>> A battle to save the Republican party -- this week on "Firing Line".

>> If it has to take an open battle within the GOP, then that's what it's going to have to take.

>> A combat veteran who flew missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, Adam Kinzinger is a 6-term Republican Congressman from Illinois.

After the siege on the Capitol... [ Explosion, crowd roaring ] >> Shouldn't we be willing to give up our jobs to uphold that constitution?

>> He was 1 of 10 Republican who voted to impeach Donald Trump.

He's also calling out the conspiracies... >> Q is a patriot.

>> QAnon is nuts.

>> ...And facing a primary challenge... >> Adam Kinzinger.

[ Crowd boos ] >> ...But stays focused on his new mission to restore the GOP.

What does Representative Adam Kinzinger say now?

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Representative Adam Kinzinger, welcome to "Firing Line."

>> Thank you.

It's good to be with you.

>> Earlier this week, a Minneapolis jury found Officer Derek Chauvin guilty on all counts for the murder of George Floyd.

Vice President Kamala Harris says the verdict represents a measure of justice, but that we still have work to do.

Congressman, what is your reaction to the verdict?

>> You know, I always hesitate to do the jury's job, but it feels like they got this one right.

I mean, I don't think you can see what we saw -- you know, 9 minutes of having a knee on George Floyd's neck -- you know, immobile, standing there with almost emotionless while they know he's not breathing anymore.

It seems like justice was done.

Look, there are a number of proposals floating around Congress -- there is the bill that Republican Senator Tim Scott introduced in Congress last summer.

There's a bill that is Democratic-supported in the House of Representatives called the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act, which you voted against.

What kind of reform legislation do you support?

>> So, I think we get into real danger when we talk about really messing with qualified immunity.

If we end up opening it up and saying, "Look, if any disagreement with a law enforcement officer or a mistake opens them up to personal liability, I think it's going to be hard to imagine, really, anybody wanting to be a police officer.

I think part of the struggle when we look at policing is we need folks that can come in this with the right attitude, that are trained very well -- they're trained in deescalation.

Quite honestly, people that are trained well -- law enforcement officers that are trained well in terms of use of force are much less likely to use use of force.

So, what I'd like to see is something probably similar to what Tim Scott has, where we're putting money into training.

We have a lot more focus on that kind of stuff, but I do think when you look at areas of qualified immunity, what you're going to do is really reduce the pool of qualified applicants that apply for the police force, and that's probably the last thing we need to do in a moment when we need people to think smarter.

>> In late December of last year, you specifically warned about the possibility of violence at the Capitol on January 6th.

During the insurrection, you described sitting in your office, locked behind your desk, with your gun in your office to protect you.

Walk me through that decision -- to bring your gun to the office that day.

>> Yeah, so I was sitting right here, and, you know, all I had done is read Twitter and read some of the stories that people were putting out to know there was going to be violence on the 6th.

You know, you just look and say, "Look, if people really believe -- which they did, in this QAnon theory -- and that, you know, Trump was going to be president and we were standing in the way of that, it's not illogical to think that people would do what happened.

And so, for me, you know, I typically conceal and carry in most places -- usually not anywhere on the Hill, because we have enough police officers, but that day, I told my staff to stay home, my wife stayed in the apartment, and I brought my gun because I just had this fear.

And I remember just opening my window behind me and hearing flashbangs, non-lethal weapons, etcetera, and knowing this was bad.

And quite honestly, I got on one of the C-SPAN feeds in the Statuary Hall and saw the crowds pouring in and I just -- at that point, you have a real feeling that the Capitol is violated and they have free access to anywhere, which, in all honesty, they really did.

>> House Speaker Pelosi has a new proposal for a bipartisan, 9/11-style commission to evaluate and study the events of that day.

Why is the creation of a bipartisan, 9/11-style commission to review and make recommendations on the events of January 6th important?

>> Oh, I think it's essential, because what we need to do -- I think what's very important is to have an even partisan split on it.

What I'd actually like to see is, frankly, instead of current members, have some retired members in there, because they don't have the political pressures involved.

And I think it's essential because, right now, unfortunately, we are stuck in the middle of January 6th somehow being political.

