where he might have been. they can't find him there. i said it's pretty suspicious, isn't it, that alexi navalny goes missing just when president putin announces he'll stand for election next year? he dismissed that. peskov there and pewant wrong even bring themselves to say navalny's name. >> keir, thank you very much. parties are indicating -- entering, indicating we might have a note from the jury. this is from our producer inside the court. stay tuned for that. that is good to do it for me, though. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪♪ hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. i'm alicia menendez in for

nicolle wallace. all of the president's men, or in this case, four times indicted ex-presidents with notorious outliers and enablers. rudy giuliani is in court, a jury is deliberating for a second day on that right now, as soon as there is news from the courtroom, we're going to head right to our reporter in washington. and, of course, mark meadows, trump's former chief of staff turned codefendant in the interference case. he's he heart of the sprawling, high octane racketeering case brought by fanni willis, a case that's spooked meadows so badly, that he's using every oce of his firepower to get it moved to federal court, arguing everything he did was part of his official job as chief of

staff. specifically, he's trying to dust off a 234-year-old federal statute which allows officials charged with state crimes to transfer them to federal court if the alleged criminal behavior was carried out as part of that person as official duties. meadows argues he was acting as trump's chief of staff when he committed alleged conduct. does that sonde like a stretch? you're not alone. at least othe three judges hearing meadows' appeal, they >> according to him, it seems like everything was in his official duties. and an alleged effort to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate when the officer of the president has no preference for who occupies it. now, remember, this isn't

the first time meadows has tried this. back in september he tried, and he failed to get his case moved to federal court. now he's at it again, and we'll give him points for shooting his shot. that's about it. that's where we start. betsy woodruff-swann, and tim heafy, and here at the table, host of "politics nation" reverend al sharpton. betsie, walk us through meadows' argument here, how he wants this case moved to federal court so badly. >> his attorney has been arguing that the federal law with official with criminal charges related to their federal duties be adjudicated in federal court also applies to him, even though he's now a former federal government official. he attorney, george terwilliger is a very prominent, well-ceased

white collar counsel. he's very familiar with these types of high-stakes legal fights, and it's understandable, of course, they're trying to do everything they can to gain every advantage for meadows. that said, his case being removed to federal court would not be whatsoever a get out of jail free card. it would potential make the jury pool slightly more helpful for meadows, make the procedures slightly less user-friendly for the district attorney's office, but this isn't a magical escape mechanism for meadows. that said, when you're dealing with potential prison time, you try to do everything you can to capitalize is.

>> i found mr. meadowing leans again the doorway he said, there's a lot going on, guys, but things might get real, real bad on january 6th. i remember pat saying something to the effect of the rioters got to the capitol, mark, we need to see the president now. mark looked up and said, he doesn't want to do anything, pat. i remember pat saying something to the effect of, mark, we need to do something more. they're literally calling for the vice president to be hung. mark had responded something to the effect of, you heard him, pat. he thinking mike deserves it.

withinen saying this is covered -- this -- and my advice about official responds. the special counsel are saying this is outside the scope, things that bear upon an election, things beyond official business, but rather maintains office are outside the scope of official business.

he is basically arguing effort i do is within the official role. that could be part of the law, and it sounded like the appellate judges had problems with that as well. just to underline a differential here. there are no cameras in the courtroom, i wonder to what step that might be factoring in? >> look, if he is successful and moves this to federal court, not only should he argue it's in federal court, but i have immunity. president trump himself has argued he has immunity for actions taken in his official capacity. this isn't the last legal step that meadows take if successful. cameras in the courtroom, hard to say which way that cuts. the president wants cameras in the courtroom in the jan 6

matter. the government has resisting that. i think there's a public interested in transparency, given how significant the proceedings are and how whatever happens in court, there's an interested in public interest and legitimacy. i think this is all motivated to get into federal court and potential move he has complete immunity. >> rev, i want to talk about this public interest in making sure there's integrity in this process. there's the evidentiary value of watching meadows testify. there's also, of course, the symbolic value of watching him testify. >> i think we have to weigh both carefully. we must remember, if mark meadows can now move to federal court because he wants to have a wider geographic area to choose a jury and because of other things that he wants, then what stops anyone else from making that argument? as the judges hear this, they're

making law and making decisions others will use in future cases. i think that, as he makes this bizarre argument, in operating a way that was clearingly designed, is somehow doing his duties as chief of staff, i dealt with three or four. s, they won't talk -- so to be conspiring on how you deal with how votes are counted and the strategy of upending an election, clearly if they set a precedent that you can call any of those political activity, even if you send in a criminal, they were clearly partisan political, then you set a precedent that changes that whole policy that in the white house we don't deal with politics at all. i think that the judges have to weigh all of that as they hear

