0 encounters. not for five-day period, but for an entire fiscal year. under this administration with these policies, that 9,000 encounters is about a five-day period in the yuma sector today. you don't know what it's like unless you see that happening. we are on a suboptimal path. it has to change. and to make a change it can be difficult. it can be short-term uncomfortable. but when you move to the correct path, all of a sudden things ease up and you can start having success. the direction here in my opinion is to someone like a byron donalds. a man who is living the american dream and is the example and the mentor for millions who need hope. here is a man that has worked his way, worked his way up. he is not a novice, he has the experience, he has the chops to be the speaker. he is a man, a lovely family, and they are politically engaged. they know what's going on. he has worked in florida politics, worked in the legislature, he has respect, he has the quiet confidence that a leader needs. i look around this body today and i know it's hard for you to believe, i know it's hard for me to believe sometimes when i'm here and i have the great honor and privilege of serving with you. but you represent the cross section of america, the great american experiment. the experience that you bring, the knowledge that you bring is unique. the road to recovery is through this body. i believe if you want to make change you have to make change. maintaining status quo is not an option today. i believe we have reached a crisis in this country. i look across and i see the left has captured virtually every institution. it is time that we reassert ourselves and put america back on the road to recovery, and the person who i think is most capable and will do the most credible job to lead us back that way is my friend from florida, the honorable byron donalds who i'm pleased and proud to nominate as the next speaker of the house of representatives. [applause] >> reading clerk will call the roll. >> adams. jeffries. aterholt. mccarthy. d'aguilar, jeffries. alford, mccarthy. allen, allen -- >> sandra: so here we go, after kevin mccarthy failed to win the speakership in a seventh ballot, they have now moved on to an eighth on capitol hill, just past 2:00 eastern time and starting to take the votes now, john. >> john: she is, and see where it ends up. i don't expect the result any different than the last time around or the time before that, and on and on and on. ari fleischer is with us, reminded of the classic white snake song "here i go again" for another round of voting, but we do this with a statement from matt gaetz said either mccarthy resigns or agrees to a straight jacket agreement that fully constrains him as speaker. so it sounds like things are moving but is it a good idea for a speaker of the house to be in a "straight jacket?" >> i don't think that's movement. i think this is deeper antagonist. i take that to resign from congress. look, i'm from the northeast and anybody from the northeast has ever seen a car stuck in snow, that's what we are watching right now. the car is stuck in snow, rear wheels are just spinning. kevin mccarthy gets in the driver's seat, pushes the gas pedal and spin some more. and andy biggs from arizona getting into the driver's seat, he steps on the gas. he's from arizona, he can't get a car out of the snow. and the wheels spin some more. we are watching wheels spin on a car stuck in snow and not going anywhere. >> sandra: speaking of andy biggs, republican from arizona, nominated byron donalds for the eighth ballot and says it's not dysfunction, but an exchange of ideas. here he was. ok. i'll tell you what he said. he said you know what this is, it's dysfunction and it's not imperilling. it's an exchange of ideas, expression of support for people. you want to be your leader in the next congress, i think it's incredibly healthy to see what we are doing on the floor. to that point, you might have heard a bit of that. some people are enjoying watching the process, ari, we don't always get to see this, but it is a lot of drama unfolding, and a lot of tension that we have all seen play out very publicly there in washington. >> this is not a crisis, the way the democracy can work. historically, a noisy democracy. the point here, i see no outcome, i see opposition with no purpose because it will not succeed. and i don't know how when you have 10% of the vote, you have the right to say to 90% you must yield to us. and is that going to be the case on all future legislation if you are 10% and 90% are for a tax cut, well, yeah, we are going to derail it, we are 10%. for conservative reforms, derail it, we are 10%. at the end of the day, the only thing that matters in a democracy is having the votes to succeed. and they are blocking, and that's the problem i have with this is 10% minority blocking the 90% majority when you are supposed to all be unified as republicans. >> john: ari, you said when you joined us last hour that you think what they should do, all retire to a room as a caucus, and they should take a vote on names and the person who gets the most votes becomes the nominee and then becomes the speaker of the house through a consensus vote. didn't they do that once already? >> well, they did that in the fall, did it prior to the speaker's election and elected kevin mccarthy as the nominee for speaker in essence when they named him the speaker. he defeated the congressman from arizona. so, it's been done but now with the new dynamic, spinning wheels, i want to get the car out of the ditch, i want to get it going and that's my idea and the new environment, kevin mccarthy should announce he'll accept whoever the plurality winner is, and i think those in the freedom caucus and oppose kevin mccarthy will make the same pledge. support whoever the plurality supports than he's a new internal republican dynamic, election, they look each other in the eye and say if we don't do that, nothing will change. i don't think any of these concessions are going to change anything. >> john: wouldn't the result be the same? >> it depends on -- if kevin mccarthy says i'll abide by whoever wins the plurality, and the freedom caucus and those who oppose kevin mccarthy say the same pledge, they settle it internally, and let republicans decide this. have a vote inside the caucus. but then at a certain point in time republicans have to unify. if you can't get to 218, what are you doing, you will never get anything done. >> sandra: i think that's what people are wondering now, left wondering, moved into the eighth ballot, saw how late in the evening they got together