then at 8:00, this whole thing end with that massive explosion. the fireball ripping apart that entire house. today they are continuing to a forensics investigation. they want to make sure they understand what might have triggered that explosion. that's in concert with the police. no known criminal behavior new york city activity in his past they are awire ware of, but they do say they had made some allegation as of fraud that the fbi didn't think there was enough to substantiate. and they also had had gone on social media, made conspiracy theories, lashed out and covered his windows in some sort of a tinfoil or aluminum foil. so the reasons behind all of this and what led to the showdown with police are a mystery. very much apart of this investigation right now. again, the good news is nobody else apparently injured. the suspect is presumed deceased.

>> thank you very much. that's for me. deadline white house starts right now. hi, everyone. it's so nice to be right here back with you. there's a lot of new news and new information to cover here today. i'm in because former congresswoman liz cheney has a new book. after the extensive coverage of the work of the january 6th select committee as well as pointed coverage since the very debut of our program about the threat that the republican party poses to american democracy, i have a lot of questions for her. but we start with break news. a remarkable new look the at the case jack myth plans to bring against donald trump in the federal election interference case. that's thanks to a new filing

just submitted a couple hours ago. prosecutors say they intend to introduce a sweeping trove of evidence in the case dating from years before the 2020 election. all in order to illustrate donald trump's criminal intent. the government will offer evidence reflecting the historical record of making such claims. for example, as early as november 2012, the defendant issued a public tweet making baseless claims that voting machines had switched votes from candidate rom to then candidate obama. during the 2016 presidentl campaign,he defendant claimed repeatedly witnoasis that there was widespread voter frd. the defendant's false claims about the 2012 and 2016 elections are admissible because they demonstrate the defendant's common plan of falsely blaming fraud for election result he is does not like as well as his motive, intent and plan to obstruct the certification of the 2020 election results and

illegitimately retain power. they plan to introduce statements made by trump in 2016 and 2020 that hinted a at what the ex-president would ultimately wind up doing. that is refusing to accepthe will of the voters and the results of a free and fair election in which he lost. prosecutors say this. quote, the defendant's kipt refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power dating back to the 2016 presidential campaign is admissible evidence of his plan to undermine the integrity of the presidential transition process when faced with the possibility of an election result the that he would not like. also in this new filing, a stunning fresh allegation involving an unindicted coconspirator in an early chapter of trump's dangerous and desperate efforts at overturning the election result. on november 4th, 2020, the campaign employee exchanged a

series of text messages with an attorney suppoing the campaign's election day operations at the tcf center in detroit. that's where votes were being counted. in the messages, the campaign employee encouraged rye the yachting and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of the defendant's opponent. prosecutors point out right around that time, protesters appeared at the center. you can see them right here. trying to get in just outside the vote tally room where those votes were being counted. and just as the case that jack smith is bringing involves years and years of remarks that trump ma well before he even became a political candidate, it also involved statements he's made after the capitol insurrection. once again from this new filing. quote, the government plans to introduce evidence atrial showing that in the years since the january 6th attack on the capitol, the defendant has openly and proudly supported individuals who criminally

participated in obstructing t congressional certification that day. including by suggesting that he will pardon them if reelected. even as he has conceded that he had the ability to influence their actions during the attack. a sweeping and broad case against disgraced ex-president donald trump bullet in large part by his own statements is where we begin today with some of our most favored experts and friends. former lead investigator for the select committee tim haity is here, plus carol lentic is here. with me at the table is former senator claire mccaskill. so much of what i think remined open questions, even during and going into the end of the congressional committee's work was how will they prove intent, how will they show what he

actually wanted to do. it seems that jack smith has taken on that challenge and then some and saying how about this for intent. it's what he always does, always the did, it's what he will always do. >> absolutely. by the way, welcome back. what a good day you chose to return. congratulations. i'm glad you're here today on this topic. this filing is full of revelations about jack smith's plan. his plan, seblly, to tell the story, a broad narrative of how donald trump rejected any election in which he was not the winner going back all the way now to something like 2014 in 2016 and again in the month before 2020 when he stoked essentially fears and conspiracy

theories stoking the fears that those were rigged, somehow vulnerable to all sorts of malfeasance and interference, all of which was completely phoney. i found two of the elements of jack smith's filing today the most striking. one was the detroit center allegation and episode that you reference starting here. today in your rollout in which basically a campaign employee upon learning that there is a trending direction in which biden is winning in the detroit vote count suggests riot on november 4th. and then the second that i found the most i guess new and fresh was the element at which donald trump seems to ruin the reputation and undermine the reliance upon a chief counsel to the republican national

committee, who begins in november warning people that rudy giuliani and jenna ellis' claims of fraud in the election are a joke, and he warns that those will likely mislead millions of americans and that this is a very serious and dangerous kind of plot. >> there's so much filing. it's something i could spend two hours on. this feels like part of poving his intent is proving his nolk of the effect his words had on his sporters. we went and found my colleague's reporting from right outside and impactly what was being called on transpired. watch this.

>> reporter: increasing mob-like scene of self-proclaimed poll watchers, who say they want the to get access to the building. so many of them have rushed into the building here that i'm actually talking to official democratic poll watchers from the democratic party, who have been shut outside of the balloting room, which they are supposed to have access to. it's got ton a point where we have a police presence here that is blocking access to the building because not only the have they swarmed the room, but they are now over in terms of covid restrictions. >> so just as your witness testified that he would have left if he'd seen the tweet from trump telling him to do so earlier, just as the insurrectionists who in their sentencing was saying we were only there because trump told us to be there. just as the wife of one of the oath keepers said stewart rhodes was waiting for trump to invoke the insurrection act, there was

a call in response, a tweet and act and a reflection back to trump of exactly what effect his words had. >> right. exactly. it's nice to see you in that chair. ab slight liply. he knew all along that his words were not taken rhetorically, but were taken literally. there's example after example after example, well before the election, that his words are taken seriously. that informs the intent behind his words. when he goes to the ellipse and says you have to fight like hell, he has to know that people in the crowd would take that literally. jack smith has to prove he intended to impede and interfere with an official proceeding. his words matter. the intent behind his words matter. that's why he's reaching back

and art tucklating that it he will demonstrate a pattern of having a practical effect. that informs the meeting of his words and directly bears upon intent. prosecutors have to give part mission to introduce evidence of other bad acts that bear upon intent, common scheme or motive. this is a federal rule. that means it requires an advance evidentiary proffer to admit the evidence of the other bad acts. jack smith is laying out all of this information bears upon the president's intent to demonstrate a common scheme. that's why he's asking the judge in advance to rule. it's directly relevant. >> so here is some of what that evidence would be. here's some of what that evidence would look like should

it end up being presented to the jury in the trial. this is him refusing to accept is the election in 2020 and 2016. >> will you commit here today for a peaceful transition of power after the election? there's been rioting in many cities across this country. you're so-called red and blue states. will you commit to make sure there's a peaceful transfer of power after the election? >> we're going to have to see what happens. i have been complaining strongly about the ballots and the ballots are a disaster. >> do you make the same commitment that will you will absolutely accept the result of this election? >> i will look at it at the time. >> i will look at it. we all have covered trump long enough they will study our brains when we're dead, but

