sir. >> i appreciate it. thank you for your service. >> my stints question manned answers. the truth is being covered up. as a result the doj is harassing peaceful patriots across the country. without accurate answers, conspiracies. washington state representative who objected to electors in 2016 without the required support of a senator filed an ethics complaint against me for following the law under three usc code 15, the act which she herself failed at in 2016. 33 of my democratic colleagues wildly speculated that republican members of congress gave reconnaissance tours offering no proof whatsoever. i've repeatedly asked for footage, which could contain

exculpatory actions regarding outrageous allegations against members of congress. mr. rosen, wouldn't you agree with the security footage of a public building of public officials paid for by public taxpayers should be provided to public defenders? >> conessman, i'm going to have to refer to my opening remarks again. there are certain limitations. >> believehe american public should see that footage. madam chairman, i and the american people commend you for holdinthis hearing. if my democratic colleagues want the truth, they'd in me in demanding this footage. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i recognize the gentle woman from theistrict of columbia ms. norton. you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i very much appreciate your holding this hearing so we can bring out the role of the

respective parties. and i appreciate, madam chair, that you praised the role of the d.c. police department which needs to come out in this hearing. my questions are for chief contee who ill lum neated that role in his testimony and noted the mpd cannot enter the capitol without the permission of the capitol police board. and yet, the d.c. police department played a historic role in putting down the insurrection and saving the lives, by the way, of members of congress, of staff, of employees, and i would see, indeed, of democracy itself. it should be noted that they

have been repaid by republicans who voted unanimously against my d.c. statehood bill which is moving along quite well notwithstanding, and the district meets all the traditional elements that congress has considered in admitting new states. surely the role of the mpd on january 6th supports or bill for d.c. statehood. chief contee, i would like to ask you about two bills which can be implemented without statehood. the d.c. national guard act would give the mayor control over the d.c. national guard. we know the governors of the states and even of the

territories control their national guards, but the president controls the d.c. national guard. if the d.c. mayor, chief contee, had control over the d.c. national guard on january 6, do you believe that the d.c. national guard would have been deployed to the capitol earlier than it was on january 6th? >> yes, i do believe that. >> i think we see that in your depl deployment, when things got out of control and the mayor was finally able to send you to the capitol. chief contee, my d.c. home rule act would repeal the president's

authority to federal lies the d.c. president. now, the president doesn't have the authority to federalize eye other state or local police department. during protests in d.c. after the murder of george floyd, the trump administration threatened to federalize the d.c. president. >> does the president have the authority to federalize the d.c. department? >> no, i do not. >> under who's authority without statehood? >> the mayor of the district of columbia. >> madam chair, it is long past time for congress to give the d.c. mayor control over the d.c.

national guard and to repeal the president's authority to federalize the d.c. police department. i believe the events of january 6 spell that out completely, and i thank you and yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. we're now recognizing the gentleman from georgia, mr. heiss. >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to take time to comment -- let me mute this. there we go. i would like to take some time to comment on how the media and the many democrats have put forth a narrative that has been circulating around since january 6th and never corrected. for example, the narrative that z president trump incited the riots on january 6th. i don't even understand, madam

chair, why you, yourself, don't speak the truth as to what president trump stated. what he said on the morning of january 6th, he said that i know every one of you will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today. madam chair, why don't you talk about how the president used those words to peacefully and patriotically instead of cherry-picking words you want to use to portray an image of something that did not happen. the timeline -- these are approximate times but the best we have been able to gather, in the ball park of noon president trump began his speech. at about 12:45, violent protesters started arriving at the capitol. let's keep in mind that the location where the president started his speech, where the speech took place, it's a 45-minute walk from that

