>> well, age is and we are moving forward. >> you are going to start at the beginning of the month. >> at this point, the first hearing is june 9th. >> can you talk about what those public hears might look like? >> well, they will be a combination of staff, testimony, outside witnesses. >> [ inaudible question ] >> well, some of them will be

people, people not heard from, i think the testimony will be on point as to why there is an investigation. >> some of them will be people wein have not heard from before their testimony will be on point as to why this investigation was so important. that's the chairman of the januaryso 6th investigation, congressman bennie thompson confirming to reporters tonight how the january 6th investigators are going to tell us, tell the public, what they have found. and start the 9th, thursday, june 9th, we don't know exactly what the format is going to be or the length of each of these public hearings, how they're going to do it, but they are planning initially to have eight hearings and we think they will all happen during thehe calenda month of june, at least that's what appears to be the plan now and they are saying they will start june 9th. we shall see it. is interesting though, having

that time line does give us a little bit more information about where they u are in the process, right, if you think about it. chairman thompson confirmed today they are still taking depositions from witnesses,to including more depositions that they took, today, but you know they arens doing all of that behind closed doors, and we hear reports about what's happening behind closed doors, we had committee members talk about some of what they've learned but these hundreds of depositions that they've taken, the review ofve millions of documents that they have obtained, we now know they apparently think their work overall will be wrapped up in the next six weeks and we know that on the 9th going public, and those hearings will start where they will effectively present their findings and we know they will need six more weeks to wrap this up. and we also know from reporting who some of the final witnesses are they are planning to bring in and some recognizable name, the eldest son of former

president donald trump, donald trump jr. they also learned today that they plan to hear soon from rudy giuliani who used to be president trump's lawyer and presumably nobody's lawyers since lying to the courts of the 2020 election, he has been temporarily relieved of his law license. mr. giuliani has been subpoenaed early on in the january 6th investigation, and apparently now planning to come in sometime soon, to testify. weso also expect that at least e request will be made for testimony from some republican members of congress. members who may have been involved in the effort to overthrow the government or at least mayov have been important witnesses to that effort. all of the republican members of congress who haveal thus far be asked to testify, thus far they have all made a big show of refusing to do that, refusing to testify voluntarily. the committee has not wanted to issue subpoenas to tryha to for

testimony from members ofsu congress. we still don't know how that will resolve but now at least we know the time frame on which these questions will be answered or not. we knowes the time frame on whi these matters will be settled. six weeks. because that's when this whole thing goes public. you can mark your calendar, june 9th. julio cortez is a reporter, excuse me, a photographerer for the associated press, a photojournalist, last year, last summer, mr.ph cortez was one of the a. p.'s photographs who was awarded a pulitzer prize in breaking news photography achievement. this is one of mr. cortez's images that won thee pulitzer r theag a. p., this was an image that he shot in minneapolis in the springth of 2020. but about eight months after he took that image, and six months before he learned he was in the pulitzer for it, photojournalist julio cortez was on the associated press's breaking news team that was covering the

attack on t the u.s. capitol on january 6th. it was not actually until january 8th, two days after the attack that he was finally able to upload this footage i'm about to show you, of a mob of trump supporters attacking him, and grabbing both him and his a. p. colleague, a man named john menchillo another prize winning a. p. journalist. and at one point they threw him off the railing of the capitol, the mob of trump supporters, did i willth show you about 45 secos ofi this video shot by mr. cortez. if you have kids watching with you who you don't want to see violence, this is the warning, maybe you should be distracting or somethingma for about 45 seconds orin so, because we're show you that tape right now. e right now.