that's his way of saying no. >> absolutely. this pattern is not going to be hard to prove. he started talking about fraud in the election in the spring of 2020. and he kept talking about it. he wanted -- this is a marketing effort. this has nothing to do with facts. this has nothing to do with the law. those things are as far away as another solar system. this only has to do with his desire to feed information to his supporters that he knows they will swallow whole, and undermine the results of the election. i don't think this is going to be hard to prove. by the way, the cross-examination of him would be tricky. do you think he'll ever admit his words don't have power? he can't admit that. he's proudly said he can shoot someone on avenue it was and his supporters would still be there for him. he would never say under oath that he didn't believe he has

power over his supporters because that's entirely his self-worth. so his lawyers, who are saying this, they are pleading, well, he can't control what his supporters did. that's not him saying that. i don't think he will ever say that on the stand. >> when i read through this this afternoon, i thought of all the people that have sat a this able to and talked about all sorts of behavior that could be construed of pattern of cheating there's someone who wrote a book about how he cheats in golf. that goes back way before running for president was a glimmer in his eye. the entire civil case is about him taking the size of an apartment and anyone that rents apartments in new york city knows you can go and verify the size of a listing if you need to. he lied not be little, by three times the size of an apartment. the lying and the cheating and the specific lying and cheating that jack smith cites today is

about ballots. it's about election results. it's exactly about the thing for which can he will stand trial. i wonder what you make of the assessment that a judge has to rule whether or not this is relevant. do you have any sense of how successful those efforts will be? >> i happen to think that the pattern and practice of rejecting the election results in multiple ways, both while he was president and running for rereelection and before he ever got into the oval office and never imagined that he would win the presidency. that pattern and practice is reasonably argued to be very relevant. as are donald trump'sen comments a call in response to experts

have described his words, that is also part of a pattern and prctice of donald trump to whip up and to enrage, essentially, supporters of his with false information, with conspiracy theories, with claims that are completely unsubstantiated of a rigged election in order to move them. that call in response happened over and over again. no one really has to bicker about it, because on december 19th when donald trump wrote come january 6th, big protest will be wild, within a matter of 45 minutes, on domestic extremist websites, various leaders were posting in the chat rooms of their groups thes boss has called us, boys. we are all called on january 6th. get ready. he can't call for a revolt or a

rebellion. this is as close as he's going to get. we have been enlisted. >> we know that they were tracking all that. you want to ask you to slice off a different piece of today's filing and explain to us the kans of trump's investigator well-publicized efforts to stand with the insurrectionists. he recorded a song. he said this to john carl about how well received he was among the rioters. let me play that for you. >> if you look at the real size of that crowd, it was never reported correctly. there were -- it's the biggest crowd i've ever spoken in front of by far, really, by far, that went down to the washington monument. >> you told them you were going to go up to the capitol. >> i was going to and then the secret service said you can't. and ben then by the time i would have, i wanted to go back.

i was thinking about going back during the problem to stop the problem doing it myself. secret service didn't like that idea too much. so i would have been very well received. don't forget the people that went to washington that day, in my opinion, they went because they thought the election was rigged. that's why they went. >> i think it's as close as we're going to come to he says i said i wanted to go back. i was thinking about going back during the problem to stop the problem, doing it myself. this is what so much of that testimony sought to establish. and they were explaining the movements he would take. he just coughs it up right there. >> absolutely. the problem there might be, in his view, the joint session. the certification of the election, which he said publicly would be a problem. that's what he intended to stop.

his conduct and his statements matter as well. just like the stuff in advance matters, what he said since leaving office also bears upon his intent, his embrace of the political prisoners of january 6th, playing the national anthem of the prison choir. he's validating their action ps. he's essentially endorsing their conduct. that bears upon the core issue in the federal case, which is did president trump intend to disrupt the joint session. the joint session was disruped by violence. his embrace of the people that perpetuated that outcome becomes a sanction of and an approval of that conduct. the defense will object any evidence beyond the four corners of the indictment, that's why jack smith has to file now a preview of all of the stuff that's happened since the

conspiracy concluded. that's relevant because it bears state of mind, common scheme or plan. he's going to be successful on that. this seems direct lu relevant to the issue of intent, but that's to be clear what jack smith is doing. he's fronting this and showing his cards to get the judge to say i agree, even though those statements are outside of the term of the conspiracy, they are relevant. >> there's more in here about something we talk about on this program all the time. and that is not just the harassment of witnesses, are they yours or the federal or local criminal investigations, but something in this filing about how that goes to his criminal intent. you want to ask all of you. i have to sneak in a quick break. also ahead for us, the football coach turned senator from alabama. we're talking about tommy tuberville. he has blocked hundreds of military promotions impacting and damaging our combat readiness. it's now mostly over.

how a lot of nothing came to an end, but not without doing significant harm to our national security. still to come, liz cheney will be here at the table. there's so much to talk to her about, including the breaking news. jack smith's upcoming trial against the ex-president and her firsthand accounts and the threat trump still poses to the country. we'll ask her if she thinks enough is being done to stop him. we'll also ask what her future holds. all those stories when we continue after a quick break. e continue after a quick break

sometimes, the lows of bipolar depression feel darkest before dawn. with caplyta, there's a chance to let in the lyte. caplyta is proven to deliver significant relief across bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and ii depression. and in clinical trials, movement disorders and weight gain were not common. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. caplyta can help you let in the lyte. ask your doctor about caplyta. find savings and support at caplyta.com.

the power goes out and we still have wifi ask your doctor about caplyta. to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

house republicans trust the american people to draw their own conclusions. they should not be dictated and accept is that as fact. they can review the tapes themselves. we're going through a methodical process of releasing them as quickly as we can. we have to blur some some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don't want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the doj and to have other concerns and problems. so that's a slow process to get done. we're working sded stedly on it. we hireds additional personnel to do that. all of those tapes will be out so everybody can see them and draw their own conclusion. excuse me? that hpd today. that's the new speaker. he was in front of cameras and was talking about blurring the faces of the insurrectionists. many of whom pleaded guilty to

the thing thas did. a spokesperson did a little shuffle back saying the speaker was trying to say was that he was trying to keep the raw footage away not from the doj but not what he said. we should not my colleague wrote a whole book about it have been instrument tail light to the tall to the investigation. we're back with our panel. creator of the circus and my friend at the table. this is the speaker of the house. did he just cop to obstructing? have i watched too much morning show? he's going to blur the faces on the tape. what? >> he's one of the architects,

so he wants to protect his fellow insurrectionists. the most disturbing thing this that statement was not that he wants to blur faces. it's bad. >> to protect them from being charged by the doj. >> yes, it's this motion of the persecution of the rioters. that thr a bunch of people on the hill. it's still this just there on the line. they are all really peaceful and just decided to take a stroll in the capitol. exercising their normal day at the beach, day at the demeanor and they were being turned into political prisoners.