location to the capitol. so if the individuals who were at the speech were involved, they would have had to leave before president trump even started his speech. he started speaking at 12:00. 12:45 the violent protesters arrive at the capitol. around 1:00 the capitol is overrun and there are efforts to make a call to the national guard. between 1:10 and 1:15, president trump ends his speech and tells attendees to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard at the capitol. about 1:50 the capitol is breached. now, in this timeline, it would have been about 2:00 before the earliest attendees of trump's speech could have arrived at the capitol. so the capitol is attacked right shortly after the president

begins his speech. it's breached before individuals could have gotten there. where is the real narrative in all of that? another narrative i want to bring up is that the media claims that the tragic death of officer brian sicknick was a result of pro trump mobs bashing his skull with a fire extinguisher, which we all know now didn't happen. is his autopsy revealed that he suffered no blunt trauma. in fact, his mother has since come out saying he died of a stroke. in fact, it was trump supporters who lost their lives that day, not trump supporters who were taking the lives of others. you go down the list here, ashley babbott was shot and killed by a capitol laugh. kevin aggreasen suffered a hear attack.

benjamin phillips died of a stroke. so the narrative needs to be cleared up. the truth matters. i'd also like to discuss what we know about those who were present on the day of the riots that took place. i actually have here something that was sent to me by an individual who was present. he said it was a beautiful day, a peaceful, faith-filled support for free elections, when agitators rolled in and coordinated a different agenda. i could see their spirit wasn't the same. forceful and angry. they were physically disguised. they had tactical gear, gas masks and had a plan. i was close and got teargassed. i saw these and staters. make no mistake about it. i was there. we've heard reports of buses of these individuals rolling up. who are they?

where is the information about these individuals who rolled up. we saw reports john sullivan -- he is founder of insurgent usa. he was involved in insurgent activity inciting violence. why is that type of thing not reported? i see my time is running out. it's unfortunate that mayor bowser is not here today. i have a letter from her urging no support from the national guard and what little support they got, she wanted it for mere crowd control rather than stopping the incidents that were taking place. she should be here today testifying before us. it's extremely irresponsible, in my opinion, that she's not here. it's time to get to the truth

and stop creiating a narrative that's misleading to the american people. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank the chair for having this hearing. i find it hard to believe the revisionist history being offered by my colleagues on the other side. it is not a 45-minute walk from the ellipse to the capitol. you would think the gentleman has probably taken that walk himself several times. it's several blocks. i just collapses the entire scenario that he has put fo forward. mr. miller, i live neathe catol. on janua 5th and january 6th,

i had an opportunity to walk through e crowds. they gathered on the 5th and gr considerably during the 6th. my personal observatn was that the crowds on the 5th, january 5th were relatively pcefu i walked in and among them, and then again on the morning of the 6th. wereompelled to walk bk and fourth through the crowds as they gathered around the capito what struck me, though, was aftepresident trump's -- his eech and how the crowd chan the mood of the crowd changed after those remarks. in addition to what said about initially a peaceful protest, also in those same

remarks that the gentleman from georgia neglects to repeat. he said you better get up to the capitol and fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore. that's when the mood changed in that crowd. opportunity to comment on that. let me ask you. you've already done this in an interview with ve, b -- but you think anyoneould have ch, marched on the capitol and tried to overrun the capitol without thpresidens remarks? know you've anered this question several tes, but d like for you tswer it for >> i think i'd like to modify my original assessment. >> why am i t surprised about that. >> based on, as chief cont said, we are getng more

information by the day, by the minute about what happened. and to highlight some othe observations that were made, it's clear now, although we're going to find out through the department of justice process and the legal system, it seems clear that there was some sort of conspiracy where there were organized assault elements that intended to assault the capitol that day. >> reclaiming my time. i'm asking you the same question you answered before. did the president's remarks insight people in the crowd to march on the capitol, or did they not? >> he clearly offered that they should march on the capitol. it goes without saying that his statement resulted in that. the question -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. >> i'm trying to answer. >> let me she with the committee what you said before. this is your quote, your quote. would anybodhave marched on

