they'll be no reluctance on our. part at that time, the chairman committee, the chairman the garage was reluctant to issue subpoenas. i doubted, thompson told the associated press. there's no precedent to force that compliance. but, in the months since, revelations have come to life. ce revelations have come to life. because after conducting nearly a thousand witness interviews and obtaining over 100,000 documents, one thing has become clear, efforts to contest joe biden's election victory were not limited to the white house and a kookie task of sham lawyers and conspiracy theorist, elected republican lawmakers were deepl they were integral to the plan to overturn the election of the 2020 election. a mind boggling 147 house republicans, look at them all, objected tobl certifying presidt biden's victory on january 6th,

literally hours after their own workplace was ransacked by a violent mob. but for a smaller core of trump die-hards their involvement went far beyond voting. messages from trump's chief of staff mark meadows alone document his interaction with more than 40 current and former republican members of congress regarding efforts to contest the election and the january 6th riot. in recent weeks we learned that ain previously unknown number o trump allies in congress attempted multiple post election white houseat meetings in which republican lawmakers trat guysed -- strategized ways for biden tote not take office and discusd pressuring the vice president and getting rid of justice department leadership and replacing them with more compliantre trump-approved choices. direct witness testimony from the committee confirms they did so even after being advised by white house lawyers that what they were doing was plainly illegal. and while the committee clearly

added documents and witnesses who coulde attest to those fac, they have yet to hear from those republican-elected members themselves. and so today, in a move that surprised some, the committee subpoenaed five republican members of congress as part of its investigation into the attack. the five recipients that either had conversations with president trump that day, spoke at the rally prior to the attack, or played some role in plotting with trump officials to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. all five had previously been asked for voluntary testimony, all five have declined. now, the letters announcing the subpoenasno were short. they were on a single page pelling the lawmakers to appear before the committee for a deposition by the end of the month. the mostsi notable recipient, t top republican in the house kevin mccarthy who we know spoke to trump on the day of the attack, multiple poll reports are clear that mccarthy and trump got into an expletive

laden shouting match as the attack was unfolding. recent audio by "the new york times" journalists and first played on rachel's show showed mccarthy telling the leadership team thatmc what trump did was atrocious and totally wrong. he said he would call upon trump to resign and he also told colleagues that trump acknowledged responsibility for the attack. in fact, in plain viewil of everyone, on the house floor, fiveev days after the riot, mccarthy said that trump bore responsibility for the attack. of course that was before he forgot all about those concerns and made a pilgrimage to mar-a-lago just a few weeks later to take a nice picture, make amends, pose for a photo with dear leader, and then there is jim jordan who attended many of those white house meetings in which strategies were discussed for overturning the election. the ohioan was texten white house chief of staff mark meadows in the hours before the riot suggesting way to overturn

biden'sri victory. jordan also spoke to trump multiple times on january 6th. how many times you ask? it's unclear. on january 6th, did you speak with him before, during, or after the capitol was attacked? i would have to go, i spoke with him that day, after, i think after. i don't know if i spoke with him in the morning or not.i i just don't know. i would have to go back, i mean i don't know that, when those conversationsow happened, but wt i know is i spoke to him all the time. >> also subpoenaed today, scott perry chairman of the house freedom caucus, he was apparently the architect of the plot toap replace justice department leadership with a trump crony who wanted to declare on d.o.j. letterhead that the election results were invalid and tell legislators in swingva states that were won by biden that they should delay certifying their results. we also learned that recently that prior to januarywe 6th, pey

supported the idea of quote directingsu thousands of angry marchers end quote, from the rally, over to the capitol that day. the alabama congressman mo brooks spoke at the january 6th rally that day urging the crowd to quote fight for america and carrie the message to capitol hill. this is hichlt formerie staffero mccarthy recalls on the day of the riot, mo brooks was cheering on the mob from inside the house as the attack was under way. inside. brooks like the others also attended various white house strategyls sessions to overturn biden'sst win. recently, brooks has admitted that trump has repeatedly asked him to illegally rescind the 2020 election and restore him back to power, including several times in the past six months, i'm not quite sure that am brooks himself was going to do that but anyway. and finally the arizona congressman andy biggs credited