any arguments. today the judges too seemed skeptical if meadows loses this appeal. what options does he have left? that's another way of saying, as with many things, it seems destined for the supreme court? >> that seems like a perfectly reasonable bet for this case. the problem for meadows is all three judges have raised questions about the argument that his legal team is making. one judge in particular is an interesting participant. nancy aboudou was recent lid confirmed to this panel, and she offered at the poverty law center. it included litigation in florida and in georgia, so she brings a really unique

perspective that's often underrepresented in the judiciary as somebody who has worked on this very specific issue of elections and election process. if she raised questions that were challenging for meadows' lower, but bill pry yor, another june on this panel, reportedly on trump's short list for supreme court justice, raised serious questions as a conservative legal view that laws need tore read narrowly in terms of black and white, his question was wired we assume a current law also encompasses former federal officials when the text doesn't say that? that's question that's challenging for meadows' team to answer. if pryor is not persuaded, that's a huge issue if they can't get him on board. four of his co-defendants in

the fulton county case have pleaded guilty, cooperating with prosecutors. is that ever going to happen here? or is he going to fight this all the way to the end? >> impossible to tell. he halfway cooperated with is, candidly changed his mind. he was prepared to come in. we had a date for his interview, and unfortunately the fact for his leaked, and he didn't come in. every defendant in every case has to evaluate risk/reward. the risk is if he loses and subject to trial, is pretty significant, but the risk of cooperating for him, a lifelong republican political official, an operative, it makes him think he's dead politically. there's a lot of conflicting pressures on him, as betsy said, he has very capable counsel to

help him sort this out. every defendant, the closer it gets to trial date, when you face the loss of your liberty, has to make a determination if they want to admit responsibility and cooperate in the hopes of leniency. >> fanni willis said she is wants to -- i wonder if meadows keeps pursuing this, the possibility that changes that timeline? >> i would certainly think that's very possible. if he manages to get a ruling he was hoping for from some appellate panel he argued in front of today, that's something that would without a doubt raise issues for wills' process. anytime you're talking about such a large group of defendants, the likelihood that scheduling issues will come up is always a concern that's front of mind. >> so reference this, i want to come back to this idea that there's another figure looming over all of this, and that is,

of course, donald trump. is this -- if neddos is somehow successful, might that follow suit? >> the president actually, i believe, that is said through counsel that he's not going to try to move his case to federal court. he made a different tactical decision. that may be because of the availability of cameras, and as he has said in washington, he thinking that to his benefit. it's very hard to tell how much there's coordination between defendants. what offense happens some conspiracy cases, they enter into a joint defense agreement, they share information about respectively what each of their clients intend to do, information they have, and cooperate in a defense. unclear if that's happening here or not. there's a lot of moving parts. again, i really think every defendant ultimately has to think for himself or herself, has to make a decision as to

whether or not i want to roll the dice and go to trial, given that you could lose quite a bit of reputation and freedom. there's news in the rudy giuliani trial. rye -- ryan, i'm told we have a verdict. >> reporter: that's true. we'll hear what they have decided what's been described as the death penalty of civil trials. we'll see the extend of those financial penalties, but if this is the civil death penalty, i can tell you based on some of

our other reporting is that rudy giuliani's last meal was a cheeseburger. >> indeed, remind us, we've been talking multi-millions of dollars. what are they asking for here? >> reporter: they're asking for $24 million of each plaintiffs. that's how much it would require to repair the reputational damages that was done to them. on top of that, the jury could impose an additional penalty to sort of discourage other people from conducting this, as the believe's lawyers described here, that others can't be spreading they lice, making the bizarre claims when the reality shows the handing over of a ginger mint, a usb drive, and he compared them to bank robbers and drug dealers at one point. one of the plaintiffs in this case argued that's what rudy

giuliani thinking of when he sees black people. his mind goes there immediately. >> i want to bring into our conversation lisa rubin, who has increase on have you ashley humphries reversed engineered it, how much would it cost to restore them to where their reputations were before this all took place. the damage here is reedly widespread. i've been reading shay moss's testimony. this damage was so extensive, to the extent she went to a chick-fil-a, the person who interviewed her there, turned his laptop and faced it with her, and the word "fraud" across