>> that's the a. p. photographer who is the man being menaced and thrown off the railing, his colleague julio cortez being attacked alongside him, he is the one who shot that footage, those men are both pulitzer prize winning a. p. photojournalist. incredible, right?

lucky to get away with their lives that day, when the trump supporters attacking the capitol decided they would be set among them. you can clearly see mr. manchillo, you can see the long camera lenses hanging off of his gear, you can see his camera, you know, that they just tried to tear him apart. and lest you think that was an isolated incident that day or they didn't mean it, this happened on the same day, the same place, as you might remember. >> they're saying cnn sucks, while they smash up all of that audio visual equipment, all of that journalism equipment, cameras and lights and microphones and cabling and saying cnn sucks because that's the chant that trump used to lead at his rally and i don't

think it mattered that none of the equipment was cnn equipment, it was associated press equipment but did they care, subtlety and precision was never really the point here. the point is something else, something much more obvious and i have been thinking today about that explosion of violence by trump supporters against the media, on january 6th, against reporters and photojournalists on january 6th, i've been thinking about that today, because of what we've just learned about this man. this is the nobel peace prize acceptance speech from this past year. awarded the nobel peace prize this past year to a journalist from the philippines and this man on the right-hand side of the screen, the editor, the leader for decades of a newspaper in russia, and it is an independent newspaper, and his life's work has been trying to keep the independent press in russia alive by keeping

newspaper alive and i repeated that word, because it is important to know how often the reporters who work at the gazette have been murdered for their work. one of most celebrated journalists, was a reporter from the gazette and what most of the world knows about the truth and the wars in chechnya, is the intrepid investigative reporting about it. she published a book in 2004, called "putin's russia" basically sounding the alarm for the west what kind of man putin was and his plans, his ability to use power in russia and to use the russian state. she was murdered two years after she published that book. and in the midst of the ongoing investigative reporting on the russian government and vladimir putin's regime, she was murdered. she is one of six reporters for that one newspaper who were all murdered in russia before putin got to the end of his first

decade in power. six different reporters killed in less than ten years. but the gazette kept going. and for the nobel peace prize this year, the committee recognized its leader, the editor, for the nobel and increasingly impossible work of keeping going, of just continuing to do journalism, under the threat of the metastasizing authoritarian violent putin government. mr. morotov dedicated the nobel peace prize to his murdered reporter, his murdered employee, including -- >> and he warned that russia was preparing its first population for war, preparing its own population to hate ukrainians and not see them as human, he warned that russia was preparing to launch a war against ukraine. this was him giving that speech december 10th, 2021 in oslo.

this was him three weeks ago. april 7th. he was on a train out of moscow. and they attacked him with red paint mixed with acetone. it chemically burned his eyes. he survived. but he was hurt. again, this is the current nobel peace prize laureate. he has vowed to stay in russia, even as the russian government has finally succeeded in shutting down his paper and shutting down all other independent journalism in russia. putin has put in place this new law that puts you in prison for 15 years if you even report on or describe the war against ukraine. and while he decided people stay in russia despite that and reporters have died already, and reporters who have fled russia, they recently in the past week or two, opened up a new paper, a new entity, they call it novaya

gazeta europe and they can no longer be in russia while they publish it. they are publishing in russian and english but publishing from exile. tonight, there's news here, a dramatic statement to the "washington post" from an unnamed u.s. intelligence official, you can see the headline there from "the post," u.s. says russian intelligence orchestrated attack on nobel laureate. quote, the u.s. government has assessed that russian intelligence was behind an attack earlier this month on a nobel prize winner and prominent russian editor who had criticized the kremlin's war against ukraine. dmitry muratov the eder to of the independent russian newspaper novaya gazeta was about to travel on a trail when he was attacked with acetone. and the incident is the handiwork of russian intelligence according to the u.s. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity under rules set by the biden administration. the official did not give any

detail about how u.s. intelligence had come to make that assessment citing the need to protect sources and methods. the official said in a statement, quote, the united states can confirm that russian intelligence orchestrated the april 7th attack on novaya gazeta's editor in chief dmitry muratov, in which he was splashed with red paint containing acetone. so they are making the official who is confirming this finding stay anonymous, under biden administration rules, which is the biden administration is also making that assessment public, saying they know enough to be able to blame russian intelligence for this, and this is not some kind of vigilante attack on the editor. this was putin's government of the current nobel peace laureate. they're blaming russia for it overtly, saying this u.s. intelligence who knows what they did, they're letting russia know they knew what they did by telling our own press about it.