the capitol and tried to overrun the capitol without the president's speech? i think it's pretty much ppened.ive that would not have >> i think now i would say that that is not the unitary factor at all. >> what's that? >> i would like to offer, i have reassessed, it's not the unitary factor at all. it seems clear there was an organized conspiracy with assault elements. >> in your written testimony for today. >> -- what the statement said. >> reclaiming my time again. for your written testimony for today, for today, this morning, you stated the following about the president, quote, i personally believe his comments encouraged the protesters that day. >> that's a fair statement. >> so this is -- a very recent reversal of your testimony? >> absolutely not. that's ridiculous. >> you're ridiculous. >> thank you for your thoughts. i also want to highlight --

>> wait a minute. reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. you also said and i quote, t question is did he know he was enraging t people? that's a different matter. and i understandour reluctance to try to portray what was in the president's mind. testimony, both written and oral, you id that -- and agn -- without the president's speechpeople would n have rched on the capitol and tried to overrun the capitol andha yowrote this morng, personally believe h comments encouraged the presidenthat day. >> there's a difference -- >>ou understand how not believable your new testim your newersion otestimony that was apparently created between the time you wrote your testony this morning and w

you ca before the committee today. i yield back >> there a difference -- >> the gentleman has -- >> there's a difference between marching the capitol and assaulting the capitol. that's the dlin nation i'm trying to make, despite the partan attack that i was just subjected to. >> the gentleman's time has expired. gentleman yields back. gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, is recognized for five minutes. >> okay. i wasn't ready for that. first of all, thank you for holding the hear. i want to associate some of my -- my colleague mr. hice on the time frame. i think he made a lot of sense. i'm trying to understand, first of all, madam chair, i think we should have somebody from the capitol police board maybe to testify, too. anyways, we had these pipe

bombs, chief contee placed at the rnc and dnc headquarters. obviously to me that was a preplanned attack. would you agree? and also, when you responded to the pipe bombs, do you know what your motivations were or have you identified who the perpetrators were? >> yes, to answer your question. i do think these things were preplanned. we know through investigation that these devices were sat out there, positioned out there by a lone individual. in terms of our response to that, the metropolitan police department responded along with federal assets to the threat. to mitigate the threat we were facing at that time. >> do you know if this individual or individuals had any contact or coordination with the people that entered the

capitol? >> no, sir. at this point we do not know that. no one has been apprehended. that investigation continues on. >> the people that illegally entered the capitol, i've seen some reports. it looked like a lot of them had military-type apparel on, gas masks and so forth -- things like that. is that correct? >> that is accurate, sir, yes. >> so you'd have to come to a conclusion that that was preplanned initiative before january 6th? would you concur? >> yes. we've seen individuals who wear protective gear to demonstrations when they attempt to negatively engage law enforcement. but in this one with the tactical gear and certainly with

the helmets, there was certainly thoughts that things were going to be bad there. >> the fbi reported i think maybe three days before or the day before, of possible violence at the capitol. was your department notified? were you aware of that? >> no, sir, not three days before. if you're talking about the intelligence bulletin from norfolk, no, sir. >> did you have notification the day before or not? >> no, sir. i think my previous testimony at another hearing, we kind of addressed this issue. the notification was sent through -- it was basically sent through an email -- it was emailed to the various agencies within the intelligence network. >> did the capitol police have notification, are you aware? >> i found out later on that capitol police, they did have

information, but this was after january 6th occurred. >> okay. i guess for the other witnesses, there was chatter -- apparently chatter going around on social media even days before organization or coordination. o attorney general, mr. rosen, was there any information that the department was aware days before january 6th. >> congressman, fbi director wray addressed this in a previous hearing and i gather will again. let me address it at a high level. there were very robust mechanisms for looking for such things. the bureau has to sort out what's aspirational, versus what's real. they had a mechanism with the police forces and other sources