it, what's going on? can you explain this? her life was destroyed by this. the reputational campaign that would have to be mounted to put her back to where she was before december 4th, 2020, would be considerable. that's what professor humphries tried to do here. >> and the damage to the democracy, there's been damage to our institutions. those are themes we come back to over and over again. >> he said when he looked into these things, he had a

background, it's somebody if convinces you. it's another if we say we investigated it, and we were the top federal investigators who broke up the mob. he brought all of that to bear against these women. i think you have to consider that and whatever the jury comes with tonight. this is no ordinary guy that made just a reckless statement. this guy should have known how to investigate something. >> ryan, i'm told we have a verdict. >> reporter: i'm not going to try to do math on the air, but over $100 million altogether. $75 million in punitive, $20 million toward each of them, more than $16 million for the first question if compensatory damages. so a significant, significant finding against julian and what his own lawyer would describe as the equivalent to a civil death

penalty. does that surprise you? >> no, it doesn't. i connected that award to be huge. separate from compensatory damages, which are meant to compensate the person for their injuries, including emotional discretion, punitive damages are meant to send a message. they are meant to deter future behavior like that, but also to send a message that what you did here was so egregious, so wrong that it's meant to punish him, not to reward them. to the extent that the numbers ryan has just reported are accurate and there are punitive damages here in excess of $70 million, that's a unanimous jury, and i should underscore that. the jury verdict had to be unanimous down to the dollar and cent telling the world what rudy giuliani did to these women, particularly abusing that

position of trust was so heinous he should be punished more that they should be compensated for their injuries. >> ryan, my friend, you did not want to do math on the air, but i'm going to ask you to run us through the numbers one more time. >> sure, over 150 is what we can go with in and out, $75 in the punitive damages, the compensatory damages is $16 each and an additional 20 each for both of them, so very significant finding, ultimately landing on slightly different numbers, both in the $16 million range, but they're a bit different for each of them, then matching 20, and then 75 overall punitive. there were two different claims. one walls intentional infliction of emotional distress.

each of these women were awarded more than $16 million on the defendant make, on emotional distress, each being awarded $20 million each for the emotional distress that rudy giuliani intentionally inflicted by his statement, restatement and restatement of the lies about what ruby freeman and her daughter were doing at the arena that night. >> tim, the fact we're talking about deterring future behavior, your sense of the impact of this verdict? >> yeah, look, i think that was one of the primary motivations of the case, was to sort of have a deterrent effect going forward. punitive damages are not meant to punish the defendant, but also to send a message.

from now on, lawyers or others who recklessly make reputations that are baseless that have direct defamatory impact on people have to think twice. it impacts the parties in the case, but there are times when vertebrae are purposely meant to send a broader message. the jury here with a $75 million penalty, that is meant to be a shot across the bow. the ecosystem of lawyers who works not just on election, but across the board, they have to be meticulously careful when they are talking about facts, facts matters. if you get them wrong intentionally, as rudy giuliani did here, has huge consequences. >> facts matter. imagine that. >> it's no accident during a week that not only donald trump did not take the stand, but rudy giuliani, after promising he would on monday afternoon, he

also didn't take the stand. the reason why is for some of the reasons tim was just detailing. rudy giuliani and donald trump both are ungovernable as legal clients. the one thing they listen to is money. what we're learning from this, when money talks, even wrongkoers and maybe rudy giuliani may be incentivized to listen. we'll see if their conduct changes after this verdict, but for people who are looking for the criminal system to be the metric of accountability here, i would challenge folks to also think about the impact that these civil cases can have on changing the conduct that we want to change. nobody's pocketbook is limitless except for maybe jeff bezos. for most of us, even those with staff spheric wealth like donald trump has been telling us for years that he does, there's a

hit on the bottom line. rudy giuliani's comments were described as racist. i think it's important to unpack that piece of the story. >> it was clear from the allegations he made, they all played into that you would have a prejudged disposition that these black women would do these things, involving things that are stereotyped in a negative context to blacks. . as i sit here, i think about when rudy giuliani was mayor, and we used to have to fight with him as mayo. on many incident, he would not meet with black elected leaders. i remember a case, with a young african who was killed, shot by

police 19 times, 41 bullets, giuliani wouldn't even meet with the elected representatives to talk about, how can you shoot an unarmed man like this? so he played the race card in the whole mayor race. the irony is, tonight, two black women he stereo typed turned it around. you can call did karma. i can call it god. james brown, his favorite script tour was 37 psalms. threat not thyself, neither be envious against the workers of iniquity, because they will soon be cut down. it may not happen immediately, but soon they will be cut down. i want to bring into our conversation first amendment scholar.

