continues. joining us this morning is katherine keneally she is here to talk about domestic terrorist threats. what is your group and what sort of tracking do you do of these groups that we are talking about? guest: thank you for having me. the institute of strategic dialogue is a global organization that looks at extremist threats across the ideological spectrum. both domestic extremism to islamic radical extremism. what we do is track a variety of groups as well as a loose network of individuals affiliated with extremism. what the end goal is informing

policy as identifies and threats. these threats can lead to individuals, specific trends that pose threats. or it could be threats to the election. there is a broad range, but at the end of the day, it is getting a better understanding of the threat of extremism is, how we can identify it and move on. the internet is an expensive place and most of our efforts is online. through our individual research we have researchers are in spaces such as meta-, instagram and formal social media spaces and french spaces.

there are platforms such as for chan places you would see manifestoes posted. we look at both groups that are operating on there. it is a very expensive way of looking at it. these groups can be difficult to track. host: can you give us names of some groups that you track that are helpful names to people who are watching this morning? guest: i think it is important that guest look at these groups that we understand that is a broader umbrella, a broader spectrum that are radicalizing online. the proud boys, patriot front that are operating online but are engaging in real-world

activities like in idaho such as proud boys that are attending lgbt q activities. we see individuals groups, the group is less important. what is important is the threat of this violent rhetoric that people are radicalizing through. that is what is more important. these specific groups, you can read literally every single article, every single thing about patriot front and you are just getting a tiny sliver of what that threat is. host: you mentioned 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 it is important to characterize is that both of those are politically charged. i will disagree with you. far indicates that there is an interest of violence. what the data shows the far right poses a much greater threat. we are seeing everything from the attack in buffalo to el paso, the attack at the fbi facility last week. you see proud boys attending drag queen story hour.

we are seeing an increasing number of threads targeting election workers. threatening election officials to leave their jobs. this extremist rhetoric is certainly increasing and disseminating from the far right. host: what do you think is bubbling under the surface that our decision makers in washington are not taking seriously enough? if that even exists? guest: the stress of domestic violence extremism is very urgent and it is very real. i want to stress that it is not new. we have seen this type of extremism or longer. we have three resurgence as of the kkk. in the 1980's there was a string

of bank robberies, there was militia that had a standoff with the government. what is new, there is an increasing shift from rhetoric, this violent rhetoric posed mar-a-lago to action that was driven by an increasing number of americans that believe that it is socially acceptable to engage in violence with the events i don't believe in. more people feel emboldened to engage in violence. that is socially acceptable. you would engage in violence with the new immigration policy.

what we need to pay attention to is why do people feel emboldened to engage in violence? why do they think it is ok? we are seeing that much of this rhetoric, especially after mar-a-lago is that high profile, mainstream individuals are amplifying this rhetoric, that is directed from everything to the government, to democrats, to people of color and members of the lgbtq community. these are high profile individuals that have power and are emboldening americans to give legitimacy to the violent rhetoric that they are sharing. enough people are not paying attention to and if we do not, i am concerned that this will get out of hand.

host: i want to show you a moment from the january 6 committee hearings. this took place on july 12. jamie raskin asked a former oath keeper about the motivations of the oath keepers founder, stuart rose, and the january 6 attack and donald trump's appeal to the group. [video clip] in the run-up to january 6, stuart rose involved president trump to call up malicious to put down a rebellion against the united states. i want to hear your thoughts about this and your context with their relationship to stuart rose. i understand that you had conversation with rose about the insurrection act. what did he think it would allow 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 truths and what it was going to be was an armed revolution. people died that day. law enforcement died this day. there was a gallows set up in front of the capital. this could have been this mark but started a new civil war and no one would have one there. that would've been good for no one. he was always looking for ways to legitimize what he was doing. whether by wrapping it in the trappings of it is not a militia it was a community preparedness community. it is a veteran support group. again, we have to stop with this dishonesty in the mincing of

words and call things what they are. he is a militia leader. he had visions of being a paramilitary leader. the insurrection act would have given him a path forward with that. the fact that the president was communicating, whether directly or indirectly, would have given him the nod. all i can do is think the gods that things did not go worse. >> what did the oath keepers see in president trump? >> they saw the opportunity to become a paramilitary force. host: the outcome of what you heard there about what they were seen from the president trump,

this paramilitary group. what is the threat of that? guest: i think the threat that we saw during january 6 when a variety of groups, including the oath keepers through this act is a concern. one thing i want to stress is that if there was any attempt to do so, that is many reason why the january 6 committee hearings was so important. it is a concern. the oath keepers are just a small -- a number of individuals

are using mar-a-lago as a conspiratorial claim. everything from the fbi is corrupt. the u.s. government, if they are coming after tribe, they will come after you next. all americans should be treated equally under the law. the use of this event, is not dissimilar to what we have been seeing in the past. you could look to ruby ridge. following that incident, they sent a very similar message. the u.s. government will come after you next. if they will kill a mother who

was an ideological figure to them. they are coming after you next. that was a major surge or extremist. that is exactly what we are seeing with mar-a-lago now. they are using this moment to recruit individuals on this theory that if the search warrant can happen they are coming after you next. it is so important to pay attention here. it is a very important moment. it is important for us to recognize that they are doinlong

conversation between energy -- industry leaders and journalists. >> thank you so much it is honored to be with this distinguished group today and outstanding reporters. i am sheila hollis, the acting executive director of the united states energy association. why does it exist? and he was part of it right now? we are unique in the country, we are nonprofit ti