with coming up the withed idea to hold a rally at the white house and in addition to convince leaders that the election was stolen he was involved in seeking a presidential pardon for those involved in protesting the election that day. allng five recipients of today' subpoenas blasted the committee, calling it illegitimate, a witch hunt, and a charade. brooks even doubled down with a statement saying in part, the 2020st election was stolen and donald trump is the rightful winner. which is not the question that was asked ofwi him. but notably, precisely none of today's subpoena recipients explicitly stated that they would reject the committee's while they rail against the illegitimacy of the committee, it's notable that the courts keep disagreeing with them. in ruling afterur ruling, judge from all pointsth on the ideological spectrum, including trump-appointed judges keep consistently ruling the opposite, that the investigation is properly constituted, that it is doing something important, and that itis has a right to th information that it is seeking.

today, the chairman of the committee, benny thompson says he hopes the republican members of congress would comply, quote, as hundreds of other witnesses have done. the clear implied threat there is if they don't, their story will be left to be told by someone else. >> how integral is their testimony and whatever they might have to say to the investigation and into the june hearings? >> well, we would present at the june hearing what we found in the investigation. i would hope that those members who have been identified as having information will come forward. if they don't, then we get to present the findings of our investigation. without their response. >> without their response. so what happens now? outside of ethics investigations of congress, there is no precedent for members of congress issuing subpoenas to other sitting members of

congress.ot today, members of the committee wereto repeatedly asked about whetherwe they were worried abo the precedent that this could set and the potential for retaliation in the event that republicans takere over the hou in november. hereho was maryland congressman jamie raskin's response. >> this is almost unprecedented step, this is rare for members to subpoena sitting members. what do you say about what that does to the broader workings of the constitution? >> well, an attempted coup and a violent insurrection at the capitolti interrupts the peacef transfer of power are unprecedented events and some people have asked, does this set precedent for the issuance of subpoenast for members of in the future, if there areco coups and insurrections, d i suppose that it does. >> a lot of questions, unfortunately, my first guest is thert perfect person to answer them. the aforementioned maryland congressman member of the

january 6th investigation, jaime ry mbraskin, congressman, we appreciate your time. thank you for being with us tonight. >> delighted to beth with you. >> let me ask you about this. you have mentioned that you have reason to believe that the republican elected members who have beenre subpoenaed today, t five members, will comply with the committee's request. now is that glass half full, jamie raskin, or do you believe that to beja true? >> well, it's glass half full, but it's based on probably more than 90% of the people we've been interested in talking to. thosebe people come forward and voluntarily cooperated with the committee. and look,ed it's the whole basi of our legal and justice system, which is that if people have relevant evidence to investigation, they come forware and they testify about it. iwa mean our whole justice syst collapses if that doesn't take place. so if a crime takes place, either a major crime, like a coup or an insurrection, or

other, any other kind of crime, a bank robbery, a street mugging anda if someone is a witness t it, they have the legal duty to come and toit testify. and if you think that your testimony could implicate you because you're not just a witness but you're a participant, you can invoke the fifth amendment privilege againsten self-incrimination. and our committee respects the constitution, including the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. but those are really your only choices if you've got relevant evidence. and the vast majority of people understand that. the vast majority of americans understand that if they received a subpoena tomorrow from a court or from congress, they would comply. so we just have a tiny miniscule part of the population that thinks somehow they skate above the law. >> do you heexpect, let's say ty either voluntarily comply, or areei compelled to comply, do y expect to get new information from them,ex or are you expecti them to verify information that

you believe you already have? >> well, if they testify truthfully, which of course they're legally bound to do, and if they're sworn in, then under the laws ofif perjury, then we will receive a lot of new information, and some of it might be exculpatory for them. some of it might help them in terms of their public image and understanding of their role. but as the chairman indicated in that little excerpt that you invoked, if they don't come forward, we're just going to release the information we've got and of course then they will go back to their tired talking point of howgo this is a partis, bipartisan investigation, including the former chair of the house republican conference, and so on, but look, if they've got information about what happened, this is a deadly serious investigation into an attempt to topple our form of government. we came very close to losing it allse on january the 6th. and i would hope that someone