court has adjourned, so your response to this verdict? >> and one of the things that we know from watching this suit, and the most reg days in court is tt giuliani really served up a rare situation in which the arguments for punitive damages were made quite easy for these litigants. the two poll workers' lawyers were able to argue quite successfully, it seems, to this jury that this was a defamer who wasn't sorry, and who was in fact recalcitrant and defiant, who was out on the courthouse

steps repeating the lie even as the suit was continuing. that is, in some respects sort of the dream fact pattern for litigants who are seeking these kinds of punitive damages if these cases. the judge in this case told the jury that the constitutional outer limit would be something close to four times compensatory. we see them coming in right at the top edge of that. this is a jury that seemed really eager to send the message that the lawyers asked be sent to rudy giuliani, that it was time for him to stop spreading the lie, and they were concerned in the absence of the damages, he would continue to spread the like. >> i'm fundamentally more arrested for what this means for ruby freeman and shaye moss. that said, appeared as you just repetitioned to me, the intention of this was to say to

rudy giuliani, you are being penalized for your behavior, in part, because we want to make sure you never do it again. given what you know about rudy giuliani, do you think that lands? >> no, i think -- sorry, tim, you start. >> i apologize. i don't think it changes rudy. he seems unrepentant. just monday night he's outside the courthouse repeating the very statements that were found to be defamatory. he seems too far gone. it matters a lot for ruby freeman and shaye moss. they were credited, heard. they got some measure of justice. it doesn't undo the harm, but there's the financial piece -- arguably not clear if that will ever be collected, but separate from that, they were credited. they got justice.

everybody watching this from the outside learns from this as well. i hope it restores some faith that the system works, that when people are wronged, there's rye dress in court. big high-profile cases like this, when they're watched by lots of people, have cripple effects. maybe it affects rudy giuliani, and he no longer talks about the stolen election. i doubt that, but it had as impact on ruby freeman and shaye moss, and the people watching. >> though numbers are not guaranteed? they are not. there was a period of time where rudy giuliani and the post-9/11 world was commanding really big sums in hi consulting practice, as a private lawyer. those days are over. one of the reasons most people think rudy giuliani was so

desperate to be donald trump's lawyer was in fact because that gravy train had largely stopped. rudy giuliani has a $6.1 million apartment here in the city on the market. even if they can sustained this verdict on appeal and collect every penny of that apartment, one of the things we don't know is what kind of other assets rudie has. why don't we know it? he renewsed to cooperate in discovery. there was never a trial on whether rudy actually did these things. rather, the judge took it as a given, because he was so obstreperous during hi discovery conduct that the ultimate penalty to decide the case fully against him, withal inferences, is what in fact happened. there's going to have to be a lot of chasing and rudy and his assets to see if he can play the shell game. ultimately i think it will catch up to him, but not to this is

extras spheric numbers, alicia. we have watch the president and allies in his orbit continue to try to weaponize the first amendment as if it allows hem to say anything without consequence. this is a message to the contrary. >> i think that's right. i think this case, and for all of the reasons that have just been described is really going to tee up the question of the outer boundaries of what defamation law can do as a security, our at least a tool. the first amendment arguments here have fallen short, both in this case, because of the default judgment, and in other cases involving the spreading of the so-called big lie, because there have been findings of actual malice, that the lies were spread with knowing falsity, told purposefully by the defamers who told them. we're getting thinks judgments.

now the question is whether they are going to have the kind of effect that we expect libel judgments to have. we expect that libel judgments will do two things. we expect them to remedy the harm that's done to those who are lied about. we also expect them to deter the future telling of the lie. in both of those instances, we care about the rule of law. we care a lot about the behavior and the incentives of the people telling those lies. here we have seen repeatedly in a number of these cases that the eager audiences for these lies, and the tellers of these lies, the incentives that they feel have pushed them to continue to tell lies even in the giuliani instance out on the courtyard steps of the very case in which the libel is being adjudicated. so figuring out whether we do in

fact get the results we expect is going to be a powerful moment. at a minimum, what's happened is the jury has sent a merge that they wanted to sent. >> very little to say. i have to analyze this. obviously, possibly we'll move for a new trial. certainly we'll appeal. the absurdity of the number merely underscores the absurdity of the entire proceeding where i've not been allowed to offer one single piece of evidence in defense, of which i have a lot. so i am quite confident when this case gets before a fair tribunal, it would be reversed so quickly, and the absurd number that just came in will help that, actually. >> why do you think it was unfair? >> i cannot go into the details.