This was an attack on our democracy, and we need to get true answers to what people knew when they knew it -- what did law enforcement, military, etcetera know -- and what did individual members of Congress know?

There's a lot of accusations.

We need answers to that, because at no point even in the near term of 3 months later, 4 months later, at no point is that ever acceptable -- should it ever be seen as anything near acceptable, and I just feel like we have tried, as Republicans, in all honesty, to move on like it never happened, and it did, and we have to have answers to it.

>> Congressman, it strikes me -- as a member of the International Guard, you know, you flew missions late last spring after George Floyd's murder, to help support law enforcement during the protests.

With that in mind, take a look at some of the statements from your colleagues in the Republican conference.

>> Republicans have been consistent -- we've condemned all the violence all the time.

We condemned it last summer, we condemned it last week.

>> I rise today to oppose this impeachment and denounce the recent violence on the Capitol, just as I opposed the previous impeachment and the violence we've all witnessed all summer long across our great country.

Make no mistake here -- the hypocrisy of the left is on full display.

>> Someone started the metaphor that the President lit the flame -- well, they lit actual flames -- actual fires.

>> I know, Congressman, that you think there is a big difference between the riots that followed the murder of George Floyd and the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

What do you say to Republicans who equate the two?

>> Well, I was actually furious when I started to see the debate on the night of the 6th and I saw people down there, basically pulling out there speeches they had prior to the insurrection and reading from them.

You know, look, yes, you can condemn the riots over the summer, you know?

People can go out and protest, but you can't burn buildings.

There is no equivalent, though, to what happened on January 6th, the reason -- because that was a direct attack on democracy.

You know, you can have riots in a city and not threaten to overthrow the government of the United States.

You can have riots in a city and it doesn't put the number 2, 3, and 4 person in line of succession of the presidency, in theory, decapitating the presidency, if that would have been successful.

There is a massive difference, and so I think you can be consistent and condemn both, but to equate the two is wrong because, again, having a democracy that is run for, of, and by the people, it is essential that we protect those in power to do their jobs, and unfortunately, that day, we came close to failing.

Another Republican president, George W. Bush, was asked this week to describe the Republican Party today compared to the Republican Party that he led.

Here's what he said.

I would describe it as isolationist, protectionist, and, to a certain extent, negativist.

>> Hm.

Are you disappointed?

>> Well, it's not exactly my vision, but, you know what?

I'm just an old guy they put out to pasture, so -- just a simple painter.

>> How do you find George W. Bush's characterization of the Republican Party right now?

>> I think it's accurate.

I think -- you know, look, the Republican Party that I've been a member of my whole life -- I was a Republican as a kid, way before Donald Trump was -- you know, we were the party that believed in, you know, a role for America in the world, and We were a party that believed in hope and opportunity, even if we always haven't been great at necessarily articulating that.

And I think, lately, we've become prey to these conspiracies, and that's why I'm fighting so hard -- because I think if nobody pushes back, the Republican Party will be that in the long term.

I think in the short term, it's still fightable.

I think we can still do battle for what Republicanism and conservatism is, but I think the president's characterization of where we are today is accurate.

I mean, most of our fights are over cultural battles, which, you know, you can have disagreements over cultural things, but there's also really important issues out there like national debt, economy, etcetera, and we're focusing on the things that rile up people's anger.

That's populism, which, by the way, is a complete violation of what being a party is all about.

It's created to basically inoculate ourselves against populism and actually have principles in focus and an idea of where we need to go.

>> So, what would, in your ideal world -- you know, a good, congressional, conservative Republican stand for today?

>> A conservative is somebody who really is not going to peddle in conspiracies, is not going to reflect people's fears back to them as a way to get elected and raise money, and is going to inspire people to bigger things.

I disagree with a lot of the Democrats' policies, but I don't think they're evil people.

I don't think they want to destroy America, they just see things differently, and I want to go out and have mature debates with them instead of just, you know, jumping on the Internet and saying that, you know, all this, you know, scary stuff.

So, to me, a conservative believes -- in my estimation, that a kid born, for instance, in the inner city of Chicago should have the same chance as a kid born in a wealthy suburb.

That's what conservatism is, and all this other stuff we can debate around it are just tactics to get to that end state.