who swears and oath to uphold d defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic would haveig a sense of legal, civic, and patriotic duty to comeci forward and to give thei testimony the way that the vast majority of people have. and they're of course excluding people like steve bannon and mark meadows, and ska veno and navarro. >> i thought it was interesting what mo brooks talked about, that the president, former president of the united states, has contacted him several times to, i don't know, do what, overturn the election and rescind the ratification? i don't know what he is asking mo brooks to do. i'm in the quite sure what mo brooks is capable of doing. but mo brooks has asserted that they want to hold, or there was scheming h involved to try to hd a special election for the presidency. have you uncovered whatever that plot is? >> well, mo brooks makes an attempt to a point, ali, because this is really a continuing

effort to overthrow our system of government. donald trump has never conceded defeat to joe biden. and his c supporters, like pro brooks are out there saying that donald trump is the rightful winner, andna we're very curiou about what mo brooks is referring to when heur talks abt continuing efforts to get congress to rescindut the election. there of course is no provision inth the u.s. constitution for rescission of an election any more than there is a provision to seize the ry election machinery and re-run theel election, which was anoth plot they had, any more than there is justification for the vice president to stepti outsid of his constitutional role, and simply unilaterally reject the electoral college votes cast by tens ofel millions of people. sote all of these are counterfe efforts to replace our real constitutional order with somethingco that would put dona trump back intoso office. and as you can see, from congress machbman brooks'

statement, that effort continue. >> congressman, i have a copy of the mull mueller report, it's bound and all of the lawyers have interpreted it over the months and months and months and have all signed it almost like a yearbook. i'm a hoping that's not what happens with the january 6th committee, right? i knowt j that sur responsibil because you don't have the wherewithal, the ability to change laws, and fix the guardrails that are broken, but what can we reasonably expect to happen? because i'm very worried about the things that you come on and warn us about, what were under way, and i'm worried that, what happens if nothingwa happens wi all of the information you have? what happens if your report falls in the woods? >> well, that can happen, because it is unthinkable that that would happen. and we're in a struggle for our democracy, this is a fight for our lives, that we're in, the autocrats are on the march all over theau world, we see the ultimate destination of this kind of authoritarianism and violence and lying in ukraine

today, where donald trump's bosomto buddy vladimir putin wha number of my gop colleagues continued to revere and idolize is engaged in daily war crimes against a sovereign nation where the people want nothing other thanth their freedom and their democracy. and so we understand that there's a struggle to defend dem race all over the world, which is besieged from moscow to mar-a-lago, with all of the autocrats and bullies and autocrats and dictators getting together against democracy, so this set of hearings and the report that will follow is a message to the country, because what we have under house resolution 503 is a requirement, as a committee, that we determine the exact events of what took place, the causes behind them,wh and then significantly, what needs to be done in order to fortify our institutions, our constitutional processes, and our values going forward, sopr we're not subjecto

further coups, insurrections, and authoritarian attacks on our democracy. >> and you're satisfied that you will have ande answer to that third part, what needs to be done, steps that we can actually all take, whether they're as a government or in states to not evergo have to go through this again? >> yes, and you will see some of that begins to surface in the hearings. you will see a lot more of it in the reports. and there will be more action by the committee. we have operated in a truly bipartisan and truly unified way to try to live up to the very serious that has been imposed on us and we're taking it seriously andus we're doing everything th must be done to protect going forward in the future because this century is turning out to be a very unstable one, where the autocrats and the racists, and the anti-smite, and the ultra nationalists are on the march against the democratic peoples and governments of the world. so we're trying tole look at th

inrl a really serious way, from the ground floor, to do we need shatter-proof glass in office buildings and the capitol, all the way through the electoral counteract, the insurrection th act, the electoral college, all of it, we're going to put these questions to the american people, because we have to be very serious going forward, if we're going to continue to be a democratic society, you know, that in america, democracy is either shrinking and shriveling away and growing and expanding and we have to get our democracy back onet the growth track. >> we are on the wrong side of that equation. thank you, sir. maryland thcongressman jamie raskin, member of the january 6 committee, we appreciate your time as always, thank you. much more to comete here tonight, includingan new developments in one of the investigations surrounding donald trump. stay with us. investigations surrounding donald trump 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.