i didn't testify, because the judge made it clear that if i made any mistake or did anything wrong, she was considering contempt. this judge does have a reputation for putting people in jail. i saw it honestly, it wouldn't do any going. >> reporter: do you still believe what you said about these two women? >> i -- i have no doubt that my comments we are made and they were supportable and are supportable today. >> reporter: still? >> i just did not have an opportunity to present the evidence we offered. we were not allowed to put in one piece of evidence in defense. we also realized my ability is based on her disagreement with me on discovery, which is absurd. i believe the judge was threatening me with the strong possibility that i would be held in contempt or that i would even be put in jail.

it doesn't seem like i was going to do much to persuade anybody, and it could give her what she seems to be threatening. that's all i have. i have. >> reporter: do you have any regrets about the comments -- >> hey, we have to go. >> shh, shh, shh, shh. >> reporter: do you have any regrets about some of the comments the women received? >> well, of course the comments they received i had nothing to do with. the comments are abominable, deplorable, no defense to it, but i receive comments to it like that every day. different kinds of things. i've represented clients who have gotten that from the other side. this is a terrible part of our political system. all get that my comments weren't that. i think that was also a very unfair part of it, because my comments had no connection at

all. there were thousands in the press about this, which mine were a small amount. there's no way to say my comments -- that's part of what we'll get to litigate in a fair court. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. ryan, i'm not sure where to start with the debunking and fact checking of what we just heard from rudy giuliani. he said he was not allowed to offer one single piece in evidence, when in fact he could have testified. he is contenting still, to this day, that he comments, all of which have been debunked were supportable. i don't know if that's delusion. i don't know if that's bravado. the final assertion that his comments had nothing to do with the way that ruby and shaye moss were treated. >> he's almost asking them to run up the bill again, right? he said these comments were definitively not supportable. they are fall claims against

these two women. that's been decided over and over again, and is not new news, right? this isn't just because of that claim. these were garbage claims in the first place, and that's why no serious media outlet went with them. people thought the video was suspicious, as reverend sharpton said they were looking at video of black women and thinking there was something inherently suspicious. there was no basis for this. people just got worked up on the internet, because they didn't know what they were talking about, and spread a bunch of lies about innocent people. there was no basis from the beginning. it's inas he's on another planet. he seems to truly, still to this day believe the lies he spread. i want tim heaphy, the fact he's

still contended that his comments were supportable, given this verdict, do you think he leadership his lesson? he came out and showed us all himself. >> yeah, not a lot of learning there, evident from his it's important to go back to the facts, that this allegation that the women were engaged in voter fraud was very carefully evaluated by the fbi field office in atlanta, by the u.s. attorney's office for the northern district of georgia, bill barr, the attorney general of the united states told the president directly there's nothing to this allegations. nonetheless the president and rudy giuliani continued to repeat those lies. as ryan said, there is no basis whatsoever for his awful, vile, racist statements. for him to say i'm not the one

making those terrible threats online, shockingly irresponsible to say to the public they're trading the usb drives as if they're vials of cocaine, and then saying i'm not responsible for how people say that. it's like the president on the eclipse, saying fight like hell, you don't have a country anymore, and then i'm not responsible for how people hear that. that's why courts of law get involved when claims are brought forth, be they civil or criminal, and the reasonableness of those statements that you just heard from rudy giuliani are adjudicated, justice happens. i hope that this is the first of many accountability steps that we're going to do in the coming months. >> you took is exactly where i wanted to go, the argument that we hear constantly from the former president, yes, i said these things, but i am in no way responsible for the action that

is transpired in the aftermath. if you are donald trump, if you are watching this verdict come through, you have to be very nervous right now. >> i think that's right. we've talked before about how all of these cases are of a piece of each other. they all speak to the question of what folks who have spoken with a powerful platform with the platform that they have can cause when they spread damages lies, and dig into these super theories. this is the first time that we've readily gotten a jury speaking quite directly about how willing they are to hold one of those powerful speakers accountability for the spread and the consequences that came from it. these pieces were in fact argued in great detail before the jury in the last couple days, they

tried argument that the media outlets, that they were unconnected to things that rudy giuliani said himself. that giuliani shouldn't be held accountable for actions and threats and disparages comments made by people who were not directly linked to him. this jury had the chance to think about those arguments. it clearly rejected them. the damage award we just saw suggests that they held giuliani accountable for being the palace form voice that spurred these lies. it also demonstrates that they wanted to send a signal with the punitive damages that he himself and others who are similarly situated should be deterred in the future for spreadinged kinds of lies that have the defamatory impact.