and you know, this stuff does not happen in a vacuum. i mean this is happening tonight, as our own political right is quite deep into its, you know, the press is the enemy of the people phase. this weekend is the white house correspondents association dinner. which the last president didn't go to his whole time in office and not just because of covid. it's because the last president literally campaigned against there being a free press. he literally campaigned on that enemy of the people phrase which he borrowed from stalin. this weekend for the first time in three years, the correspondents dinner is back on after being shut for covid. the biden white house is getting a little bit of a hard time understandably about the fact that president biden is planning to go to the dinner in person. it's understandable. they're having a hard time for that. a controversial decision. like 2000 plus people in an indoor ballroom. the president is 79. the vice president currently right now already has covid. i mean i get it.

in terms of covid concerns are enough to not have president biden attend the event in person. on the other hand i see the other side. it does mean something, and something important, in this moment, now, both domestically and for our role in the world, it means something for a u.s. president to show up, to stands for the press, to stand with the press, even as the press, i'm sure, drives this president just as bananas as we have every other president and politician since the dawn of time. that's what we do. but right now, it's particularly important for a u.s. president to stand with the press. because there really is an opposing side here. right? from the other side of american politics. >> now you know we have a lot of fake news back there, these fakers. >> i'm talking about the fake news media. they are truly an enemy of the people. >> the fake news media, right back there.

>> it's the enemy of the people. our media is the enemy of the people. it's very, very dangerous what they do. >> the repetition is part of the point here, the repetition is part of how that works, the repetition is how it stops seeming shocking and something like something you've heard before and something that resonates and that has sunk in, and doing that, for that long, doing that for the last search years, that has sunk in, that has changed things. i mean you know, at this point, there are not going to be any debates between the next two candidates in the next presidential election. the republican party said they're done, they're not doing that anymore, because you know, whether or not the republican party's presidential candidate next time around is going to be donald trump, the party itself has decided this year, that they can no longer abide by the fact that it is reporters who ask questions at presidential debates and so therefore, there will be no presidential debates in 2024. it's a remarkable decision. and it's on the basis of the fact that the press is involved

in asking the questions. republican party can no longer abide by that. it's less controversial and received less attention than that but in republican-controlled states this year, we've seen a whole rash of new rule, new restrictions put in place, that ban reporters from covering state governments, from covering state legislatures. in utah, in kansas, in iowa, when they decided to ban reporters from the iowa legislature this year, it broke what was otherwise a 140-year unbroken tradition. for 140 years, it worked to have reporters in there asking legislators questions. this year, with this republican party, that no longer works. reporters are banned. last fall, the republican governor of missouri, mike parson asked state law enforcement to pursue criminal charges against a local reporter in missouri because that reporter reported accurately on a security flaw in the state's computer systems. the governor actually got state

law enforcement to investigate that reporter for months. as if there was some crime in that reporting. they actually tried to bring charges against the reporter. but no prosecutor was doing it. and i didn't think it would get much work than what we saw from governor mark parson in missouri but this week, hello california, the fox news darling sheriff of los angeles county convened a press conference in which he put a reporter's photo up on a big poster, you can see him pointing it to with a pointy stick, the sign says "what did she know and when did she know it" and reported that reporter that was covering the press conference from the first row at that moment and the subject of a criminal investigation for this dastardly reporting show was doing on scandals in the sheriff's office. in addition to putting up her photo, he put up a list of alleged crimes, he was pretty sure this reporter may have

committed by reporting. and we can report tonight after a righteous and furious pushback, that sheriff is now pretending he never did that. it's one thing to change your mind and said oh, my god, i got carried away, and another thing to say, no, i didn't do that, you dastardly people for saying i did, let's forget that happened. how about we don't. that rowe reporter from the los angeles times reporter will be here tonight for the first national interview in a few minutes. but this idea that there's a supposed terrible threat from the press, that reporters aren't just irritating to people in power but actually criminal, that the free press is a threat that must be destroyed, this is something that we should get fluent in, i mean this is an issue that is not hiding its light under a bushel, right? this is not something you have to go looking too hard for, on