it's swept up in this dragnet. in that sense, he's in perfect harmony with the former president of the united states, who wants to pardon all of them. >> does mike johnson need to get on the phone with a lawyer today? to just make sure language in terms of obscuring the faces of people engaged in criminal behavior isn't miscon strud? >> look, i think he is playing in some ways the same game that the defendant trump is playing, which is a public relations strategy, not a legal one. i don't know that speaker johnson has any aiding and abetting role. the doj has all of this footage and has reviewed it and used to inform the over thousand criminal convictions that they have obtained. what he's doing is standing on

the side of the crazy antifbi, anti-doj corists. you can criticize the doj for a lot of things with respect to january 6th. you can't criticize the vigor they have pursued the vase lens. they have been aggressive in identifying people who trespass ed, who assaulted police officers who breached the capitol. it's shocking that there's any controversy that even that could be politicized. violence against police officers. these are not political prisoners. this is not a witch hunt. these were serious crimes that were committed. speaker johnson the seems to be, much like the former president and now defendant trump, standing on the side of the insurrectionists. >> this is a lot of what liz cheney writes about in this book, and specifically speaker mike johnson's role as the architect in the dishonestly predicated objections that the

house members had to which their own voters had sent them back to congress. with the exception of two, none of them thought there had been any fraud. there was a pattern of dishonesty. this seems egregious, especially now had he's been elevated to speaker. >> it's shocking. and i think we all have to -- every day we have to say i'm not going to be numb today. this is crazy. first of all, this tape was all given to tucker carlson. now does anybody believe that there's some smoking gun in this tape that is going to somehow vindicate these criminals that are in prison right now? or the guy who urged him on? if it was there, we would have seen it. so really he's trying to further the public relations effort about conspiracies. he's going to blur the faces to say there was some guy that was some liberal thats was urging

people on. the former president is talking about these conspiracies now. that there was somebody that was planted by the government. this was all the government that did this. and that's what mike johnson is doing. he's doing this to play to the conspiracy crowd. and he's speaker of the united states house of representatives. why do more people not have a problem with this that have an r behind their name? >> the problem here is that paul pelosi's attacker was a whack doodle because he described to these conspiracies. in the thicket of fools, parodying known false sis, the fear among counterterrorism and counterextremism experts is what

the lone wolf will do. we can say he's just talking about footage. but he's standing there with being the president of the united states and saying something that i'm sure they might check with their own lawyers these days before they say it on their air waves. >> it's worrisome because we have seen example after example of whether you call them lone wolves, whether you call them extremists, whether they are people who have a mental health issue that they can't really check reality and this stuff that's bombarding them on fox news or alt-right websites is something they can't sift through. whatever the reasons are, we have seen individuals take up arms motivated by these

falsehoods. it started really with donald trump. donald trump pushed them. his lieutenants continued to promote and market them. and now a man who is speaker of the house and owes that job to donald trump, just as kevin mccarthy for a time, owed that job to donald trump until donald trump decided he shouldn't have it anymore. that speaker is now helping promote those falsehoods. and what are the consequences? there was an fbi field office that was attacked by somebody who thought donald trump's claims of a politically weaponized fbi were accurate. and therefore, he was going go in and make sure he did something to stop this evil fbi. there's a reason they have been saying since 2019 long before donald trump talked about rugged

election 2020 that domestic extremism is the number one threat to our country's safety. let that wash over you one more time. domestic extremism is the number one threat to our country's safety. anding aed on and ignited by donald trump and his followers. it's only gotten worse. >> i want to give you the lasts word in this conversation. as someone who worked alongside liz cheney, she will be here in the next hour. one, what is the most useful thing to ask her to sort of expand upon in our conversation. but part two, i want your voice on what i teased before the last break. that's from this new filing we led with. the government wilinoduce evidence to establish the defendant donald trump and his coconspirators's plan of intent to silence those who spoke out against the false election fraud claims. the defendant's knowledge of

this public attacks on officials like those on his vice president that's described in the indictment could lead to threats, harassment, and violence, and the repeated choice to attack individuals with full knowledge of this effect. i lump them together because they seem to be what every story about trump these days comes back to. any threat of accountability, he will attack those seeking to hold himable. let any threat from doj, how he plants to dismantle it if he's elected president again. a lot of what liz cheney's book deals with is that she had to essentially leave her party, leave her seat, leave her job to tell the truth about all of this. >> yeah, again it is criticism of websites against him or per sooed enemies bears upon intent. husband criticism of all of the people the who told him the

truth and others bears upon what he intends. if he's mad at people that said something that is incountry with his misguided attempt to hold on to power, he would berate them and continues to. all of this is part of the soup that establishes that he wanted what happened to happen. he intended the disruption. in terms of liz cheney, she's a fantastic lawyer in addition to being a person of great character and principle. she was very involved day-to-day in our investigation. sitting shoulder to shoulder with investigators, asking questions, developing facts, she know this is record every bit as well as i or anyone ls. else. so i'm not the right person to suggest questions about politics, but i am about facts. ask her about anything issue she's have the answer because she did her homework. she was just as responsible for

the facts we were able to uncover. >> and i know she does single you and the other investigators out for high praise in terms of the evidence you were able to develop through your nonpolitical but fearless pursuit of the truths and the facts. it's a pleasure to have you here. it's so nice to see your face. thank you for starting us off today. stick around. after months and months and months and months and months and months, senator tommy tuberville is hanging it up. he's finally given up his fight against hundreds of military promotions. he has admitted he lost the fight, but he says he regrets nothing about the dangerous stunt he engageed in that damaged our combat readiness. the promotions are heading to the senate floor for passage in a few minutes. we'll bring you that story, next. s. we'll bring you that story, next

in a crisis caused by a terrorist massacre.

warning civilians to clear out, while hamas forces them back. allowing in food and water, which hamas steals. nbc news has exclusive new reporting that a handful of d.c. residents were thi week to take steps towards participating in what could very well become the trial of the century from that new reporing. potential jurors and former president trump's federal election interference trial may know they are in the pool now. the dt court for the district of columbia has sent perspective juror aprescreening form asking about their availability to appear in person

february 9th. a in washington, d.c. who received one of the forms in the mail monday shared an image of it with nbc news. the form does not name or refer to the defendant directly, the court had earlier set those dates for the questionnaire and the start of trump's trial. the form advises potential jurors their trial, quote, may last approximately three months after jury selection is completed. which is consistent with estimates of the timetable for trump's trial. we're back with the panel. i know it's a normal part of the process, but nothing about this feels normal. >> i have to tell you i'm really worried about this. as you know, i have been beating the drum that everyone needs to realize one juror, just one juror who doesn't tell the truth in the jury selection process about some bias they may have, some deeply held belief they have that this is a witch hunt

or whatever trump says on any given day, and now that it's out there that these jury forms have gone out, i'm just envisioning bad guys trying to figure out who got them and trying to figure out how to get to some of those jurors. now let's ep hope they get caught. if you get a jury form washington, d.c. and anybody contacts you, call the police. because think we spend a lot of time on the evidence at trial, and really between february 9th and the first week in march, that's really when the trial will probably be won or lost in terms of how effective they are at researching these jurors and finding jurors that can be fair to both sides. >> i so agree with clay. i would go further on this. i think that it's a sad thing to say this, but it is going to require some amount of courage to be on this jury. i think for a lot of people, we