>> You mention conspiracy theories -- in 1966, William F. Buckley Jr., who was the host of "Firing Line" for 33 years, interviewed the head of the Anti-Defamation League for an episode entitled "Extremism."

Listen to this except where they are talking about Barry Goldwater.

>> Buckley doesn't deny for a moment that Barry Goldwater's run for president attracted yahoos and crackpots.

Look, you were early to identify a new chapter of conspiracy theories in the conservative movement with a video that you conducted about QAnon.

How do you, Congressman, go about de-linking the conspiracy theories from the conservative base right now?

>> So, I think one of the big keys is we have to just be honest.

So, when I did my first video on conspiracy theories, the reason I did it is I have a familiarity with conspiracy theories as a kid.

I remember in the mid '90s, the whole idea of the U.N. helicopters and, you know, the FEMA camps that were being built to decapitate people, and just all this crazy stuff that, of course, never came true.

But at the time -- Never did for me, but I remember even in 2015 this idea -- they called it Jade Helm -- that the federal government was going to overthrow Texas.

Even the Texas governor at the time, Greg Abbott, activated the state guards -- not the National Guard -- to quote-unquote "monitor," and he knew darn well that that wasn't a real theory.

So, I think, first, we have to just be clear and honest.

We have to, as leaders, quit looking at our job as simply just to get elected -- it is to lead.

That's why we have the word "leader" behind our name.

It's to lead people and tell them the truth -- that's the start.

And I think the other thing is, it is -- yes, there's leaders that are responsible, but every American has a responsibility to basically determine what they're hearing, what they're reading, what they're believing, and do some of their own research.

Because, in a time when there's so much information -- so much competing narratives -- it's easy just to pick somebody you like and listen to everything they say.

I don't know how to get to that point except to say it over and over again, but people have to be responsible for that.

And I'd say, also, I'm going to add to that, there are countries like China, like Russia, particularly, that are taking this misinformation and dividing societies, and I think, as a government, we need to go on offense on that kind of thing, because we need to make it clear that if you mess in our politics and in our civil society, you're going to be open to the same kind of result.

>> So, your vote -- as you well know, your vote to impeach President Trump has earned you a primary from the Trump wing of the party, but you had strong first-quarter fundraising numbers.

The other person who had strong first-quarter fundraising numbers was Marjorie Taylor Greene.

An adherent and sympathizer to QAnon and conspiracy theories, she raised $3.2 million.

What does that tell you about where the energy in the base of the Republican Party is, Congressman?

>> Well, actually, what that tells me is that, you know, at least when it comes to some of the base and small-dollar fundraising, saying crazy stuff is going to get you some money.

I mean, it's a pattern that works.

Unfortunately, it's a pattern we've learned works, and a lot of people like Marjorie Taylor Greene knew that, came out here, and harvested that to raise a ton of money.

She's not on committees, she's not a serious legislator, nobody takes her seriously when it comes to any piece of legislation, but yet she goes on and reflects anger and leads people astray and can raise money.

Now, what that does -- her $3 million she raised meant that opponents of people like me weren't able to raise enough money as they maybe potentially could have, because somebody that maybe has $50 to give that month gives to the person that's the loudest and not necessarily, you know, in their district or nearby.

So, it's kind of a bit of a sponge for some of the other money for the crazies out there, but I think the other thing it shows is that people are abusing the base Republicans.

They're abusing the people that we love and we represent.

They're abusing their fears, they're abusing their emotions to steal their money.

There are people out there abusing the innate patriotism of our party and Americans, and it's absolutely wrong.

>> You have been very clear that your vote of conscience, if it costs you your job, will have been worth it.

You may be redistricted out of your seat.

I wonder, with respect, Congressman, if, in your task and your goal to reform the Republican Party, if it is possible, do you think, to do that from within the halls of the U.S. House of Representatives?

Or if you might have more luck running statewide in Illinois, working on reforming the Illinois state GOP.

It feels like a real uphill battle from where you sit now.

>> Oh, it certainly feels like an uphill battle.

It feels like a David and Goliath fight but, you know, if you read the rest of that story, you know who wins.

And I think the key on it is this -- the only person I'm responsible for is me.

The only person I can control what they say is me, and I know that to go along with the idea of the big lie or the sedition would not be who I am.