>> rev, when we talk about the damage down anytime we enter view secretaries of state in colorado, arizona, michigan, one of the things they'll tell you it's extraordinarily difficult to find a poll worker. who wants to be engaged? a lot of folks watched what happened in 2020. they watched what happened to ruby freeman and shaye plots at the hands of someone like rudy giuliani. the risk is not worth the reward. that in a way has undermined or democracy. >> that's very important, because poll workers are the backbone of an election. they don't get a lot of compensation, by the way. for these two to be put out there by, again ---ability emphasize news, this is not just a guy out there talking. this is a guy that people assume that he had done -- he didn't

say investigate -- he said i've investigated this. this is -- i'm the investigator for him to say it was deplorable, and all of whatever he used, he didn't say that at that time. he never denounced going through the process that those women were going there, including threats on their lives. let's not forget, rudy giuliani was one of the leaders at january 6th to donald trump. we adopt have a record of when they went into the capitol trying to stop or denounce them or getting on television saying thinks wrong. i think he's ended up in a situation that he created and he never tried to correct. i think, yes, we're concerned these women be restored, but we

also are concerned that democracy and the process of people working for an election is restored, not worried they'll be targeted by impulses of people thaha respectable background. i want to run through the number one more time for anyone who has just us, a little shy of $150 million total you heard rudy giuliani come out, defiant, saying this is not over. your sense, legally speaking, of where this goes next? >> well, if we listen to what he said, he's seeking an appeal or some sort of trial in front of the another court.

he's going to have a different type doing so. it isn't that he was rocked the opportunity to lit gait rather, he declined to participate. the default judgment was issued when he refused to engage in discovery. he refused to offer the evidence that is required in a court of law to the other side, and he shielded information about his own finances in order to keep that information private and not in the public sphere. so, the ability to be able to move forward here with any kind of challenge will be complicated, because we don't see him in a place where, if he was willing to participate in the first instance. we're going to take a listen in. >> good evening, everyone.

my name is shaye moss. i spent ten years as an election worker in fulton county. the lies rudy giuliani told about me and my mommy, have changed our lives. in the past few years have been devastating. the flame that giuliani lit with those lies and passed to so many other to keep that flame blazing changed every aspect of our lives. as we move forward and continue to seek justice, our greatest we is that no one, no election worker or voter or school board member or anyone else ever experiences anything like what we went through.

you all matter, and you are all important. we hope no one ever has to fight so hard just to get your name back. we're very grateful to the jury for taking the tame out that you are busy lives to do their civic duty, to listen to everything we've been going through. i know i won't be able to retire from my job with the county, like my grandmother did, but i hope by us taking these steps, they very big steps toward justice that i can make her just as proud. thank you. >> good evening, everyone. i am lady ruby. today is a good day a jury stood witness to what rudy giuliani did to me and my daughter and held him accountable.

for that i am thankful. today is not the end of the road. we still have work to do. rudy giuliani was not the only one who spread lies about us. others must be held accountable, too, but that's tomorrow's work. for now, i want people to understand this -- money will never solve all of my problems. i can never move back into the house that i called home. i will always have to be careful about where i go and who i choose to share my name with. i miss my home, i miss my neighbors, and i miss my name. i've heard some of you. don't be sad for me.

don't waste your time being angry at those who did this to me and my daughter. we are more than conquerers. pray for us as we continue to fight the good fight of faith. i tell my attorney often, my friends say that god knew who to give this assignment to. if they had been then, they wouldn't have gone through this. god chose me to go through this, because he knows that i will tell everyone whose path i cross about jesus. from day one i said now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

if you remember one thing i say today, remember this, faith is what carried us through the most difficult years of my life, and faith will carry you through hardships that you face in life. understand that the devil is a liar, he is defeated, and no weapon formed against you shall prosper. trust that god will keep and protect you, believe that right makes might because it does. i thank god that i'm not intimidated by no one or their lies, give thanks that in justice always surrender in the glorious kingdom of god, and that he will always lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace, peace that surpasses

all understanding. thank you. >> may i ask just one question? what message does your verdict send to the country today? that was shaye moss and ruby freeman, the jury awarding them $150 million in their defamation case. rev, that was a whole sermon? >> she really did give a sermon, lady ruby as she calls herself, and her daughter, shaye. i think one of the striking things you immediately have to look at is look at her tone of encouraging people, telling people, don't be angry at those that did this to me, quoting the bible, saying her faith brought her through, and contrast that

to rudy giuliani and the venn mom he was spinning when he came out of the courtroom. you see the different. they didn't come out, neither her, or her daughter, with any kind of venom, or any kind of revenge, or we got him, none of that. they came out talking faith, and they came out talking about they didn't want anyone else to go through this. she'll talk about how she never will go back home, misses her neighbors, but then captures some strength by saying god knew who to let go through this, i was strong enough to do this. you have to remember, they were being accused by some of the most powerful men in the country. this was not just somebody. this was the president of the united states and his adviser who had been the may your of the biggest city in the world and who had been a prosecutor on these poll watches, poll workers.