january 6th, they did carve the phrase, murder the media into the u.s. capitol. they left that behind. presumably they meant it. this is a thing we should be able to see clearly by now. even when they're doing it in a way that is more stupid than scary, it's the same thing. it is a tactical pattern that we should see, recognize, and be able to discuss. and be able to think clearly about. i mean the thing that we covered last night, with this ridiculous trump deposition that gave rise to 100 million hilarious fruit-related headlines today, this deposition he gave, where he said that you could be killed, if somebody threw a tomato at you, that's a lethal threat that must be met with maximum force, i mean that undoubtedly was hilarious, it's ridiculous, but that came in a deposition in a case where trump is trying not to be held accountable for his security guards beating up protesters. now the clear impression from the way he talks about protesters is that he would like the protesters, people protesting against him to be

beat up. that would give him pleasure. he has talked about how that makes, the threat of beating up anti-trump protesters makes trump rallies in his words more fun. we like to be able to do that. how do you get to do that? how do you get away with something like that? hype some nonexistent threat beyond all recognition to justify and provide a pretext for it for whatever extreme thing you want to do and get away with it. if you want to beat up protesters and enjoy it and find it fun and the worst thing that anybody can see about the threat about those protesters one of them was rumored to have a tomato, and despite a tomato being a lethal threat, and anybody protesting against you is a lethal threat and deserves maximum force. it is the same tactical pattern over and over again. lock her up right, lock her up. about hillary clinton. why? what was the ostensible reason they were going to lock her up. because she used her personal

email account when she was working at the state department. yes, that's. it and that is such a threat to the very foundations of america, that she must be locked up, she must be jailed for that, she should be executed for treason for that. i mean never mind that it is impossible to find anybody in the trump administration who didn't use their personal email while they worked in government, never mind that trump literally trucked boxes of highly classified material to mar-a-lago and left it laying around at his golf club. there isn't an actual real concern about the handling of classified information or government material being stored or handled improperly. there isn't a real perceived threat here. but if you can talk about that threat, it's the worst thing in the world, well, you can use it as a pretext for what you want to do. and so if what you want to do is jail your political opposition or maybe have them killed, well, hype some nonexistent threat that you attach to them beyond

all recognition to justify that. that's how you build yourself a pretext you need. voting fraud. actual voting fraud. it's like a handful of old trump supporting white men in the villages in florida and ohio and voting twice, and picking those out of a hat and that's what we have in mine, and those are the fraud cases in the last few months. and you take that infinitesimal totally nonconsequential threat and turn it into a venezuelan planes and jewish space lasers and italian satellites and pretty soon voting fraud is the end of america which surely is enough to justify what it is you want to do in the first place, which is stop abiding by actual election results and taking full power by force and you

definitely need martial law. really? well, if you make voting fraud into an existential threat, you can justify anything in spon, response to that threat. this is not something we invented. this is not something the trump era invented. russian invaded ukraine saying ukraine was a military threat gearing up to attack russia. russia is 3,000% larger than ukraine and that is like saying vermont will invade mexico or aruba would invade china. but make the claim. find a threat. make a threat. or find one somewhere. and hype it beyond comprehension. neutralize the bizarreness of that supposed overhyped threat, and neutralize the bizarreness of it, through propaganda, with mass repetition, and bingo, lock

her up, the press is the enemy of the people, ukraine needs to be demilitarized, and denazi-fied, and take the threat, and the smallest thing into the world and blow it something incomprehensibly massive and you have the pretext for anything you want to do. the time that we are in is the overlap in the venn diagram between stupid and scary, you are here. this kind of tactic that we are seeing against the press, against voting, against political opponents, it is a tactic that is not new. it is a tactic that we did not in vent in this country. but if we can see it more clearly, if we can get more fluent about it and talking about it moonts ourselves, one of the things we will quickly learn is that we can turn to our advantage the learned experience of the people who have gone before us and faced it and fought it before we had to.