For me, I would feel like everything I did in the military and everything I've stood for would be violated if I -- if I -- I get choked up sometimes talking about it -- would be violated if I did otherwise.

And for me, it's extremely important that I just do the right thing.

Now, look, I have no intention to run statewide.

If I lose my district, it's an option I'd leave out, there.

But look, the reality is reforming, whether it's the state GOP or some county GOP -- the actual party itself I don't think has much power anymore.

I think it's -- it really isn't what it used to be, whether it's Democrats or Republicans, with the new nature of money and social media and everything.

But I think where the battle is is in the hearts of the people that would call themselves Republicans in our case, and that's not going to be done quietly in the halls of Congress, it's going to be done in the public, talking to folks like you about what's really happening out there.

So, when people tell me things like, "Boy, we just need unity in the party," I agree, but if unity means I have to accept the sedition of Donald Trump, that's not unity, that's capitulation, and that's something I will absolutely refuse to do.

>> You mentioned David and Goliath, and you said, "We know how this story ends."

What gives you the confidence of your side gaining momentum?

How do you know that's how the story ends, in your chapter?

>> You know, the reality is, the American people are good people, and I think, you know, while we're in an emotional moment and we're in a real moment of division, we always overcome.

You know the old saying, "Americans can be counted on to do the right thing after they've exhausted all other options."

That said, I can't sit here and say I'm 100% sure that, you know, my view of the Republican Party will win out, but I'm 100% sure that I need to be there advocating for it, and they need to be saying the right thing.

Because, I'll tell you, if we continue to go into conspiracy and power-politics and politics not based on any kind of idea or anything except "we just want our power," this whole thing is going to fall apart someday, and that's a very frightening, frightening thing for me.

>> Given that the other side is well-funded, has a lot of energy -- you know, how are going to do it?

How are you going to build out this different version in the House of Representatives of the Republican Party?

>> Well, so, when I -- I put out a video a couple weeks after the insurrection and really launched this country-first movement, and it wasn't -- I don't even think I set out to really launch a movement, but the reaction we got from people -- you know, from some Democrats, a lot of Independents, mostly Republicans, saying, "You know, we have felt left behind by the party, and thank you for giving us a home."

So it's kind of a marathon -- slow and steady wins the race.

And it's not like what we're asking is all that crazy -- we're just talking about returning to what this party has been.

I think it's possible, but I know this -- if I don't do it and others don't do it, it'll never happen, and, you know, for looking at the number of people that have been willing to give their life for the future of the country, I think it's not much to ask members of Congress to be willing to take tough stances to save the country, too.

>> Does that mean, you know, proactively putting forth planks, policies, legislation that you stand for that you can rally around?

>> Yeah, I think in some cases, yes.

And I think one of the biggest challenges is not even so much the issues.

I think we need to understand that, as a party, we can have a diversity of issues.

We can have people on pro-life, we can have people that are pro-choice in the party.

I want people that have a different view on the Second Amendment than I do, because every time you have a difference of opinion, it makes all of us stronger.

But what the biggest threat to the party is right now is not that we have too many people that believe one particular issue.

The biggest threat is that we have a lot of people that aren't going to tell the American people the truth -- that have harnessed the idea of QAnon as a way to win votes, that are using fear to raise money and to win elections which, you know, works for one or two cycles, but it begins to really destroy democracies, which we're starting to see.

That's the biggest challenge.

So, my initial plank is simply, tell people the truth and quit peddling in fear and conspiracy, and I think as we go on, we're certainly building out broader policies, which aren't going to be "you have to be this way or this way on an issue," but, like I said with conservatism -- do you believe a kid born in the inner city should have the same opportunity as a kid born in a rural town or the wealthiest suburb?

If you do, let's figure out the best way to get there.

>> You're so far the only Republican in the House of Representatives who has called on Representative Matt Gaetz to resign over a federal investigation into allegations of sex trafficking crimes.

Why should he step down, Congressman?

>> Well, look, I just think not only his reaction to this -- you know, this -- these discussions about, "I'm not a monk," right?

His tweet about joining what I call the white supremacy caucus, that even Marjorie Taylor Greene has denounced.

I just -- I wish he wasn't here.