to share information. my understanding is that information was shared in a timely way. >> do you think big tech could have had a role in helping get that information out or not? >> again, i'd probably direct you to the fbi for more specifics about this. it's often the case that they seek assistance from private sector counterparts as well. >> thank you, and i'm out of time. i'll yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia, mr. conley is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. the january 6th insurrection was fueled by a big lie, fueled -- we're going to jump out of this and come back to this hearing for a second. we wanto gto the white house

where president biis meeting with top congressional leade, republicans and democrats for the first time. >> what we're going to talk about today -- when i ran i said i wasn't going to be a democratic president. i was going to be a esident for l americs. the bottom line is we're going to see wheth we can reacsome conssus on a compromise. we're going to talk a lot about infrastructure today to see if there's a way we can reach compromise that gets the people'sork done and within the wounds of everyone agreeing. that's the purpose of this not much me to say right now. we're going to get going. that's it. >> how do you expect to do that, sir? >> easy. just snap my fingers. it will happen. [ shouting ]. >> thank you, guy.

let's go. >> come on, guys. >> let's go, guys. thank you. let's go. thank you. >> just listening in to see if we could hear any questions. let's bring in dana bash. dana, let's talk about what we're looking at here today. even before we talk about any chance of bipartisan compromise on infrastructure, i think just looking in that room, you see kevin mccarthy sitting right there. according to the pool note, peter alexander, one of the reporters in there, you know what happened with kevin mccarthy and his leadership. can you trust him and work with him? no answer. >> reporter: it's really

fascinating and such a pertinent question. the reason is because kevin mccarthy is sitting in the oval office as one of four bipartisan members meeting formally for the first time with the president of the united states coming from what, just two hours earlier, overseeing a vote to oust a member of his own leadership because she dared to speak out and say that the election wasn't stolen and that joe biden was fairly elected, that same joe biden, president biden, kevin mccarthy is sitting with in the oval office as we speak to discuss whether or not they can find bipartisan compromise on a host of issues, first and foremost the infrastructure legislation. >> it feels like an encapsulation of everything messed up about washington. >> it is, pretty hard to do because it's a very complicated and deep and wide ranging m,

messed up in your terms. that's first and foremost. the thing is, joe biden has been around for a very long time. he's never quite seen this kind of division within parties, particularly with the republican party. but he understands what it takes to make a deal. that's clearly the way he's going to approach this, kind of pretend it didn't happen. >> try to move forward somehow from it. dana, stick with me. jeremy diamond, i'm bringing you in real quick. this is the first time the president -- a joint meeting between top congressional leaders. the focus, as biden said, is going to be on infrastructure. clearly he's making a joke on how easily coming to compromise

is going to be. >> reporter: no doubt. nobody here at the white house is expecting them to emerge from this meeting, suddenly having a deal from these multitrillion dollar proposals. the white house does see this meeting as an important step to demonstrate he's committed to this issue of bipartisan. how much can come out of this meeting remains to be seen. i've been speaking with senior white house officials over the last couple days who says the president wants to find common ground and plans to focus on that in these discussions. also noting that the rest of that is up to those republican leaders in that oval office meeting. the president can steer the direction towards common ground. but what the reception will be from senator mcconnell and congressman willing carthy, the leaders from the republican party in both houses of congress is up to them. we know senator mcconnell has made comments about being 100% committed to stopping the biden administration's agenda.

kevin mccarthy is dealing with this intraparty feud, focused on the fact that somebody in his party's leadership, congresswoman cheney, joe biden was legitimately elected. it is difficult for president biden to deal with those officials. white house officials insisting he's not going to raise any of that. he's going to set that aside during this meeting and focus on the issues of infrastructure, also some discussion of police reform where there have been bipartisan talks that have shown progress in recent weeks. >> there has been signs of progress on that very important issue. we'll head now back to capitol hill to get back into this important house hearing into the january 6th insurrection. some of the questioning from republicans so far has been just bonkers. listen in. >> -- about the nature of the insurrection. rewriting historserves n purpose other than t coverup,

the violence a brew kalt we experienced onanuary. resionishistorserves no purposbut to protect that violence. >> mr. ros, four years a, was it aropriate for democrats tobject the 2016 presidenti election results? >> congressman, i think the things that are appropriate or inappropriate for congress to do are what all of us have to do, to adhere to the constitution. i'm going to say that's an issue for you as members of congress. >> you're former acting attorney general. we appreciate your service to the country. they've told us we weren't allowed to object on january 6,