more big news tonight on the widening investigation surrounding former president donald trump. today, "the new york times" reports that the justice

department has opened a grand jury investigation into how classified white house documents ended up in donald trump's florida home. you may remember that earlier this year, the national archive discovered that 15 boxes of the official white house records, including sensitive and classified materials, have somehow found their way to trump's private club and residence. the national archives referred that matter to the justice department who is reportedly planning an investigation into the matter. now that investigation appears to be under way. according to "the new york times," justice department prosecutors have already issued at least one subpoena to the national archives, and have begun making requests to interview people who worked in the trump white house during the final days of his presidency. the "times" also reports quote the investigation is focused on how the documents made their way to the residence, who boxed them up, whether anyone knew that classified materials were being improperly taken out of the white house, and how they were

ultimately stored in mar-a-lago, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. end quote. the news of this investigation comes as congress's own investigation into the final days of the trump presidency is also wrapping up. as i mentioned before, january 6th investigators have now subpoenaed five republican members of congress, including the republican leader kevin mccarthy, to testify about what they saw and discussed in the lead-up to january 6th. joining us now to help us unpack all of this is former united states attorney and the co-host of the sisters podcast, joyce vance. good evening. good to see you. >> good to see you, too. >> let's start with plaerlg stuff. i'm old enough to remember the days of the federal investigation of the potential mishandling of classified information was enough to cost hillary clinton a chance of the presidency. how big of a deal is this investigation into the boxes of potentially classified material that were relocated to mar-a-lago?

>> it seems to me that this is a big deal for a lot of different reasons. first off, this isn't an investigation. nobody knows where it is headed and whether or not there is intentional criminal misconduct but one possibility is that the former president could be involved in something that is criminal here, and so this investigation, we should read as a signal from merrick garland, probably an unintentional one, but a signal nonetheless, that he is willing to pursue criminal cases that may involve the former president of the united states. for people who thought that that was not an option for this justice department, i think this case gives them reason to reconsider those opinions. you know, it is also a very serious matter just on its own, they need to figure out what was in the 15 boxes of documents, was this some sort of a leak, was this classified information distributed in an improper way and if so, who was responsibility, and the statute makes it a crime, and simply removing classified information

and to store it in a nonsecure location. so there is criminal conduct involved here, if someone knew what they were doing when they did this. >> i want to talk about january 6th, you just heard that i had a conversation with jamie raskin, who seems confident that at some point these five republican members of congress who have been subpoenaed will show up for their depositions, before the end of the month. assuming they don't, jamie raskin who may be more positive than i am about these things, let's assume that they don't, what happens? what should or can congress do to enforce these subpoenas? >> i'm not sure that congress really has to enforce these speens and to be honest team -- subpoenas and to be honest, time is running close to going to the d.o.j., and as you and i discussed before, d.o.j. does not get involved with cases with politicians who are actually on the ballot, too close to an election, and all of these

representatives will be on the ballot come november. so that may be a little bit of a long shot here. but if i'm one of the people presenting the story of january 6th to the american people in these committee hearings, i'm happy with or without this testimony. you know, if i have it, that's great. i hear these folks, and if i don't have, it i'm telling the inventory through staffers' testimony and documents, and then i get to make sure the american people understand that these representatives, these elected officials, weren't willing to come and talk about it, they weren't willing to give evidence, and in a criminal case, prosecutors can't tell jurors that a defendant declined to make a statement, because that is seen as being a powerful piece of evidence that the jury might use to assume that a defendant who didn't make a statement was guilty. there's no such prohibition in these sort of committee hearings as the committee will be free to instruct people to make the logical inference from congress, from members of congress, who

aren't willing to come and talk about a coup attempt. >> joyce, always great to get clarity from you, we appreciate it. former u.s. attorney joyce vance, thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. well, up next, the efforts to right a wrong, to release a wrongly-convicted man from death row and the politicians who were standing in the row way. w and te standing in the row way.