it was david against goliath with steroids. yet, the slingshot worked today. >> i think a lot, tim, how we look at profiles, and talk about it a lot with republican elected officials and whether or not they will stand up to donald trump. we've heard numerous reports of members of congress saying, yeah, i know i should have voted to impeach him but i was worried for the safety and security of myself, of my family. here you have ruby freeman talking about the fact that she doesn't feel safe, she might never feel safe again, and yet here you had a real, true, once in a lifetime profile in courage, someone who was willing to stand up to people who were arguably much more powerful than herself in the service of not just herself and her family, but in the service of democracy itself. >> yeah, look, ruby and shaye are extraordinary, but there are thousands of ruby and shayes around this country that sustain

democracy, as the rev said, they work at the polls, they volunteer in their kids' schools. they are the bread and butter of the real stub of democracy in this country. the other part of democracy is accountability and a justice system that sometimes gets it right, and holds people accountable. so i'm heartened when i see their strength, their courage to come forward in the face of those vile threats and say, what happened to me is not okay, that is a profile in courage, but i think they stand for an army of people around this country who are unknown, who don't have the opportunity that -- to be in a courtroom or on national television. but they do the raw material of democracy every day. and to me, this verdict, right, this accountability protects them, values them, it shows that democracy, right, sometimes as imperfect as it is, can work. >> i'm also struck by the fact she said there's accountability

here for rudy giuliani, please know that we are not done, there's work that begins tomorrow, your sense of what that work might look like? >> well, these same plaintiffs have brought suit against other entities, some of which they have settled with, others of which have been alluded to over the course of this trial, these last couple of days. there is an entire web of defamation suits that are centered on the sorts of lies that were told in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election. and this package of suits involving election denialism and defamation really does tap in to the theme that we just heard from ruby and shaye, which is this wider motivation, not just to remedy their own reputations, but to try to use defamation law as a tool for remedying broader

democracy harming disinformation. there are lots of moments over the course of these suits in which cases could settle or go away, and a lot of what we see here are plaintiffs who seem quite motivated, not just to try to remedy their own -- the harm that was done to their own names, but also to try to remedy the lies that are in circulation. and i think that that's part of what she was referring to, that we will see additional cases coming forward that are going to play out the facts of these -- of the aftermath of the election, and attempt to really squarely tackle election denialism through this tool of defamation law. >> bring into our conversation writer at large, political analyst tim miller. i am struck by something that was said which is the flame that he, meaning rudy giuliani lit, and passed to others who kept the flame blazing. that is exactly what happened

here, your reaction, generally, and also what this means for rudy giuliani's reputation. >> well, yeah, first on rudy, i think that this is an encapsulation, he is an embodiment, actually, of the deterioration, the decomposition of the republican party, ideologically, morally, physically in his case and it's all crumbled. this was maybe the most respected person in the world, certainly in the top ten or twenty in the early 2000s, whether that was fair or not. he was considered one of the most respected people in the world. had he just retired they probably would have named the airport after him and now he is seen as one of the world's biggest buffoons, and hopefully he will be forced to pay up for outright racist, frankly, and

false accusations against ruby and shaye and i was happy to hear from them. rudy's fall mirrors the republican party's fall in a lot of ways, and i'm hopeful when it comes to the other part of your question about this flame pushing forward. i'm hoping that what ruby and shaye does today does something to help extinguish that flame. the thing is, we talk about all the threats here, a lot, on this show, coming to our democracy, and those threats are still out there but it requires people to be donald trump's henchmen. and i'm hoping that the lesson is of this, in other cases, is that it's not worth it, right, it's not worth it to help wish that flame of lies forward because you're going to be the one held accountable. donald trump is still at mar-a-lago right now. he hasn't been forced to pay anybody yet. hopefully his time is coming. but i'm hopeful that rudy can be used as a warning to other people that are going to get -- tried to get pulled into this