and that is what we're going to do here tonight. stay with us. o do here tonight. stay with us

tim snyder published a new history, kind of a shocking new history of world war ii, professor snyder has a book called "bloodlands" europe between hitler and stalin, that book took on for the first time what happened in total on the last east of berlin and moscow

between 1933 and 1945 and elected to do something that nobody ever really tried to do about that geography in the world in that time, he told a single history, a single story, of the 14 million people who were killed in that part of the world while both hitler and stalin held power. 14 million people who were not soldiers. civilian noncombatants, not people caught in the cross fire while countries were trying to kill each other's soldiers, these were victims of mass killings, sanctioned by policy. in western russia, and belarus, and poland and ukraine and the baltic states, all in the same place, all from two different dictators over a 12-year time span. not more casualties in the sense of combatants but more casualties in the sense of mass killing being a policy. professor snyder's book is recognized and was soon recognized as a gigantic achievement in modern history. it is of course all the more

relevant because of the war in ukraine now. this week, professor snyder published an updated paper back version of "bloodlands" this one has a new afterword that offers a contemporary look at the work and professor snyder reflects on his contribution to popularizing the big lie, in former president trump's effort to overthrow the u.s. government last year persuading his followers to believe the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen even though there was never, ever any evidence to support. that snyder says in the new afterword quote, a term that originates with hitler became central to american political discourse after i applied it to trump's claim to have won an election he had lost. the concept of the big lie, which i reintroduced into discussion in 2019 and 2020 helped millions of people to see how mendacity of a certain scale affects politics over time making democracy ever more difficult. joining us now is timothy

snyder, professor of history at yale university, the author of "bloodlands" europe between hitler and stalin and nice to have you in person. i don't do this anymore. nice to see you. >> nice to see you. >> let me ask you about that last quote that i just read. mendacity of a certain scale, how mendacity of a certain scale affects politics over time. can you just tell us what you mean. >> well, that's the public relations advice, is from hitler, hitler says if you tell a lie, it's of a certain scale, that's big enough, people won't believe that you could conceive them on your scale and since they believe it and take continue in first, they don't want to disbelieve it later on and becomes part of their life and an alternative reality and reshape politics and substantiate itself in memory and policy and you act as if it is true and you move on to do things as though it were true. so in our example, if we pretend that people won the election in

2020, then we have an argument for suppressing votes, because we can say, well, there was fraud, therefore we should suppress votes. >> it's because of the sort of commitment part of that, it makes it feel undoable, because it is an x number of people, become invested in, it because they have once believed it, and it would challenge their understanding of who they are and their worth in the world, to lose that belief in it. it makes me worry about the ability to sort of unwire people to learn the truth. >> and this is why it is so dangerous in politics. we've gotten very casual about league and very casual about the people who bring us the truth, the reporters, and casual about the historians for passing memory laws in this country as russia has passed memory laws and laws designed in both cases to avoid the difficult little truths that might prevent us from investing in the big lice and the problem with the big

lies, once you do something, for example, storm a capitol, once you do something, that makes it more true, right? so the politicians tell the big lie, the ones who are brought in, once we do something, or in this book, for example, once you kill on the basis of the big lie, then the big lie really has to be true. >> one of the things that i have sort of taken with me from "bloodlands," is the idea that people need to be erased and countries need to be erased and certain identities need to be erased for the purposes of other countries, other leaders, other imperatives and so you know, talking for example about the mass murder of the polish elite, so that the polish people would somehow be erased from history, that the idea of poland could be replaced, subverted into something more useful for the attackers that kind of eliminationist planning, not just genocidal but literally to erase the idea of a people, we are seeing that so evertly in the way that putin is talking