That's his choice -- we can't necessarily remove him over that until he's convicted, and there is now an ethics committee process in place where I think that decision should be, but we've kind of gotten to this moment out here where, you know, look, an unfounded allegation is one thing, and those can happen at any time to anybody.

But when the reaction is simply, "I'm not a monk," and basically, "she was of age," it just -- to me, it just doesn't sit right for what the party should represent, and what a member of -- you know, we've -- There are so many people that are turning Congress into, just, like, a new version of Hollywood, and I got it, you know, and that's a way to get attention, but the reality is it's a very serious job with people's lives on the line, and Americans deserve far better than what they're getting from members of Congress.

>> There are protests right now -- and I know you've seen the images... >> [ Chanting in Russian ] >> ...Protesting over Alexei Navalny's treatment by the Russian government in prison.

Is there more, in your view, Congressman, that the Biden administration should be doing?

>> I think so.

There are oligarchs in Russia that are very close to Vladimir Putin that Navalny himself has suggested be put on the American sanctions list -- I would be supportive of that.

That would begin to put Vladimir Putin in a sheer panic.

He is fearful of Navalny, whether he lives or dies right now, because Vladimir Putin fears nothing more than the Russian people.

And I would call on the administration to move forward on implementing the Congressionally-mandated sanctions against Nord Stream 2, this pipeline intended to keep western Europe addicted to Russian energy.

Those are things that can have a real impact, short of, obviously, military actions, which nobody wants to see.

>> You enlisted after 9/11.

You served in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and you've called President Biden's Afghan withdrawal of our remaining, you know, less than 3,000 troops -- which is, by the way, about the number that the U.S. military maintains in Spain -- "a grave mistake."

Tell me, what is your major concern about a full withdrawal and not leaving any troops behind to advise or support the Afghan military?

>> Well, in the very short answer, my biggest fear is that the Afghan government is going to collapse and we're going to have a repeat of what we saw in Iraq and have to return.

The longer answer is, we are -- even though it's slower than we'd like, we are doing in Afghanistan exactly what we set out to do.

We started with 100,000 troops at points in time -- we're down to 2,500.

We said that we wanted the Afghan military to do the bulk of the fighting -- the Afghan military is now doing the bulk of the fighting.

Only 96% is done by the Afghan military -- we only do 4%, and most of that is counter terrorism operations against, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

So, what we're doing is stiffening the spine of the Afghan military -- we're training them, we're helping them with logistics issues, and allowing them to do the fighting to secure their own country.

We're not forcing them to fight, they're wanting to.

They don't want the Taliban there.

The vast majority -- over 80% of Afghan people want the U.S. and NATO to remain.

The reality is, what we're doing is, in essence, a peacekeeping operation similar to what we have in Kosovo, where if we leave, that would collapse.

Nobody wants to be in Afghanistan longer than we need to be, but there are not marches here on the street of 100,000 people saying, "Get out," and we understand the American people have actually been very resilient in saying, "We understand the need to be there even if we disagree at the moment."

>> Secretary of State Blinken says quote...

So, take that, Congressman -- if the idea of being there is to prevent a future 9/11 from happening again and we have the ability to surveil Afghanistan in our absence, what's the argument for staying?

>> Well, if you can do it from the sky, great.

The problem is ISIS doesn't wear ISIS uniforms, so you have to have human intelligence to know who these people are.

Secondarily, if the Afghan government falls, you now have taken the battle space of potential terrorism from 25-30% of the territory of Afghanistan to 100%, plus, not to mention the potential radicalization of the population that's now, you know, going to be under Taliban rule.

And third, let's think about the fact, when you have 150,000 Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, you have challenges with China, you're renegotiating an Iran nuclear deal -- we're still fighting ISIS in the Middle East.

What is the message that this sends?

It sends the message that America's on the retreat, and I'll tell you, from fighting extremism and terrorism, this is exactly what they have quote-unquote "prophesied", which is the U.S. will leave, and this is a -- certainly a recruiting point for future resurgent terrorism.

>> And we thank you for your service, Representative Kinzinger.

Thank you for joining me here on "Firing Line".

>> You bet.

It was great being with you.

Thank you.

>> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by... And by... Corporate funding is provided by... And... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ You're watching PBS.