21. you're n even alwed to co-sponsor legislation that democrats introduced if you did object to counting the elector on january 6, 2021. was it okay for democrats to do that on january 6, 2017? >> what i would hope is people of all parties, all political perspectives would respect the constitution, our system of government and the rule of law. >> does the constitution allow members to object to the electoral college results on january 6 after a presidtial election? does. understanding is that it >> it does, right. democrats did it -- democric chan of the rules committee objecd e very first day pointsent ump won by 30 mr. raskin objected to florida. mr waters jected to wyomg. ybe the onlytate that

president trumwon byore than won alama, she objectedo wyoming. you're saying that was oy for democrats to do? mr. rosen? that was fine. >> i'm sorry. i didn't understand if you were asking me to respond to that. >> is o -- is okay for jim mcgovern to object to alabama on january 6, 2017? he's allowed to do that, right? >> i think if members are and sponsibiliti, that s, les again a ques for all -- >> ms. waters objected to wyoming. she can object to that if she wants ? >> at least the constitution lows members of congress to raise objections. >> we've heard a lot of talk from democrats about revisionist story and the g lie. we'vhad democratic members of congress tl us we weren't

allowed to objec that sohow we we trying to overturn the will of the american people en thoughe objected to states likeennsylvania, for example, where th -- i lieve in an theielectiaws inhe changed they're allowed to objecto alabama, wyong, florida, but i fail to see the logithe. how about the previous gentleman from virginia talked abo brutality. i just want to read you a coup stements here -- let me ask you this question first. was the 2016 election stolen? >> i do not know of evidence that would say it was. i think you're alluding to a troublesome thing about the legitimacy of our past elections, sometimes governors races being called into question. i think it's really necessary and important for all of us to find ways to restore our

citizens' faith in the electoral process and in our representative system of government. >> secretary clinton said on may 2019, you can run the best campaign, become the nominee and have the election stolen. september 2019 on cbs sunday morning that president trump was an illegitimate president. on october 2020, just a month before our last presidential election, ferring to the 2016 presidential election and she said it was stolen from her. >> she is wrong. 2016.e election wavalid in president trump won. when we talkbout revisionist history that we've heard from the big lie, theirominee as out recently as st octob was stol.g the election in 2016 was they can object to alabama, wyoming in 2017.

t we're somehow not allowed to object tanytng, raise points about e 2020 electn. it's not about revisionist history. it's about the doublstandard the democrats wa to have. that's the part that bothers m the mond frankly what bothers the american people the most. with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman from illinois, mr. krishamoorthi is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman. mr. miller, you don't deny that at least four people died in kks with january 6th, correct? >> i don't know how to answer that. >> and you don't -- >> yes or no? it's not that easy. it's just not that easy. >> and 140 police officers were injured, right? >> i don't know. >> and two capitol police officers later died by suicide, correct? >> i don't know. that's what i read in the

papers. >> hundreds of rioters breached the capitol on january 6th, correct? >> yes. >> sir, i want to highlight a paragraph in a vanity air article, you said, quote, i know for an absolute fact that historians are going to look and go those people had their game together. mr. miller, i have a picture of january 6th and what the nation saw on tv. i can assure you these pictures of mayhem and insurrection do not suggest anyone had their game together. let me turn you attention to another topic, namely russia. you said, quote, i have professional respect for how they do things. i kind of, you know, like professionally, i'm like, wow, they're doing pretty well and they're using a lot of irregular warfare concepts, information,