in 1995, a police officer deputy sheriff william hardy was shot and killed while off-duty

working as a security guard at a hotel in birmingham, alabama. police were determined to crack this case. apparently, at any cost. they arrested five men in connection to the murder, in 1998, they wound up convicting this man, deforest johnson, he was sentenced to death and he's been on death row for more than 20 years. but he says he did not do it. that he did not commit this crime. and he has been outspoken about his innocence for all these years while sitting on death row. now, more than 20 years later, some of the former judges, prosecutors, and the jurors, who convicted him, are agreeing with him. they also say he did not do it, or at least he deserves another chance, to defend himself. the story of how this happened shows a multi-engine failure in our criminal justice system, one that we have seen too many times before. in mississippi, with curtis flowers and sabrina smith and so many others across the 27

states, with the death penalty on the books. here is what happened in alabama in the case of deforest johnson. first, when the police arrested five men suspected of shooting the off-duty police officer, in 1995, ballistics showed that only one gun was used in the shooting, so they could not have all pulled the trigger. the police decided to let three of the five men they arrested go. but they kept deforest johnson and one other suspect, a man named adragus ford, and charged them both for the same murder. now, that happened despite the fact that both men had alibi witnesses who could testify to the fact that they were at a nightclub on the other side of birmingham when the shooting happened. still, both men were charged, and tried separately. prosecution didn't try to argue that the men committed the crime together, they couldn't decide which of the men did it so they tried two different theories of the case in two separate trials

claiming they had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that, i don't know, both of them did it? either of them did it? one of them did it? they didn't know. so they let the jurors decide. that happened based on the word of one unreliable witness, yolanda chambers and even the prosecutors admitted in the case that since the 1995 murder, chambers had told more than 300 lies about who was involved, and what she knew. that is the person who is the primary witness in the case against toforest johnson's friend and named johnson as the man who pulled the trigger and she came forward as a potential witness and only after the governor's office announced a $10,000 reward for anyone who gave information leading to an arrest. her mother told police she had information about the murder but she did not. at that point, she was in a position of either providing

information, or doing jail time for lying about it. she later reported feeling pressure to give some kind of information. before one of toforest johnson's criminal trial, chambers admitted that she had lied, and she said she had done so because of that pressure. quote, they was yelling at me, you know, don't you know you can go to jail for, this and that's all i was thinking. that's all i had put in my mind. jail. i don't want to go. so after they was putting all the pressure on me, i went on and said i was there. maybe if i go on and say i was there, maybe all of the threats and everything will end. end quote. the lawyer says chamber's accusations should have been painfully and obviously false. apparently they were not. both men went to trial for capital murder. just ahead of the trial, the state tried to offer him immunity if we say that toforest johnson was the one who murdered

the officer. he refused. he told his attorney quote, i see where they won't charge me if i say he did it. if that were the truth, i with say it in a heartbeat but i am not lying for anybody, including the cops. agrgus ford's trial went in a hung jurl and johnson's story went on and that story of the witness who told 300 lies wasn't the worst of it. johnson was eventually sentenced to death after a laughbly poor case. as a former chief justice of the state supreme court put it in an op-ed, quote, there was no physical evidence, no eyewitness testimony, no police confession, the state's case relied entirely on a woman who said she overheard a three-way jail phone call in which a man who referred to himself as toforest admitted to the crime. the woman had never met mr. johnson, and she didn't know his voice. but her testimony was enough for the jury to convict. turns out the woman was paid

$5,000 for her testimony after the trial. a fact which was never disclosed to mr. johnson or his lawyers. in fact, his lawyers did not find out until 2003, and did not have proof until 2019, when the state turned over this, a copy of the check and a form signed by the judge authorizing the payment of $5,000. johnson's legal representation worked against him as well. according to the "washington post," johnson's attorney who admitted in a court filing that he lacked the necessary experience for a capital case. the lawyer wrote, defendant's attorney does not have the expertise in criminal investigation work to investigate the facts and interview the witnesses surrounding the alleged crime with which the defendant is charged. defendant's attorney has no formal training in criminal investigation, nor do they have the capabilities and time to interview all of the potential witnesses, and conduct all of the investigation necessary and essential to provide the defendant with an adequate

defense. end quote. no experience. no training. no time to investigate. a trifecta of trial disaster. when the court later agreed to give him a private investigator, they only provided funds for someone, well, someone no one would want. johnson's current lawyers describe this p i. as quote a brain-damaged alcoholic racist suicidal homeless man who had already been fired from at leaf one capital case for incompetence, had been operating without a business license for at least five years, and could barely manage his own day to day affairs. end quote. the guy for the job. now that all of this information about this botched case has come to light, numerous people want justice for toforest. and aforementioned former chief justice of the alabama supreme court, he's come out against the case. he asks, quote, why is toforest johnson still on alabama's death row? over time, the state's case has fallen apart and there's now