last evening, said they would be back at noon today. i don't know what conversations they can have in between another vote that's going to change much on the jean as far as the tallies are concerned. >> more detailed discussions about the concessions kevin mccarthy has made, and whether or not those who oppose him will be molified by him. i think that's the dynamic behind closed doors now. my point is, i don't think that's concessions are going to be sufficient. i worry that they have weakened the role of the speaker without achieving any kind of outcome, so the car remains stuck in the snow. you have to think differently, approach it from the new context of a new internal caucus election recognizing they are all stuck. and if you want to get unstuck, you have to change the way you are doing things. >> john: so ari, one of the big sticking points here is the threshold to introduce a motion to vacate the chair, that would be to start the process to potentially change out the speaker. house freedom caucus wants that threshold one member to bring a motion to the floor, mccarthy had offered five. politico was reporting that may have moved to one but it used to be one. so, what's the problem with going back to the way that it was before nancy pelosi changed it? >> it's a great question, john. the difference is, back when it was one, it was an different era in washington, compromise was not a dirty word and people did not think it was right because you did not agree with the speaker to take the speaker down. there was more respect for the institution and more respect for getting things done in washington. now we are in an era where compromise is a dirty word. so one, or the five republican majority, you can take the speaker down over almost anything if you don't think compromise is right. it's a different washington. it worked when there was only one, people would not use it. now people are going to use it all the time to derail anything they don't like and it's a formula for dysfunction and almost anarchy in the house. look, the constitution established the house of representatives and that's why as a conservative and a believer in the constitution and the check on the executive through the legislature, i want a house that can function and a one-vote to vacate the speak of the house means the house cannot function, and not just for the next two years, this could be for the future and you have to have a governor whether it's controlled by democrats or republicans that can do the people's bidding, and we are in a dangerous spot with this continues much longer, we will not have a constitutionally elected house. >> sandra: "wall street journal" asks the question, who is crazy enough to be a republican speaker, you cannot lead a majority that would like to be in the minority. too many republicans don't want to hold and keep political power. they are more comfortable in opposition in the minority which is easier because no hard decisions or compromises are necessary. you can rage against the swamp without having to do anything to change it. and to your point about what the next two years look like, marc thiessen made this prediction earlier. listen. >> if this is the future of the next two years of the house where everything we try to do is held hostage by a small band of people, then this is going to be the most chaotic and failed house majority in the history of the country. >> sandra: quite a warning there, ari. >> let's play this out. let's just pretend that donald trump, jr. becomes speaker of the house. absolute warrior, he agrees with the freedom caucus on many issues. that's the house. he has to then compromise with chuck schumer in the senate and joe biden in the white house just to pass appropriations bills, to get anything done. what happens then to donald trump, jr.? he's going to get accused of being a swamp creature. the same people who oppose kevin mccarthy and how can you compromise with chuck schumer, work with joe biden, that's the future of what happens if you allow a minority to derail a majority. that's what's happening inside the republican conference. anybody who assumes position of power is going to be accused of being a swamp creature. and it's divided government. whoever leads the house will eventually have to do something with the senate, whoever leads the senate will have to do something with the republican house, all deal with joe biden. this is what our constitution has created. but opposition, has to be 100% my way, compromise is a dirty word, it can't work. our nation would have never been founded if compromise was a dirty word. sometimes when you have the five vote majority it's the only word. >> sandra: quite something here as we watch this play out. i believe we are -- ari, we are going to take a quick detour here and monitor movements on capitol hill, but i know we have some more breaking news coming out of idaho. thank you, ari. >> john: and also breaking for the very first time, a captivated nation's questions finally answered about the idaho murder mystery. if you thought the details already out there were chilling, brace yourself for the heart stopping horror story that is coming out now. >> sandra: details from the just released court documents, john, show how long the investigators say the suspected killer was watching those four victims before moving in and killing them. plus, what they say he was doing near the crime scene the next day and it was happening in broad daylight just before the police arrived. and maybe most haunting of all, the story we are learning from one of the survivors. >> john: what she says she heard as her roommates were in the struggle and the disturbing word the killer told a victim in the final moments, all leads up to one moment that left the survivor frozen in terror, face-to-face with her worst fear, dressed head to toe in black with a face mask on. >> sandra: we are getting more and more details, they are coming in slowly but they are big. and these are details that we have learned in the three months since that night. a sleepy college town was forever jolted. now seems the floodgates have open, coverage of the unsealed documents and the suspect's court appearance that just happened a short time ago. >> john: mark is here with analysis, but jonathan hunt who has been looking through the probable cause affidavit that was unsealed just before the court appearance today, and he's got the details. jonathan. >> yeah, john, as we watched bryan kohberger make his first court appearance here in idaho today and face those four charges of murder, we were also going through the 19 pages of the