all that stuff in a way that, you know, like good on them. mr. miller, according to the od &i russia interviewed in the 2016 and 2020 elections, correct? >> i didn't read that report. >> on top of that, russia invaded ukraine and annexed crimea. >> yes. >> you know vladimir putin tried to kill his political opponent, alexey navalny with a nerve agent, correct? >> i don't know what that has to do -- >> according to the agency russia is responsible for solar winds, the largest cyber attack waged ever, right? >> i thought i was here to explain the unexplained delays of january 6th. >> sir, you said good on them with regard to russia. meanwhile, regarding the department of defense which you

headed, you told ""vanity fair"," quote, this f'ing police is rotten. i think your comments, mr. miller about russia and the doj are blizzard and rotten and i think they illustrate, unfortunately, the problems of the response on january 6th. let me turn to january 6th. on january 3rd you informed the president that mayor bowser requested national guard support. according to page 11 of your written statement. the president said to give the mayor the support she requested, correct? >> yes. >> on january 6th, according to your statement, you became aware sometime on or before 1:30 p.m. that the rioters breached the perimeter of the capitol, right? >> yes. >> according to a dod-created timeline at 1:34 timeline mayor bowser called army secretary mccarthy to request additional forces to respond to the

capitol. according to page 8, one and a half hours you authorized mobilizing the d.c. nard guard in providing these national forces. that constituted a gap of 1.5 hours. during that 1.5-hour gap, why did you and the secretary disobey the president's order to give the mayor the support she requested? >> she already had the support she requested. what's your question? >> she requested additional support. you say this mayhem and pictures of insurrection on january 6th? she requested additional support from you. during that 1.5 hours either you disobeyed an order given by the president to help mayor bowser or the president changed his order and asked you to delay support or you just plane froze and were indecisive while people were being injured, killed, while hundreds of rioters breached the capitol and a

nation was traumatized. sir, because of your actions -- >> there were 8,000 badged and credentials police officers on duty. >> and you weren't there. >> -- only to use as a last resort. >> you were awol. >> that's completely inaccurate. >> as you said before, you have responsibility for everything. something goes wrong, quote, unquote, i own it completely, 110%. sir, you partially own this mayhem, and that's why i'm going to ask for a dod investigation into your actions. >> i already requested that before i left the department of defense. >> i look forward to the report. thank you, sir. >> the gentleman's time expired -- in listening into this oversight hearing in the house and into another element of january 6th insurrection. what can be learned? who is at fault?

let me bring in andy mccabe, former deputy director of the fbi as well as chief charles ramsey. andy, can i get your take on what we've heard in this hearing? >> it's really been a tale of two totally different stories. if you look at it from the perspective of the questions, i think in that last series of questions from representative krishamoorthi is a great example. you have the democrats really pushing on these witnesses to shed some light on specific facts, when they received request for assistance, how long they spent thinking about that, whether or not that assistance was granted and you have the witnesses shifting back. you shift over to republican kwerers in, it's like we're in a different hearing. it's talking about referring vaguely to unproven allegations of afr antifa conspiracies and relate gaiting the 2016 election, objections that democrats may have posed. i think it's an unfortunate and

unproductive example of how incredibly divided we are on this and seemingly every issue. >> unproductive seems to be a great word for it because, chief, i don't know what answers we've gotten out of this. there are very important questions still outstanding and gaps in timelines, why more guard troops weren't deployed, the timeline. there's gaps in time of why it took so long for them to learn they had been given authority to deploy the guard. these are serious questions. no apologies from anyone. no responsibility taken by anyone in this hearing. them saying they wouldn't do anything different if presented with this again. chief, your reaction? >> you haven't gotten any answers to questions and you're not going to get any answers to questions in this hearing. it's pretty much a waste of time. which is why you need to have an