substantial evidence that mr. johnson is innocent. the district attorney in birmingham, the lead prosecutor for mr. johnson's 1998 case, support a new trial. the former alabama attorney general came out against johnson's conviction in an op-ed, where he writes as a lifelong defender of the death penalty i do not lightly say what follows. an innocent man is trapped by alabama's death row. three jurors who voted to convict johnson have also called for the jefferson county circuit court to throw out johnson's conviction. they publicly expressed disappointment in the trial. one said quote, when you look back at all of the stuff the jury did not know, i feel like we were used like pawns in a chess game, not even know week were being used, all very disturbing to read this now. johnson's defense has ten witnesses who put him in a different part of town at the

time of the murder and yet justice is not any closer. this week, the alabama court of criminal appeals rejected johnson's claim that prosecutors committed misconduct and so the court upheld his conviction. despite that setback, johnson still stands a chance at an entirely new trial. but alabama's governor and attorney general could easily end this all right now. the governor could pardon johnson. the attorney general could drop the case. and so far, they have not. why? what's the holdup? the reporter who helped bring this case to national attention joins us after the break. l atte joins us after the break your projects done right

. with angi, you can connect with and see ratings and reviews. and when you book and pay throug you're covered by our happiness check out angi.com today. angi... and done.

one of the reasons we know toforest johnson's name and his story is that in a 2019 "washington post" column, they wrote an opinion essay titled "an ilt lusion of justice" maying out in extended detail that sent johnson to death row where he spent half of his life and there is a story about a wrongful conviction, it's about witnesses who were rewarded for lies and threatened for telling the truth, and it is about an overly aggressive law enforcement, and a supine judiciary and almost comically ineffective representation, and how all of these things put a man on death row who everyone agrees is innocent, even the man who prosecuted him doubts his guilt. it is a story of lives ruined along the way and about the murder of a much-liked deputy, that because of all of this, remains unsolved.

all of those aspects of the story were true three years ago, and given a setback to mr. johnson's case, this week, when the state appeals court upheld his conviction, they remain true today. the case is far from over though. the district attorney has tried to get a new trial. alabama's governor could pardon johnson, and the attorney general could drop the case. joining us now is bradley velcro, the "washington post" columnist who wrote that piece for the "washington post" and helped johnson's case garner national attention. thank you for being hered to tonight. and thank you for bringing the story to the nation's attention. how did you get started on this? what first drew you toforest johnson's case and claims many people on death row who claim to not be there for the right reasons. >> part of my work on the criminal justice system, part of that is reaching out to defense attorney, and keeping in regular touch with a few of them throughout the country, and so a couple of attorneys that i had

interviewed or corresponded with on other cases reached out to me, and one thing i found over the course of my career in covering this beat is that the defense attorneys handle a lot of cases, and a lot of people that they represent are guilty, you know, even the system can be unfair, and they tend only to reach out to a journalist when they're really, really mad about a case and when they are really certain that the person is nntd and as i started doing more and more reporting on the case and talking to the attorneys involved, you know, it just became clearer and clearer that this was a real injustice that had gone unaddressed. >> and what i had tried to outline and what seemed to be wrong about having convicted mr. johnson, it became very narrow this week because the alabama court of appeals ruled against mr. johnson's claim of prosecutorial misconduct because of the money paid to a key witness in the trial. that seems to be one little

piece of this whole thing. but for m johnson, it is a complete setback. what is his best chance for getting justice when so many little things went wrong to get him the death penalty? >> this is one of the huge problems with our system. so once a jury returns a guilty verdict in the case, the system switches from representation of innocent, a presumption of nns to prioritizing and preserving the finality of the verdict and the idea is he want to preserve jury verdict, particularly guilty verdicts because if we start overturning them left and right at the first sign of a bad trial, an unfair trial, that it will sort of erode the integrity of the system, and as i wrote in the column that's an illusion of integrity. that's not actual integrity. right? actual integrity is addressing mistakes and fixing mistakes and fixing the injustices and the courts make it extremely difficult for people who are