probable cause affidavit that were released and they had some fascinating details. among the most chilling, the report that one of the roommates in the house where those four university of idaho students were murdered came face-to-face with the alleged killer, seeing a man dressed all in black and wearing a mask, she said she did not recognize that man, she said the only identifying thing that she really noticed were his "bushy eyebrows." now, police say that that man was bryan kohberger. they say they also found a knife sheath at the scene of the crime and they matched a dna sample on that knife sheath to kohberger, 99% match, they say, and they did that by going through trash at his home. they said the idaho state lab located a single source of male dna left on the button snap of the knife sheath. then there is that car we have been talking about, the white hyundai elantra, registered to bryan kohberger, seen in the vicinity of the victims' residence several times before the murders and then disappeared for a short period and then according to the affidavit "suspect vehicle one is next seen departing the area of the king road residence at approximately 4:20 a.m. at a high rate of speed." 4:20 a.m. would have been just of a the murders took place, according to the police. then a cell phone record, they say that kohberger's cell phone did not ping in the area of the murders on that particular night but according to the investigating officer, those who intend to commit crimes often leave their phones away from the location where they are carrying out those crimes, so they did a historical search, and said that his phone was "utilizing cellular resources that provide coverage to the area of 1122 king road, the site of the murders, on at least 12 occasions prior to november 13, 2022." all of those occasions, except for one, occurred in the late evening and early morning hours of their respective days and the investigating officer said he carried out that historical search, john, to see if there was perhaps some evidence of stalking, evidence of planning, and in his view, clearly this was something that was planned weeks or even months before those brutal murders took place on november 13th. >> john: hence the four charges of first-degree murder, murder in the first-degree. >> sandra: mark is joining us now, details are horrifying, especially the account of the surviving roommate saying she heard crying, saw the killer face-to-face, the suspect's car was seen leaving that area, a high rate of speed, 4:20 a.m., the knife cover, the sheath is a big part of discovering the suspect's dna, he left that behind at the scene. we are told they were able to cross conference dna by going into his home and retrieving things from the garbage and this would reveal police and the investigation knew a lot more than they were letting on much earlier in all of this than they were letting the public know. >> yeah, first of all congratulations to them for not pandering to the public's need to know and thus compromising the criminal investigation. they didn't do that and now we know why. the lead question today is hey, kohberger, how did your dna get on that tan leather knife sheath left on the victims' bed, period. there's the question. how do you answer that. before we get to anything else, somewhere there is an attorney or a group of attorneys trying to figure out an innocent explanation that they can give with a straight face. >> john: so on that -- to that question, jonna spilbor was with us last hour and she said, mark, that his attorneys could argue somebody took that knife that he had had in his possession for some period of time, left dna on it. we don't know whether the dna was a blood sample or a skin sample, that could have a big bearing in this case. but he could say somebody took the knife, somebody used my car, took my cell phone as well. i wasn't anywhere near the place. is that a case that you think a defense attorney could effectively make? >> absolutely. and they will. i mean, the stakes are too high. we are talking about his life. not going to say ok, got me. there is going to be an argument, and this is a circumstantial case in that there was no eyewitnesses to say that's the guy with certainty i saw did it. they can be strong, compelling, like dna evidence. but prosecutors must eliminate every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in order to secure conviction. so you are right, the defense lawyers are going to say right, that is probably his dna, but somehow they got his belongings and will try to explain everything away. prosecutors are going to argue, yeah, explain away one, maybe two things, but not one thing can you then say equals anything other than his guilt if you put everything together like pieces of a puzzle. >> sandra: mark, just heading through the timeline, i mean, it's really something to see how much the cell phone records were revealing to your point about the suspect turning the phone off and on again. is this someone that appears to have been careful or not so much in his crimes? >> i think he was pretty careful. i thought there would be a lot more dna, more screw-ups, just one piece of dna he left behind in a crime that typically the not careful perpetrator would have left a lot more clues. but, it's not uncommon for even a street offender, certainly someone who has studied criminal law and forensics, to turn their phone off so that they don't place him right at the scene at the time. >> so mark, when we look at the break in the case, looks like it occurred on november 29th, i mean, we heard pleas and frustration from the family members of the victims saying why isn't there a suspect, why don't we know more. looks like the break in the case came on the 29th of november according to the affidavit, when daniel tienga, a police officer with washington state university at the request of police, did a canvas of the area to find out if there was a 2011-2013 white hyundai elantra, and lo and behold one there in a parking lot at washington state university, and there we see security camera footage of the car that was collected during a canvas of any video recording devices in the area of the home where the four students were killed. yet quietly and patiently built this case around kohberger, including following him and his father across the country. then apparently at the request of the fbi having him pulled over and then we see bodycam footage from one of the traffic stops by police in indiana to get a look at his hands. what do you make of all that? >> right. well, they are building a case little by little. keep in mind,