independent commission to take a deep dive. we're so divided politically, you're not going to get at anything. all you're listening to are a lot of grandstanding speeches and so forth. the secretary of defense, the former secretary, he's very defensive and this is just -- it shows how dysfunctional congress has become. if we're serious about finding out what happened on january 6th and get into the details to see it's not going to happen again, it's not going to happen in the united states congress. it's going to happen with an independent commission. i'm not optimistic that's going to happen because i don't think they can agree on that. we'll all form our opinions about january 6th. there will be a lot of unanswered questions that will remain. >> chief, a couple of things we heard from republicans, paul gosar and jody hice was that trump did nothing wrong on the day of the insurrection, gosar

trying to paint a picture that the rioters were not violent. talking about peaceful patriots. jody hice trying to say the rioters weren't showing up at the capitol because what they heard from donald trump. we have video of the rioters on the ground saying they're there because of donald trump. the justice department is investigating federal crimes in terms of why they went to the capitol. i do think this hearing is important in the sense of just laying bare the complete rewriting of history that many republicans, not going to say all, are still trying to do. and it was such a horrific day for this country. >> yeah, but we already know that. they've been trying to do it. thank god for video. the video shows exactly what happens. some of the members,

unfortunately, in my opinion, are so out of touch with any sense of reality that it's embarrassing. something like this is being shown around the world. what can people possibly be thinking about the united states right now when they listen to some of these guys. you've got the video right there. that is what it is. you're not going to get at any kind of truth or anything that even remotely resembles it unless there's an independent look. if there's such a thing as being independent, we've gotten so polarized. i'm optimistic there is. it's really an embarrassment in my opinion. i'm not saying that from a part san perspective. the truth is the truth. the video is the video. how can you pretend as if nothing ever happened on january 6th. to me it's ridiculous. >> andy, two things i wanted to get your take on that we did hear from the former acting

secretary of defense miller. he said criticisms of the military response were unfounded. he blamed politics as motivating part of this. he said this isn't a video game. i stand by -- we responded so effectively and quickly. but that's not what we heard. we were sitting together when the commander of the d.c. national guard, he was ready to deploy. he put guys on buses ready to deploy because it was taking so long. that's not just some outside observer saying things didn't move fast enough. that's the commander of the d.c. national guard. there's a disconnect. >> there's a complete disconnect here, kate. in this environment, in a hearing like this, essentially you have a situation where the former secretary of defense can say, and i quote him, he refers to his enormous accomplishment of the quick and effective response of dod.

look at the videos. if that's an accomplishment of a quick and effective response, i'd hate to see what a fail your looks like. there's no explanation between his astonishing review of his own and his department's performance as opposed to john walker who said, as you pointed out. he requested authorities. days before he was given authority on the caveat that he had to come back again and submit an entire concept of the operations plan before he could deploy even his quick action emergency force. we're still not getting to which of those versions are accurate. >> which gets to how we can avoid this -- for corrective action being taken and how to avoid this happening in the future. that's why these poem mortems,

independent commissions are so critical. chief, one thing we saw, it seems very clear, a bipartisan independent commission seems necessary after you saw this hearing today. thank you very much. coming up, house republicans voted to oust liz cheney from her leadership role for speaking out against the big lie, for speaking out and telling the truth. cheney makes very clear, though, she is not going to stay silent. she promises to fight on. she promises to fight on. that's next. full of the people who shaped you. they all deserve care and access to the vaccine. no matter their address, income, or skin color. not having a ride to get the vaccine. can't be the reason you don't get it. you wanna help? donate a ride today.

