone should have been outraged. the government was wrong. when any white person is mad and said stuff on the internet, they are somehow a terrorist but black lives matter is not. there is something wrong with your thinking. we have a right to see what we want to say. i am sorry she wants to censor everyone. what ruby ridge dead and brought up was wrong. people should have been outraged and if she was not, there is something wrong with her. guest: i appreciate your

comment. but, what i want to note is there is certainly a difference between free speech and rhetoric that is violent and indicates groups are radicalizing and that you are playing to engage in violence. free speech as part of the american way. it is one of our many rights. but there is a difference when the speech that you are using is purposefully and tactically being used to encourage people to engage in violence. ruby ridge, yes, i think it is -- the killing of a mom is obviously horrible. but the take away from that is extremist groups took this incident and took this mess up by the government and used it as a radicalization tactic to

recruit far extreme -- for extremist groups. that's the difference. it is not just individuals saying democrats think online. it is groups and individuals using online platforms to radicalize for the purpose of violence. that is not something that extreme speech protects. when you are trying to gain people's trust to join your group so that way you can overthrow the government. that is not something that should be ignored and not something that should be covered. host: wake forest, north carolina. jason, a republican. good morning to you. caller: yeah, whatever. let's read this. "domestic terrorist threats and extremist groups close. you know what the largest domestic terrorist threats in the country are? the media. you are the domestic terrorists and extremists and the people

who sat on three well lack there -- while black errors -- terrorists burned down buildings. i watched a family shot in the head because they had a puerto rican flag on their car. did you ever call them -- host: there going to move on. kathleen in kansas, democratic caller. caller: i would like to bring us back to the point of why are so many of these people in my mind, seemingly above the law? look how many times trump was asked to turn these documents over. when was it they discovered he had them and they asked him, the archives asked him to turn these documents over. you cannot have them. now, he was given every chance. so then, yes, they did a search warrant.

now, what was it? the next day or the day after the warrant, the statement trump made. he specifically mentioned that for all he knew the fbi could have planted evidence so then who goes and runs with it? the lindsey graham's and all the others who start repeating it. then how many days later? the fbi office is attacked. do not tell me -- listen to the words this man said. he incites this stuff and start it and then he can sit back while everybody else runs and does it. it is like a wink, wink, the fbi could have planted. we know we all should be outraged. it is so obvious to me the correlation between things this man says and then the people in congress who the republicans are still under trump, they just

take this and run with it. it is so sad. host: i will have cap respond to you. guest: i appreciate what you are saying. yes, this yes this rhetoric is stirring the pot. we are in a situation where it is leading to the spread of conspiracy theories online. i want you to notice how dynamic the threat is. it is not solely because of trump or one person. the thing i want to stress here, only until we recognize just how this -- dynamic this threat is can we find a solution to it. the solution will require changes in social media platform policys. retraining of law enforcement, increased accountability for

people who are ample fine -- amplifying violent rhetoric that leads real-world action. it is worsening the situation, but i want to stress that the problem we are seeing, the very real insurgent threat of domestic violence extremism is because of this much larger and more complicated issue. >> catherine brought you in as a consultant to change their platform, what would you suggest ? guest: one thing we have frequently been seeing is there a number of friends websites. --frige websites. websites that would not appear in a google search that is it sharing extremist propaganda. we are seeing websites like meta, twitter are not -- people

are using their platform to link to these websites of concern that are radicalizing people. making sure that we are finding these websites that are frequently in youtube comments that are directing people to very violent propaganda is something needs to be addressed. that is one of the ways they are gaining access to it that you would normally ever come in contact with. what is happening through meta, through twitter, through tiktok -- >> you must arrest this on a website c-span.org will take elect of the cato institute to the discussion of sweden's response to the covid-19 pandemic and how it compares to other nations. this is live on c-span now, our free mobile video abbott also c-span.org. >> many -- countries curtailed