about ukraine right now, i am very worried that we are starting to talk in eliminationist terms about some of our fellow americans, the way that we're using not just epithets but also sort of classifications of people, not just political opponents but as inhuman. >> the german invasion of poland in 1939 has really been among that, too, because it is not just as how putin is describing ukrainian, he says ukrainians are a nation, not really a state and that's genocide talk, that's how you talk before you try to eliminate the nation, and the state. but it's not just talk. this is a war of aggression, it is a war of destruction. they've deported about a million ukrainians, as a considerable share of the population. they're shooting the local elites. they're killing the men they think are capable of taking part in military activity and reeducating the teachers and the children and going through the idea as best they can to try to eliminate the ukrainian nation and you're right, it starts with talk and that's why we look on

these examples of how russians treat their history, how they treat their reporters, how they treat their language and we have to learn these lessons in time, because as you say if we talk with our own reporters, our own fellow citizens in the same way, we are preparing ourselves to do terrible things. >> timothy snyder, you know him here on the show as the author of "on tyranny" which we have discussed on the show and the totem in the world of modern history, is called "bloodlands" and out in a new edition as of this week with a new after word about the world today. dr. snyder, it's an honor to have you here. thank you. thanks. we'll be right back. stay with us. u. thanks we'll be right back. stay with us

up date tonight, a "new york times" reporter published video of an extreme use of force incident at an l.a. county jail and reported on internal documents including the officials had tried to cover the incident up in order to avoid bad press. now the sheriff whose name is alex villaneuva and said none of it is true and didn't learn of the incident until months after it happened and took immediate action as soon as he knew about it and that's the story, from the same l.a. times reporter, reported that according to a commander in the department, the sheriff had actually viewed a video of the incident five days after it happened, and he said at the time to other sheriff's

department employees, quote, we do not need bad media at this time. the l.a. times broke that story on monday. and then all h-e-double hockey sticks broke out. and the sheriff held a news conference on monday to go after the l.a. times reporter and mentioned her, she is in the front row for the press conference. this is her beat. covering the story. and after the sheriff denied her reporting, he put up this poster, one of the political rivals of the sheriff and county inspector general and all three of these people were now subjects of a criminal investigation. into how tchekmedyian got the security footage, here is a clip confronting the reporter and asked very directly to clarify what he is saying. >> i don't have people,

reporters, from the l.a. times clarify what did you with this and who did you get it from and when did you get it. so that's the question for you to answer. so with that, we're not going to take a question from you. anybody else has a question? >> sheriff, can i ask you a question? >> go ahead, frank. >> is alene from the l.a. times under investigation by the department. will you answer the question, you placed her picture up there, alongside two other people, and you talked about it in terms of a criminal investigation. is this los angeles times reporter under investigation by the department? well, the act is under investigation. all parties to the act are subjects of the investigation. all parties to the act, her reporting, are subjects to the investigation. >> hours after, the sheriff denied he ever said that. he said reports of him saying that were an incredible frenzy of misinformation. dude, since the press conference on tuesday, the l.a. times lass

published a statement con tem demming the sheriff's actions, and a blistering letter saying in part quote that the department actually initiated an investigation of the reporter. it would contra vene well-established constitutional law which bars prosecutors of news reporters for publishing information from confidential official records including leaked videos of matters of public interest. although i would have assumed that someone of your position would know this, and this letter should leave no doubt that any attempt to prosecute her is an abuse of your official position that risks subjecting you and the county to legal liability. the general counsel put the sheriff on notice that he should retain any documents and communications related to this matter. i should also tell you that despite these direct threats she has faced, l.a. times reporter alene continues to do her job and continues to advance this story, today.

she published a new eyewitness account from one of the sheriff's closest advisers which further corroborates her previous reporting. that adviser says she personally brought a dvd of the use of force incident to the sheriff and she watched it with him, and yeah, that was only five days after the incident took place. they have gone after her with the force of the sheriff's department because she has had the temerity to report on the sheriff's department. that reporter joins us next. stay with us. iff's department that reporter joins us next. that reporter joins us next. stay with us here's candice... who works from home, and then works from home. but she can handle pickup, even when her bladder makes a little drop-off. because candice has poise, poise under pressure and poise in her pants. it takes poise. (woman) oh. oh! hi there.

you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage.

