big lie all the way to the brutal violence unleashed by extremist groups at the capitol on january 6th. new york times reports that thursday s hearings will shed light on the role of the far right pro-trump extremist group the proud boys in the capitol insurrection. the times reports the january 6th select committee intends to present live testimony from a british documentarian who was filming the group with its permission during the riot, and from caroline edwards, a capitol police officer who was injured according to videotape of the incident by a rioter who had been in a conversation moments earlier with one of the proud boys. he spent a good deal of the post-election period filming members of the proud boys including mr. tarrio and is considered a witness. this footage is being used as government evidence in that case against the proud boys. it was released at the request of nbc news.
think week that i haven t had before because who are we trying to convince? 80 to 90% of america is convinced. they don t need to see that. the president is convinced. he doesn t need to see it. the house of representatives is currently acting in a way where they are convinced. they don t need to see it and so is half the senate. and so the ten members that we would need from the other side of the senate who aren t convinced, showing them the photos isn t going to make a difference. it isn t going to change who they are. the only thing that is going to change this now is for america to make clear that from this day forward the first question they will ask of any candidate is do you support gun safety? and if you don t, i will not be voting for you. for america to make clear from this day forward that they are putting out together their voting plan to be ready to vote on this issue so that there s no
of the force that is brought to bear in this effort that matthew s talking about, getting people in their guts. understanding that the right to bear arms never especially for conservatives who talk about the words in the constitution, it doesn t say ar-15 anywhere yet the perversion of the second amendment that think that s what it means have made this weapon specifically able to go into the hands of people who wouldn t pass a background check. i mean, to change the debate to what the republicans are defending is this unimaginable horror being carried out by a weapon of war, and i wonder what your thoughts are about that, about seeing what this weapon does. yeah, i ve heard the debate, and i do not in any way, shape, or form support doing that. i don t think it s necessary, and i think the debate and the question of it actually help bring me to a point of claire
a power in this debate all along. what i m saying is people like fred, people like matthew mcconaughey, and what i think matthew mcconaughey standing up at the press platform having walked out of a meeting with the president of the united states and being an iconic figure, especially from a place like texas which holds onto our guns as the most as sometimes the most vulnerable thing to have in their house, i think what he is showing, not the freds of the world who already know what to do and already know how to do it and already know how to create and talk about this in a compelling way, it s to show the politicians in washington who constantly talk about this but they have no capacity to talk about it in a way that strikes people in their heart and gut. too often it is we rank 53rd on the list of countries in gun ownership and we rank here, and this is what we can do, and this is how many guns and there s 400 million guns. all of those great facts, but i think most of the time the p
were in the margins and the darkness and the corners is now available to everybody, and in fact, in that terrorist advisory bulletin, one of the things they mentioned is the groups that are saying that the shooting in texas was a false flag operation by the federal government to promote gun control. i mean, that s just so noxious and awful, and you know, in listening to my colleagues, in some ways, treating domestic terrorism shouldn t be so much like treating international terrorism, but the way we treat organized crime. those groups need to be infiltrated. these groups need to be infiltrated the way the justice department was all over organized crime for decade after decade. it s a much greater threat to our country than organized crime, and it should be treated like that. well, we ve got a law enforcement person here. frank, what about that? i mean, i guess i m for all of the above, but what feels at least from the outside that the