get jury duty, god, i'm going to have to go to jury duty. how do i get out of it. anybody who is half tuned into what's going on realizes that there's no doubt there are people trying to figure out who are the getting these summons. if you're in the jury pool and get selected for the jury you are going to be pursued. you are going to be threat account you. it's going to be a thing where we comment it's a sad thing that requires physical courage to be someone who is a poll watcher who volunteers to work at a polling site. it's going to take some backbone to do that. this is going to be a hair-raising experience. i don't want to scare people off, but the reality the is our appreciation for what any juror is going to understand it's not like having on another jury, because they are going to be subjected to things that no other juror has been subject

issed to. if that's arguation in their neighborhood, this is going to be a polarizing trial. those people are going to feel the weight of the world on their shoulders. i think it's america. we're going to find a jury that's capable of doing this job. but it's really going to be unlike anybody has ever gone through. >> as somebody who has never helped somebody get off jury duty because i felt the pain of smart, capable, wonderful americans not wanting to be on juries. i want to make sure we underline something. they will go to great lengths to protect these people. i don't want anybody who gets a commons to think they are in danger of doing their duty under the constitution that allows everyone a jury of their peers. do i think they will be protected, but i do think there will be efforts made to influence them. >> let me just -- not to put my finger on either side of

conversation, but in georgia, a russian company houses the doxed personal information of fani willis and her husband and her family and the schools they go to. we're not talking anymore about what could we imagine trump might do. we are talking about what has trump and people aligned with him already done. >> russia will be on this toop. russia will be trying to help donald trump. so will kim jong-un. so will all the bad strong men around the world that don't believe in democracy or freedom or any individual bill of rights. >> i totally agree. we can protect them, we will protect them, yet people will be nervous and right to be nervous because there's never going to be the any other jury trial you walked in going the bad guys are russia and are after me. people are going to be trying to hack systems. it's just to require 12 men and women who will stand up and say,

you know what, the future of the country is riding on this. i'm going to do the right thing. i think we'll find them. >> as someone who either didn't have the savvy or the skills to get out of jury duty, i sat on jury duty. >> next time say i'm a journalist. they'll kick you off the jury right away. >> we commuted down together. it was a civic adventure. we have to sneak in a break. up next, the senate is minutes was from finally putting in hundreds of military promotions single handedly held up by one man. we'll bring you that story, next. one man. we'll bring you that story, next

what causes a curve down there? who can treat this? stop typing, and start talking. it could be a medical condition called peyronie's disease, or pd. you're not alone, there is hope. find a specialized urologist who can diagnose and treat pd. visit makeapdplan.com today. why choose between a longer life or quality of life? you deserve both. and with kisqali, a treatment for people with metastatic breast cancer, you can have both. kisqali is a pill that, when taken with an aromatase inhibitor is the only treatment of its kind shown to both help people live longer and improve or preserve quality of life. because you shouldn't have to sacrifice one for the other. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. avoid grapefruit during treatment. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms,

including breathing problems, cough, chest pain, a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. live longer and live well. ask about kisqali, and long live you.

announcer: try tide power pods with 85% more tide in every pod. who needs that much more tide? everyone's gonna need more tide. it's a mess out there. that's why there's 85% more tide in every power pod. -see? -ah. (vo) in three seconds, pam will decide... (pam) i'm moving closer to the grandkids! wait. i got to sell the house! (vo) don't wait, just sell directly to opendoor. easy as pie. (pam) piece of cake. (vo) whichever. get your competitve offer at opendoor.com. hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat treat? de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry.

hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat. it was pretty much a draw. they didn't get what they wanted i'm releasing everybody. i still have a hold on 11 four-star generals. everybody else is completely released from me. >> so the they and the we here are, they, the u.s. military, and the we is he. tommy tuberville. teasing a big announcement earlier today a canceling it a fewinutes later and holding a closed-door meeting with his publicly irritated colleagues, senator tommy tuberville says he's finally lifted his months

lock blockade on more than 400 mill motions. the senate holding a vote confirming them unanimously. he has still managed to do harm though to the military. he's living in limbo for a dozen four-star military positions. it is progress, though, and it is some welcome news for u.s. national security and the mess that tuberville created in his one-man protest of a pentagon health care policy that allows military members and families equal access to reproductive health care. good news for his republican colleagues, they have now been spared an awkward vote to bipass the holds. he has avoided a potentially embarrassing defeat, if he's capable of embarrassment, on the senate floor. i hate summing him up as stupid and too stupid to know what he's

doing because he did so much damage to not just the military, but combat readiness. >> he did an awful lot of damage. the interesting thing is it wasn't as if he had any problem with what the military was doing as military. this was all about whether or not they were reimbursing somebody's travel if they had to leave a state to get a legal abortion in another location. so here's the thing. he said it was a draw. coach, i got news for you. i'm going to speak in words you can understand. this was a draw a lot like alabama beating auburn 62-0 and the last 2 points being a safety. you were tackled in your own end zone. this is not good. you are in big trouble. politically, you have no profile nationally other than being dumb enough to hurt our military, when we are at a time of international crisis.

>> claire is dealing out football analogies there. it was a beatdown. here's what i always think of in this situation. you hear from republicans all the time about how it's terrible what the u.s. military is doing. all these things. the woke military is one of the things that the right has complained about. even attacking milley for answering questions a about it. don't the to have any cultural things affect our fighting forces. stick to the fighting. that's all we should care about. this is the same thing. just on the ore side. tuberville is not complaining about military policy. he's just complaining about the fact there's some aspect of social policy that's the same in the sense it's just a piece of social legislation that's affecting the military. he know what is he's doing.

he's the dumbest member and he's not so dumb he didn't understand what he was up to here. i agree with claire. i adopt know what he will do to his future in alabama, but that's a man who widely from the right and left is a person people laugh at behind his back. >> a the lot of them laugh in front of his face. i wonder if there was -- we covered it from the beginning. if there was a line of communication from the military. >> i need to give a shoutout to chuck schumer. he was geting a lot of criticism for not giving him the floor time. but he didn't want to encourage this behavior in the future. he didn't want to have to soak up the amount of time. he says they can stay all night.

that punishes all the members of the senate who have obligations in their home states. so schumer did the right thing. you know what he did? he waited until the republicans turned on him. and it was a at that moment that tuberville fell apart. when his own colleagues took him to task. tillis was brutal. joni ernsts was brutal. >> it was excruciating it got to what it got to. >> so what really occurred here was i think shooumer used a lot of good sense the way he handled this. it went on too long. they did get some through. but schumer doesn't get enough credit for doing the hard work behind the scenes. >> there you go. i hope he's watching. >> don't waste any time talking about tommy tuberville with liz cheney. one big question, we have talked about her and her courage.

the thing i still have never heard from her is a real explanation of how she thinks what happened to her party, her dd's party, how she thinks it happened. where did it start? what was the beginning of it? that was the cause of it, i would -- that's in the end. trump is going to go away at some point he will eventually not be on this moral coil. that's a big question. if you're going to fix it, where do you start? >> that's really smart. all of your questions are smart. thank you both for being here. it's so nice to come back is and see you. >> give the baby a hug. >> she and her brother are so perfect. i have to tell you, it is exhausting. to everyone at home all day with their kids, your job is much harder than mine. my next guest has had something to say over the last two years. chances are we have covered them

extensively on this program. now she's our guest. she joins us here at the table. liz cheneyill be here after a quick break. table liz cheney will be here after a quick break.

president trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack. what happens when the president president disregards the court's rulings? when he disregards the rule of law? that, my fellow citizens, breaks our republic. president trump is a 76-year-old man. he's not an impressionable child. to my republican colleagues, you are defending the indefensible. there will come a day when donald trump is gone. but your dishonor will remain. no man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again.

he is unfit for any office. >> hi, everyone. if the disgraced, twice impeached ex-president has a nemesis or counter, someone who will hold his feet to the fire with facts, it's former congresswoman liz cheney. as vice chair of the january 6th select committee, that was just a snippet of what she had to say. fearless. viewers of this program are well versed in cheney's remarkable work in shaping the january 6th select committee's investigation and questioning. as well as the production and execution of the public hearings. what we have not heard yet until now is what it was like with a that existence from her perspective. what it was like when a mob stormed the capitol on january

6th. in her new book, a memoir and a warning, out today, she shares her harrowing experience on the day, on january 6th writing, quote, there was a commotion at the front of the chamber. speaker pelosi's security detail evacuated her. i have never seen or heard of a speaker being evacuated from the chamber. it was clear we were facing some kind of security threat and there was no question what had caused it. i looked over at representative jason smith sitting in the front row. jason had been one of the members arguing in favor of the objections. the c-span cameras captured me as i pointed at him and said, you did this. i was angry. you did this. congressman raskin said, there's a confederate flag flying inside the u.s. capitol. ien couldn't believe it. that hadn't happened even during the civil war. my god, jamie, what have they done?

the unmistakable sound of rioters pounding on doors outside the chamber was getting louder and louder inside, capitol police were slamming doors shut and lock account them. we were being locked in. people were saying our chai were bullet proof and with could take cover behd them. jim jordan approached me. we need to get the laies off the aisle, he said and put out husband hand. let me help you. i couldn't believe what i was hearing. really? he and his cocon spoor torts in the white house and congress had provoked this attack on the heart of the american democracy, and now he thought i needed or wanted his help. i swatted his hand away. get a away from had me. you f'ing did this. as jim scuried off, there was another announcement from the capitol police. we have tear gas in the rotunda. please be advised there are masks under your seats. ploez be prepared to don your gas masks. there was an awful din in the chamber a as the whine of the gas masks mingled with the sounds of members calling loved

ones and preparing to fight the mob, the pounding outside of the doors seemed to grow louder. i remember thinking it sounded like the mob had a battering ram. suddenly people were running in the aisle at the bam of the chamber. the mobs was battering the doors to the chamber itself, attempting to invade. members of congress and plain clothes capitol police officers were rushing to find whatever they could, benches, desks, chairs, to barricade the door and defend the chamber. what sound like gunshots -- but was likely the sound of glass shattering -- filled the air. people began yellings fired, get down. a member of congress, his voice filled with furry, yelled at the mob. stop it! there was only one person they would have listened to. the man who provoked this attack, the man who mobilized the violent mob and sent them to the capitol: the man who for months fed his supporters lies

that the election had been stole from him. the man who told them that they had to fight like hell to save their country. that man was sitting in his dining room at the white house two miles away watching television coverage of the attack orphan the u.s. capitol. donald trump refused to tell his mob to leave. it is heart pounding. i have read it three times. it makes my heart pound to read it again. it is essential that you read it. we are honored to have you here to talk about it today. i am marked, as ames sure you are, and it comes through in these pages, but the accounts of 9/11. for the first time, you seem to give some texture to the way that the law enforcement official protected the capitol that day in some ways rushed inside the burning towers.

>> well, one of the things that i talk about in the book was a very intense reaction that i had actually. the first time i saw the video of vice president pence being rushed down the steps evacuated from his office in the capitol and the image that immediately flashed in my mind was my own father when he was vice president and the secret service was evacuating him. and while on 9/113,000 americans were killed and this isn't to compare those two things, but i do think it's really important for people to understand. i talk about the speech president bush gave that night from the oval office where he said the terrorists can attack the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot attack the foundation of our democracy. and i think what we saw on january 6th was a direct attack on the foundations of our

democracy. as you have covered so well and ebs tensively here, that threat remains and continues. >> one of the reasons we have been so fixated, i think it's fair to call a fixation, on your efforts to root out underneath how this came to be is because we don't have the same tools to fight a domestic threat that has safe harbor not just inside one of the two parties, but at the highest levels of that party. the current speaker who you write about, today talked about blurring the faces on the security footage and the footage of january 6. what do we do about that? >> i think it's a really important point. i think that the way that we defeat this threat is through the truth. and through making sure that people remember, as you said, the violent attack on our police officers that day. the violence of that assault. so for example, mike johnson has continued to claim that he's for

transparency, he's releasing the videos from that day. he had to release them. i don't know what he's waiting for. >> he's waiting to blur the faces. >> the other thing to note is the department of justice has already got all of these videos. think it's really important because what he's doing is actually he's released a very small amount. he's suggesting every day that goes by the suggestion that somehow he's going to release something that will change what happened that day. that will change the facts. there's nothing that will change that violent assault. so i call on him to release it. do it now. >> i want to ask you about what you reveal in greater detail than i understood before reading all this. that was this role in the objections and this sticks in my brain, but the known falsity. it would appear the

unconstitutionality of the objections. can you talk about his role. >> it's interesting because i was so troubled by how destructive it was that i spent a lot of time on it in the book. the book was iniffished and handed in in september. >> before he was speaker. >> before he was speaker. he's someone who was a friend. we were elected the same year. he holds himself out a constitutional lawyer, but i watched throughout this period time and time again, he would advocate things he knew were wrong. he would advocat positions he knew didn't have basis in the constitution. and when i would confront him and tell him that his legal reasoning was inaccurate, was wrong, he would often suggest he agreed. he did the same thing with kevin mccarthy's chief counsel. but he continued to do it. he was desperate for donald trump's approval.