your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪

staff writer for the los angeles times and broke a story that the l.a. sheriff's deputy had kneeled on head of a handcuffed man inside the l.a. county jail for three solid minutes and broke the story of the department, including the sheriff himself, covering that incident up. the sheriff then convened a press conference this week to announce he was criminally investigating alene tchekmedyian for her reporting. after a ferocious defense of the reporter by among others her employer, the sheriff now says he never actually did that, it was all a big misunderstanding, he is so misunderstood. alene tchekmedyian joins us from los angeles, i'm sorry for what your week has been like, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thank you for having me on. >> let me ask you what it was like at that press conference. i read the story and thought i absorbed most of it before i did a kind of double take, when i

realized you were there, you were sitting in the front row, while he was making this announcement that you were under investigation. what was that like? >> yeah, you know, it was so surreal at first, when i saw my photo up on his slide show that i sort of chuckled a little bit. and then i held up my phone to take a photo because it was kind of absurd. but i really didn't want to get distracted because i really had a long list of questions to ask that i had typed up on my phone and i was trying to keep the focus on that. and ended up being, you know, a lot that i couldn't ask but that was my priority at the time. >> i know that after the press conference, your employer, the l.a. times supported you, very publicly, and i know that a lot of press freedom groups came out absolutely hair on fire just shocked by what the sheriff had done, in your defense. can i ask what that process has been like? i imagine that must have been

almost as surreal. >> yeah, it was really overwhelming to feel that much support. i kind of walked out of that press conference thinking, you know, okay, that was bizarre, but i really didn't expect it to blow up the way that it did, and the outcrying of support that i saw, in the form of texts and tweets and the letters that the l.a. times lawyer sent, and a statement from our executive editor, just so fiercely defending our right to news gather, and you know, all of the statements that you mentioned from press freedom groups, and even encouragement from sources, it was just amazing and i felt really, really supported. >> encouragement from sources is a nice thing to hear because obviously, part of what is going on here is an effort to sort of perform a kind of anti-press toughness, which i think is in some ways popular in certain political spheres right now, but it was also directly to intimidate you. that's why i think it is really important to see your by line

continuing to push this, on stories continuing to push this forward, this story obviously is not over, you've done more than anybody to get to the bottom of it. i imagine that the effort to intimidate you, you have to materially feel it, but it seems like the story is very much alive and your sources are still talking to you. >> yes, i plan to keep digging into it. and following it where it goes. and it seems like most people are willing to talk with me, which is, you know, very helpful. >> it's a core benefit and a necessity to what you do, and all what we all do. alene tchekmedyian, writer for the los angeles times, out front about an important story about the use of force in the l.a. county jail and the effort to cover it up and paid for it and defended while she is doing it, ms. tchekmedyian, good luck, keep doing it, come back any time. >> thank you so much. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. thank you so much

>> we'll be right back stay with us

watch this show, you have seen the work of an artist, a courtroom sketch artist named art lean, federal courts don't allow cameras so we have needed art lean to visualize lots of the proceedings we've covered here over the years including lots of trump era favorites such as paul manafort and steve bannon and the supreme court justices themselves at work. arthur lane started work as a court artist in 1976, an unparalleled talent in a very important part of public life, the only courtroom artist allow nad the first military tribunals at guantanamo bay, and in the early days of pandemic he adapted to virtual supreme court proceedings by getting lawyers to send photos of themselves making oral arguments and turned those photos into sketches. this sketch captures stephen breyer's last case as a supreme

court justice and arthur lean is retiring, you have no idea how much we have depended on you all of these years. happy retirement, great respect. that's going to do it for us tonight. and i will see you again here monday. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. the cost of this fight is not cheap but keeping the aggression is more costly if we allow it to happen. russia is the aggressor, no if's, ands, or butt's about it, and russia is the aggressor and the world must hold russia accountable. >> that's president biden as he urges congress to approve a massive new aid package to help ukraine fight against russia. he wants quick passage, but we'll explain how the fight over immigration here at lome could get in the way. meanwhile new attacks across ukraine from the capital kyiv to the easterneg