(vo) nobody dreams in conventional thinking.

it didn't get us to the moon. it doesn't ring the bell on wall street. or disrupt the status quo. t-mobile for business uses unconventional thinking to help you realize new possibilities. like our new work from anywhere solutions, so your teams can collaborate almost anywhere. plus customer experience that finds solutions in the moment. ...and first-class benefits, like 5g with every plan. network, support and value without any tradeoffs. that's t-mobile for business.

it only took about 15 minutes but the impact could last and likely will for years. house republicans voting to

remove liz cheney from her leadership position this morning, they pushed her out because she refused to stop speaking out against former president trump and the election lies he's still promoting. right after that vote cheney made clear she will not be backing down. take a listen to this. >> we must go forward based on truth. we cannot both embrace the big lie and the constitution. i will do everything i can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the oval office. we have seen the danger that he continues to provoke with his language. we have seen his lack of commitment and dedication to the constitution, and i think it's very important to make sure whomever we elect is somebody that will be faithful to the constitution. >> joining me now, manu raju on capitol hill. this moved fast today and what

are you learning that went on behind closed doors? >> yeah, it moved fast and a quick removal by the republican leadership to oust her with the support from the former president, donald trump. cheney said if leaders want to go down that rte, that wl be their legacy. virginia fox a. north carolina republican oered a resolution to ousher from her leadership post, and then mccarthy, who engineeredthis behind the scenes made comments and said we need to unify, and it moved quickly for a vote. they voted by voice, not b secret balloand overwhelmingly

the vote was yea to remove her, and e waremoved. chen defendersarned about the implications f the republicans. >> basicly it's time to move from her. heaid we he to be unified and continue with the whole unity theme. look, i'm all for unity,'m all for unity and truth, you know. truth cannot co-exists with lies. >> one person who aligned herself with donald trump is the lily replacement oliz cheney, and that's elise stefanik. she's the new york republican that has the support of donald trump and got on trump's radar when she defended him in the 2019 impeachment, and she locked down the support across the

republican conference, although she's getting blowback from conservative members, and in the letter she sent to her colleagues today, she said today i ask to earn your vote. she says we know the american people overwhelmingly reject the democrat socialists agenda, and we hope they hear our vision on the message that matters to them. if we get our message out we will win and save america. i am told she made the case, she won't buck her party on key votes that could win over some of those skeptics. >> thank you. >> jamie, you have a top-ranking republican in the house, and voted out for telling the truth.

just reflect on this moment. >> i'm laughing because kevin mccarthy and donald trump keep talking about a big tent, and it's clearly only a big tent if you are marjorie taylor greene, but it's not a big tent if you are liz cheney. liz cheney said i will do everything i can to make sure the former president never gets anywhere near the oval office. that is what this moment is about for liz cheney. that's her mission, kate. >> that didn't seem an accident, right, jamie? she was very clear minded when she said that statement. >> absolutely. this vote was not an accident. i was actually speaking to her over the last couple of days as she was writing this speech.

she knew this was coming and she could have been quiet and she didn't have to answer questions or tweet or make public statements. this was her red line. she feels so strongly that donald trump is a threat to the party, a future threat to the country and democracy, and i would say she paved the way for this vote to happen. >> i am curious. she didn't whip votes, and for everybody out there that means she did not ask around and get people on her side, and as you said, she knew it was headed this direction, and whatever she does going forward is different and impactful like adam kinzinger stepping up, and they

are alone. >> yeah, there's a lonely group, not lot of people here, as far as elected republican officials. i think what they are hoping to do is go after voters who used to be registered republicans but now consider themselves independents. never trump republicans. moderate republicans. the real question is, jared kushner said donald trump hijacked the republican party. the mission is to try and go after republican voters and independent voters who are not with donald trump. >> that could be for 2022, but most definitely looking towards 2024, that is for sure. >> absolutely. >> good to see you. thank you very much.

your reporting has always been amazing on this. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. it's been a rocking and rolling roller coaster day. john king picks up or coverage right now on "inside politics." >> i am john king in washington. thank you for sharing what is an action-packed news day with us. a white house meeting with the big four congressional leadership, and that sit-down coming on the debate on infrastructure. liz cheney gone today from the republican house leadership. on her way out cheney issued a warning and promise. the warning that donald trump is dragging republicans towards distraction. the promise? this. >> i will do every