to be sort of in donald trump's inner circle. and i do think putting someone like that in the speaker's chair, as much as it pains me to say, it is really dangerous for the country. >> is he more dangerous than kevin mccarthy? >> he's smarter. >> that's not saying a ton. >> i think both of these speakers, he's made clear that the republicans cannot be counted on to defend the constitution. now certainly as i write in the book, at every moment he had the opportunity to make a tough decision, he made the wrong decision. so this is not a defense of him. i think both men are thick of what's happened to our party. >> what has happened? >> the party has become seized

by a cult of personality. and i had a discussion i talk about in the book who we wored with and this was in the spring of 2021. and we were talking about this. she's an expert on the former soviet union. and i asked her, i said, are there any examples in history where country has come through this kind of personality. she was quiet. she paused and said not without great vie lebs. we have never seen it before in the united states. it's what we're seeing now. >> do you think -- i have asked people that study democracies the same question. do you think that the violence is ahead or behind? >> i think that it may well still be ahead. i think the fact that you begin

with former president trump and the extent to which he continues to make actually even more aggressive and more extreme attacks and claims, the kinds of things he knows caused violence on january 6, even if you look at what was going on in the speaker's race, when members of the house republican conference were receiving threats if they weren't saying they would vote for jim jordan, and in one of the most chilling reported episodes, and i talked to a member in this meeting, when members were saying to jim jordan, look, we're getting threats of violence if we don't support you. warren davidson of ohio reportedly responded and said that's not jim jordan's fault. that's your fault. think about what that means. that acceptance of violence in our political system. >> i want to ask you what it means. i don't know if i read it and felt it. i read it and felt all the parallels to this time of great threat to the country that we

served in government at the same time. that was post 9/11. but what's so disorienting about this chapter is not just that we have fewer tools to address this threat, but it masser raids and burros in under legitimate functions as speaker of the house, the front runner for the republican nomination. and i wonder if you can talk a little bit about what you see as the way forward. >> part of the challenges that is very disorienting. you remember after 9/11, republicans and democrats together stood on the steps of the capitol and sang "god bless america." >> and voted 100-0 on the patriot act. the tools were passed. everyone agreed on them. the enemy was clear. this is the opposite. >> i think this is a situation where you have the republican party actively trying to ensure that people to whitewash

happened. to collaborate with the former president, that's a really important point. the threat that he poses wouldn't be so significant if people had done the right thing, had said no, that's not who we are. but instead, there's this embrace of him and this collaboration with the very damaging efforts he's undertaken. >> the threats of violence happened in the context of the speaker's race. the threats of violence are cited in a filing today from jack myth. it seemed part of the work of the committee to prove that the vie listens was the obstruction of the official proceeding and that was pretated. that opposing the results of the election, and today jack smith goes back even further, but the committee develops evidence going back to july. he's put in this plan in place. you're going to refuse to concede. rudy giuliani was reportedly

drunk, but he's the one that they put out there for the lie. everyone that you presented as a witness told trump the same thing. i worked on this in campaigns. you bring out the data guy. then you bring out the political guy. he tells you where we fell short and if the candidate can't take it, you bring out the campaign manager and list the family to break it. ul of those people went to trump and told him that they lied. was that all -- were they not in on the fact he never to accept the results, it didn't matter what they told them that night? >> i think what we saw and what was so important about the work of the committee was understanding and developing and uncovering the evidence that showed how big this plan was. and how expansive it was. certainly, as you point out, in

the committee's report, we put a chart in this report, very specifically to say with specificity, these are the claims that donald trump was making. here's the day on which he was told that specific claim was false. here's the day right afterwards, where he made it again to show he knew what he was saying to be untrue. and that was all part of this much broader plan that involved the pressure on the state legislators and pressure on the vice president, on the justice department. this was a story that wasn't developed by democrats. we heard this evidence from republicans. so the republicans who were leading his campaign, his white house counsel, his acting attorney general, the most senior people around him told him this is -- you have lost and the claims are making are false ppz and certainly those claims as one of the things we also

pointed out was the extent to which he knew of the potential for violence on january 6th. he certainly knew enough as did some people around him in the white house to cancel that rally. he knew there were weapons in the crowd. yet he told them to march on the capitol. and then sat for over three hours and refused tell them to leave. there's no question about his intent. there's also no question about the level of depravity, just from a human standpoint, of someone who would watch that violence on tv and not tell people to leave. >> you also developed evidence and a tape was released in the last hour that watching on tv was his second choice. his first choice was to be among it. why is that important? >> i think the extent to which we saw testimony from an official at the white house, whose identity we protected, who made very clear that what would

have happened that if he had marched up to the capitol, you would have been talking about a very different sort of situation. now it was certainly would have been an extension of what he did do, but there's no question that he wanted to be there. he was very angry he wouldn't be there. and people within the white house were very concerned about the extent to which we could be talking about an actual coup if he were at the capitol leading this effort physically himself to attempt to stop the counting of electoral votes. >> did anyone play out what he thought he was going to do there? >> we asked a numb of images about that. i think that something that jack smith can get to the bottom of. there are all sorts of things proposed in terms of where the staff with him, as you know when

the president travels, there's staff that goes with him, where the staff was going to hold. what he was planning to do. i think that it's very clear that it was meant to be sort of the next step in husband effort to stopt counting of electoral votes and to seize power. >> one of the early yez things you write about is the toppling of the civilian leadership with the pentagon. what is your belief of what was planned for the four of them? >> that's one of the episodes where i watched what was happening realtime, and it was significant enough concern to me just wafting the news coverage as he was taking those steps that we worked to get the secretaries of defense to send a public message about the extent to which think would face

liability if they took steps to involve the military in an election. we learned later that it was far worse. i think the letter itself likely prevented something far worse. >> you name chris miller in the letter. >> it was an intentional public warning. there was some suggestions that maybe what the republicans should have done would be to go to the white house privately and speak to trump and tell him it's time to concede. anyone who dealt with him knew that wasn't going to happen. but again the fact that the secretaries of defense had to wru this public letter warning about the illegality, the un-american nature of using the military to influence the outcome of an election, and later on we learned, in fact, that when the secretary of the army, when the chief of staff of the army issued statements in

mid-december saying, again, what's very obvious the military has no role in the outcome of the conduct of u.s. elections, that donald trump sent johnny tee to deliver a message. which was if you do that again, you will be fired. which tells you about his intent. >> chris miller has to confirm back to trump that they received the message that they will be fired. >> one of the documents turned over to the select committee was the note that was written to the president, which the president himself tore up. >> i have a million more questions for you. i have to sneak in a quick break. we'll be right back. k in a quick break. we'll be right back. so you can deliver even more holiday joy. the united states postal service. delivering for america. hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat posttreat?vice. de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat. hi! need new glasses?

♪ deget more from yourable benefits at visionworks. how can you see me squinting? i can't! i'm just telling everyone! ...hey! use your vision benefits before they expire. visionworks. see the difference.

okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪)

order yours. just fill and chill!

our nation's 246-year history, there's never been an chij who is a greater threat to our republic than donald trump. he tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters rejected him. he's a coward. a real man wouldn't lie to his supporters. he lost his election and he lost big. i know it. he knows it. deep down, most republicans know it. we are so proud of liz for standing up for the truth, doing what's right, honoring her oath to the constitution when so many in our party are too scared to do so. >> i don't know i would live to see the day when your father called out a republican losing candidate for the presidency and at the time president and the entire party then enabled him.