innocent to bring evidence. there is a phase in your case called post-conviction, when you get access to the police files and the prosecutor's files and most likely to find evidence of your innocence, so that you can establish your innocence, most likely when you're like lie to find police misconduct and produce you could torial misconduct and our system also means when you get to post conviction, that's the time when the courts are least likely to reopen your case and as soon as you get the access to the evidence that could potentially free you, the courts make it almost impossible for to you get back in and when they do, it's piecemeal, one issue at a time, and they tend to not sort of, once they ruled on an issue, it is very difficult to get them to go back and look at it later and i think what you said is very important. i mean right now, he is caught in this system. and the alabama courts are sort of limited by case law, and they're limited by these post-conviction rules about how they have to listen to and consider the evidence. i don't think it excuses the ruling but it does sort of

explain. >> it the alabama attorney general and the alabama govern deer have those excuses, they could end this case tomorrow, they could free this guy, mr. johnson and end this injustice tomorrow and they haven't, even before my article posted about this case, why it has been three years, there is no sense of urgency and i think that's what is unforgivable here. >> they got the same evidence that you know about, thank you very much for reporting on this case and keeping it in the front, forefront for us, criminal justice columnist for the "washington post," we appreciate you making time to be with us tonight. >> thanks. >> my pleasure. the last story just ahead tonight. stay with us. pleasure. the last story just ahead tonight. stay with us

thousands filled the streets of ramallah in the occupied west bank today where the palestinian presidential compound, a

state-run memorial service was being held for the long-time correspondent for al jazeera, a palestinian american woman, and yesterday, she was shot and killed while reporting on a raid by israeli forces in the occupied west bank. she died after being shot in the head, though she was wearing a helmet. the producer was shot and injured as well. they were wearing clearly-labeled press jacket, both were veteran journalists and they were there doing their jobs, bearing witness for those of us who are not there. the situation in the occupied west bank has been heating up for a while now. unfortunately, for the past five years or so, the united states has been largely be a sent from the conflict. but -- absent from the conflict. but the violence has been escalating. one of the great difficulties in this conflict which palestinians argue go back to the 1948 exodus of some 700,000 arabs from their homes, when the state of israel was founded, is that it is sometimes hard to parse who is telling the truth about what is actually going on, on the ground. which is why journalists like

her matter. they are there, in the thick of it, exposing themselves to very obvious danger, bearing witness so that power can be held to account, and hopefully one day this fight, which has gone on for far too long, may end. al jazeera and other western reporters on the scene quickly attributed akleh's shooting to the israeli forces that were carrying out the raid and israel denied the accusation saying initially she was shot by palestinians. the prime minister of israel himself circulated a clip from this video, israel's prime minister saying, quote, there is a good chance that armed palestinians who fired wildly are the ones who led to the unfortunate death of the journalist. but here's the thing. the israeli human rights organization that documents human rights violations in the occupied west bank geo-located that video, and you can see the location of the shooter in the video, it's on the lower right of your screen, where the text is. and the location where she was

shot is in the upper left. this video now, which is sped up, is her walking through, down an alley, around a corner, and now down another block, around another corner and then down another very long road. they say this demonstrates the shooting depicted in the video could not possibly be the gunfire that hit her and her colleague. the israeli government has backtracked against the earlier stapes of retribution and a defense official told the "washington post" today that israel is now investigating the possibility that one of its own soldiers killed the journalist. and israel's defense minister considered late last night, the shot that killed her may have come from the israeli side. fights over attribution of violence are by no means new and the video and the hasty blaming of israeli that may have been caused by its own military on someone else without nailing it

down, is a terrible way for a government to act with a journalist killed in their conflict zone. she becomes the 17th journalist to be killed this year. many of them covering conflicts. she will be buried tomorrow in jerusalem next to her mother. >> we will see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. a dramatic step forward in the investigation of the capital attack. as the january 6th committee subpoenas five sitting republican congressman, one of whom could very well be the next speaker of the house. we'll have all of the reaction. plus, russia vows retaliation if finland joins nato. the question is what specifically is the kremlin considering. also, the latest from ukraine, as the united nations steps up its war crimes investigation and confirms a horrific discovery near kyiv.