>> yeah. it's emotional. i think in many ways it's heartbreaking for my dad, for my mom, that that's where our party is today. and my dad chooses his words very carefully. >> i know. >> so i think that kind of a warning tells you how dangerous it is fundamentally to the sur is vooifl of our democratic system to have a president who is willing to do the things donald trump did. >> let me ask you this. how did donald trump earn your vote in november of 2020? >> i was representing wyoming. i voted with him over 90% of the time. and there were many policy ises that he advocated that those in miss administration, some of them he may not have known about himself, but his administration was putting in place. energy policies, economic policies, doesn'ting for the

defense department. they were the right ones. there were times i disagreed. especially on issues of national security, but i think that once we saw january 6th, increasingly after that election in the lead up to january 6th, it became overwhelmingly clear that he was actually willing to do whatever it took to stay in power. and i think although i certainly regret my support.

said so at the time when he

stood next to vladimir putin. he said he trusted putin more than his own intelligence officers. and so i think that if you list all of those people who worked for him, one of the things that we have to do over the course of the next year is put that back in the forefront of people's memory, so they understand these people who swore ab oath to the constitution who know him best understand that he is not fit for office. and that truth has to be spread out there much more broadly than it is. >> there's been animating calls. in the beginning, they were few and far between. it was anonymous. it was comey. it was the people trump fired because accountability inched too close to him. do you look back at any other efforts to hold him accountable? witness tampering is a couple

chapters in the mueller report. he tried to tamper with your witnesses. >> i don't think there's any way to look back at the trump presidency with any sense of sort of idea that it should have happened. i support the policies in many instances, but i think clearly, it would have been better for the country had he not been the president. and partly what we're dealing with now is a sense of people becoming numb to how serious the threat is. also people enabling him. there's a really direct connection, as you know, between members of congress, set aside those who are actively collaborating, but others won't say anything, who know what he's done is wrong. who will say privately they know that. but who have been hoping he will go away and. >> mitch mcconnell seems to fall in that category.

>> i talk about that in the book. i have a lot of respect for mitch mcconnell. i have him for a long time, but his belief -- he probably thought impeachment itself was enough. if he had voted to convict, if he had pushed to have the senate come back to session, it would have made a big difference. clearly, i i knew at the time it's more clear now that ignoring trump will not make him fade away. he's a threat that has to be defeated. >> he's running as retribution against people like you. he is running on charging general milley with treason. he's running on dismantling the department of justice is and the fbi. these are not scoops from investigative journalists. these are the campaign messages. steve bannon said they describe themselves as the trump

davidians. just with your vast knowledge of threats that are fostered and furthered by permission structure for extremism, ajay sense to the accept is tans of political violence, what is the threat? what is your warning? fbz. >> the threat is exactly what you laid out. the threat is that this is a man that we don't have to guess what he would do. in some ways, the extreme nature of the claims he's making, of the lies he's telling, of the calling for general milley to be executed, those things are so extreme that what happens in our body politic is people ignore it. people say, well, that's just him. i this the chalk is understand ing and recognizing he means what he says. the people who innovated the capitol on january 6th, you can

look at scores of those defendants who said specifically, we came because he told us to come. he knows the people will follow his instructions. and if he's elected again, those guardrails, those individuals won't be there. >> it's insane. >> it will be unraveling of our constitutional system. every time people hear my former republican colleagues talking about the weaponization of the justice department, i really urge them to stop and think about what that is. that's republicans attempting to do donald trump's bidding, attacking one of the most foundational and important aspects of our republic. and the judiciary has been almost without exception in this, absolutely stellar in terms of understanding the importance of this threat. i think that's been something we

should be proud of as americans. with an exception or two, it doesn't matter if these judges were appointed but democrats or republicans. same with the justices. they understand this threat and they are conducting themselves in the fair and impartial administration of justice that the country requires. they have to be protected against the kind of attacks that you're seeing from donald trump and republicans. >> it's a what i was going to ask you. to your point, the 61 case thas brought, he lost all 60 because inside the court of law, facts still matter. he seems to have found water, an ability to work around those legal defeats. what do we do about the rest of it? >> i think there are several things. one is all of us have to make the kind of a commitment that will require putting partisanship aside. we have to say not just with are respect to him, but certainly with respect to trump,

republicans who suggest that they will be willing to support him if he were the nominee have to be held accountable. >> that's every republican in the primary against chris christie. >> i haven't decided yet. i'm very conscious of not hurting someone by endorsing them. but again, the idea that you would say you're going to support a convicted felon, if he is convicted, which some of them have suggested. >> every one has suggested against chris christie. have you talked to crust crist about endorsing him? >> i want to keep our discussions private, but again, i'm not endorsing someone. i don't want to do that in a way that could potentially help trump. >> would you, if the republican nominee is trump or someone who will pardon him or excuse him, would you vote joe biden? >> i'm going to do what i have to do to defeat him. >> trump? >> to defeat trump. we don't know yet exactly who

the candidates are going to be. and so i think that that's the kind of thing that will become clearer in the next couple months. but i certainly would never vote for donald trump again. i will do whatever it takes to defeat him. >> you're campaigning for some of the democrats who you served with. it was wildly successful. you are a powerful voice. you are more than a political player. you're sort of this clairen call for doing the right thing. i know there's some reporting that you would consider running yourself on a third-party ticket. is that something a that you will consider even if it has the impact of aiding trump? >> i would not do anything that's going to help him. i think we're at this really unprecedented moment where our system for so long has meant that we have a republican candidate, a democratic candidate, and contemplating any kind of a third party run was something that most of us would

never do. i think this is a different moment. but i'm not going to take any steps that will help him. i do think it's really important, though, that again n a bipartisan, nonpartisan fashion, we work to defeat donald trump. we also work to defeat election deniers. the threat of electing people who have the ability to determine whether elections are certified and who say they will only honor elections that they agree with the outcome, that also undermines our democracy. >> i have to sneak in another break. you want to get in the weeds. our viewers are well in the weeds. i want to ask about the people with their hands on the levers. between you and the judge, i googled the constitution more times than i care to admit, but the trump enablers have found these pockets of opportunity. i want to ask you about some of those. stick around.

we'll be right back. those. stick around we'll be right back. ugh, i'll deal with this tomorrow. you won't. it's ripe in here. my eyes are watering. look how crusty this is. ugh, it's just too much. not with this. good advice. when stains and odors pile up, it's got to be tide. (caroler husband) hey (wife) goohoney?ce. (caroler husband) ♪hello family! while you're shopping♪ ♪please give me a new 5g phone.♪ (wife) you did all this to tell me you wanted a new phone? a better plan would be verizon. (caroler husband) think they'd take this mess? (caroler #1) ♪very much so. just trade in that old phone.♪ ♪get a free 5g phone, tablet, and watch.♪ (wife) you really just should have done that.

(carolers all) ♪mom is mad. this plan has backfired.♪ (vo) for a limited time, trade in any samsung phone in any condition for a galaxy s23+, watch6, and tab s9 fe. all on us. that's up to $1800 in value. only on verizon. hi, i'm tali, and i lost 85 pounds on golo. all my life i struggled with my weight. i tried every diet, and i even had weight loss surgery. but, after complication, i had gained everything back extremely fast. i was unhealthy, miserable and depressed. following golo, and taking release, i was able to lose weight gradually and keep it off. i wish i'd started sooner. don't wait, go straight to golo.com.

ian will find the true meaning of the holiday sweater. i will? because he went to michaels and got everything he needed to make a one of a kind crewneck you could never get off the rack. turn ideas into i-did-its. ♪ (holiday music) ♪

we're back with the former believed voois chair of of the january 6th select committee liz cheney. i want to talk to you about jim jordan. he is fixated on the inferiority of his efforts and investigations to the select committee seem to be holding

himself as someone who maybe promised he could do something along the lines of what the committee did. he's now threatening to investigate. jim jordan is launching an investigation into what they say is conclusion between fulton county d.a. fani willis and the select committee to investigate the january 6th a attacks. as we learned from jim jordan, conclusion isn't even a thing. what do you make of the obsession and the projection of people like jim jor deny? >> i think that there's no question ha that jim jordan has something to hide, probably a lot to hide. if you go back is and you look at the phone records as well as what he's said himself about his discussions and his conversations with donald trump on the 6. the very significant role he played in the lead up to that, he was clearly one of the master minds in terms of helping to facilitate donald trump's

efforts to overturn the election. and of course, refused to comply with the select committee subpoena. so you have to imagine that he's doing everything he can to help donald trump, to do donald trump's bidding. and i think that he has so many questions of his own to answer that people just need to go back and look at the record, look at how confused he's been when people have pushed him on what did you say to donald trump, when did you talk to him on the 6th, what was your role in all of this, did you make a request for pardons. but he's very clearly at the heart of what was an attempt to seize power and overturn an election. >> do you think it's criminal exposure? >> i think he has a lot of questions he needs to answer. i talk in the book about the rules committee when we were working on the contempt resolution on steve bannon. i would urge people to go back

and watch the video. he cannot get a straight answer about his communications with the president even in the course of 10 or 15-minute period. i think the facts are real challenges, present real challenges for him. >> there was also a pardon. do you think he has legal problems? >> the department of justice has seized his cell phone. we know he was very directly involved and engaged in the effort to put jeff clark in as the acting attorney general. the text messages that they turned over to the committee have numerous communications. the did the of justice is investigating him. >> mark meadows comes up in the book in a lot of interesting and important and crucial places. he has a skill. what do you think mark meadows' status is now?

>> think that we were surprised that the department of justice chose not to indict him after the house held him in contempt. at the time, seemed that perhaps he was cooperating. there was a whole question about to what extnt does a former chief of staff have immunity. it became clear that the department of justice does not believe a former chief of staff has the full immunity he was claiming. so i don't know the answer to that question. i think that what we saw certainly in terms of his dealings with the committee was that it looked to us like perhaps his own counsel was u.n. aware he had this massive communications on his personal cell phone. and when he committed to the committee he would hand those over if they existed and it

turned out they did exist, once meadows turned those over, his refusal to come testify clearly was contemptuous, but it was not surprising that george did not the him to be in front of the committee given the extept of the information that we had and given the likely legal jeopardy that would put him in. >> do you think jack smith uses meadows as a witness in trump's trial? >> hate to predict, but i would very significant information. he was at trump's side for so much of this. we know that through other witnesses who did testify, people like pat cipollone, people who came in front of the committee and testified truthfully, we know the role that meadows played. so he has significant information. >> i was thinking of cassidy's

testimony to you. that meadows gives voice to trump's enthusiasm for the death threats to hang mike pence. that seems central to jack smith's case. >> i think that the testimony of cassidy hutchinson was so important for a number of reasons. one, because it gave us such insight into what people were doing. two, because before her testimony, pat cipollone had not agreed to come to testify in front of the committee. afterwards, we issued ais subpoena. he did appear and he did testify truthfully. and obviously, he was concerned about protecting privilege, but in his testimony, he made clear that there was one person essentially in the white house who did not the mob to leave. >> the other was trump. i have a the million more questions for you. and probably only one more chunk of time. will you stay? we'll be right back. time. will you stay?

we'll be right back.

she hasn't left us yet. liz cheney is still here. i want to ask you what you have to say about the book and the story and the choices you made. i also want to ask you to say something about the clear affection you developed for a lot of people that before january 6th you may not have agreed with on much, people like jamie raskin and nancy pelosi and zoe lofgren.

>> i think in terms of my fellow members of the committee, i'm really proud of the work we did and the way we worked in a nonpartisan fashion, and we began when the committee started by saying, what are all the things that can go wrong? why have all of these committees, congressional committees mostly fail, and we knew this one couldn't. so the extent to which the members of the committee said, all right we're not going to put ourselves front and center. we're not all going to ask questions at every hearing. we're going to focus on the evidence itself, was really significant. we would not have succeeded without that. you mentioned jamie and zoe and certainly speaker pelosi, who deserves great credit for -- i think it was a decision that wasn't without risk to ask me to be on the committee given we're at totally different ends of the spectrum -- political spectrum, but also her willingness to make the tough decisions when we had to to make sure the litigation

was pursued aggressively and make sure the facts were laid out in a multiple series of hearings. and i think what people need to know about this story is how quickly we began this dissent into a party that is an anti-constitutional party now in so many ways, how quickly it happened i've worked in countries around the world. obviously i've read the history of instances where people lose their freedom, where societies and nations lose their freedom, and i think like most americans thought it couldn't happen here, but i think the story of what was going on inside the house republican conference between the election and the end of the year last year is really an important one for people to understand how quickly this can slip away. >> are we in more danger now or less than we were on january 6th? >> i think that we're in more danger now, because january 6th was in many ways sort of a first

attempt. it was a failed attempt, but all of those things we had in police and all of those individuals who were in place would not be there again, and in the days just after january 6th, donald trump -- everybody understood -- many people, most people understood on the republican side that he had to be held accountable, that he was responsible. that's what the leadership was saying. from that perspective we were at a moment where we could have turned away from the danger, but that didn't happen. instead the department embraced him. >> there are no lesson of history where our country gets this close and this intoxicated by propaganda and conspiracies and dismissive of political violence and their own political document, the constitution. do you think we break the mold and become the first example of a country that can do that? >> i think we have to. i think the role of democracy in

the united states of america is more significant and important than in any other country in the world, that if it fails here, you know, it can't survive anywhere, so i don't think we have a choice. i think that's why this moment requires such a different perspective on our politics and a different commitment by everybody to stand against this threat. >> we've covered your every utterance, and i didn't think there was more to learn in the book and i was wrong. i read the books, parts of it twice. i didn't think there was more to learn about your parents, but i was wrong. i hope you'll keep talking and tell us. i think it's so -- i walked a different journey, but to sit at a place -- and still respect and revere is a humbling journey, and i found some parallels to your partnerships with a lot of democrats and pledging for everything you've done and said and written, so thank you.

>> thank you. thank you for everything that you've donees well. >> i hope the conversation can be continued. >> it has to be. >> it has to be. liz cheney, thank you so very much. >> thank you, nicolle. >> the book is called "oath and honor". it's vitally important. you read it with a pencil. you'll fold pages and go back and read parts over and over and over again as the next 12 months take our country on the journey of a lifetime. quick break for us. we'll be right back. back.

[city ambience sounds] [car screech] [car door slam] [camera shutter sfx] introducing ned's plaque psoriasis. [camera shutter sfx] he thinks his flaky, red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. [ned?] it can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing it for nearly a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe

diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. [crowd gasp] ♪♪ with clearer skin, movie night is a groovy night. [ting] ♪♪ live in the moment. (car engine revs) ask your doctor about otezla. (engine accelerating) (texting clicks) (tires squeal) (glass shattering) (loose gravel clanking) nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy.

now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. on a personal note my thanks to