because this is still an ongoing threat. >> rev, i have about 30 seconds left but i want to know if you share tim's hope. >> i share tim's hope that it will say to those in the future that are inclined to do this, on people that are just poll workers, and that work in the system of elections, that they won't do it, and i think that others that have been indicted and facing criminal charges are also looking at this verdict tonight, saying this does not look good. this is the beginning, in a civil trial, of a long process that's going to go to a civil trial of trump in new york, and through some criminal courts. it did not start out well for the trump team. >> it did not start out well indeed. i want to thank reverend al, tim miller tim haephy. thank you all so much for getting us started. it is 5:00 in new york and i'm alicia menendez, the

breaking news we've within covering this past hour, a jury awarding $150 million to the election workers in the lawsuit they filed against former trump attorney rudy giuliani. joining us former cia director and senior national security analyst john brennan, and national security adviser to president obama ben rhodes. i'm going to start with you, secretary brennan, your response to this verdict. >> well, clearly the defamation that was taking place publicly against these two individuals as well as many others, i think it really sends a strong signal that this is unacceptable, there's going to be consequences for it, and to the extent that these women can be compensated to some degree, i think this is showing that our justice system, although sometimes it takes a while to work its way through the process, it will come out

with the right decision. and so therefore i'm very happy to see that there have been some consequences to what mr. giuliani did and said publicly, the falsehoods, the lies that he was perpetrating publicly and the impact that it had on these women and for giuliani then to say afterward that he wasn't responsible in any way for the despicable comments that were made to these two women by other people and the impact that it had on their lives. he's being not just disingenuous but again perpetrating his strong inclination to deceive the public and anybody who's willing to listen to him. >> ben rhodes, these are big numbers, talking about close to $150 million awarded in damages, you had the judge saying this is really as much as it is about penalizing past behavior, it's also about deterring future behavior. and yet, you heard rudy giuliani

outside that courtroom, unrepentant, even though he chose not to take the stand. we talked about this moment of disinformation, the role that rudy giuliani played, have the lessons been learned? >> well, i think it's fair to say that we've long since learned that rudy giuliani himself -- no expectation that he's going to reach the moment where he embraces accountability, accepts responsibility for what he did. as you said he wouldn't even share information for this trial, wouldn't even testify, that tells you what was in his emails or what was in his potential testimony he had no defense to make. however, i think the very key point is, the size of this finding, the size of this award on top of several cases that have followed this strategy, including a case in defen of

seth richards' family, the gen z worker who was killed, the point here is to deter future action by other people and one of the things that came out in this trial is not only the threat to democracy, obviously, that was represented by the big lie of trump's claims around the election, but also threats of real violence. i mean, these are people that were being threatened with physical harm. this could have led to something even worse than horrific harassment that these two women faced. and so therefore, there's an interest in our society, in our legal system, to find tools to send a message that if you spread disinformation, that undermines faith and democracy, that puts people's lives at risk, there have to be really big consequences just like part of sentencing people to prison for certain crimes, violent crimes is meant to deter those crimes going forward, that's exactly what this legal strategy is about, and i think it is a key part of the tool box that we have to assure that there's some accountability, and deterrence built back into a system.

because right now there's been a sense for years that you can get away with anything, if you don't feel shame, and rudy giuliani and donald trump feel no sense of shame about anything. that's essentially your protection, you can't be embarrassed or fact checked in stopping the hate and lies. now, there has to be other tools and ultimately, we'll find out with trump whether he can be accountable for criminal activity, but in this case i do think we're seeing an important tool that's been introduced into the tool box of protecting people and democracy. >> director brennan it strikes me that republicans are often trying to argue that our elections are not secure, when in reality they work, hard as they might, including what we heard from rue die giuliani to undermine not just elections themselves, but the people who are the backbone of upholding our elections system, election workers, your sense today, we are less than a year from the next election, are we ready for the forthcoming election? >> well, i think from the standpoint of securing our

electoral system, we are. the government has done a lot, both federal and state governments, over the years, to try to better protect our electoral infrastructure from being penetrated by foreign or domestic adversaries. one of the challenges we face, the disinformation that's going out to try to pollute the public's understanding of what reality is. and unfortunately i think we have found, too often, that in recent years that there have been too many politicians, the republicans in particular, i think overwhelmingly that when the election does not go their way they will look for opportunities to try to change the outcome that clearly was at the heart of what happened on january 6th that's clearly what has gotten mr. giuliani so embroiled in his legal problems. but this, i think, just reflects that there are individuals and too often the elected

individuals who are anti-democratic at the core. they are not interested in trying to ensure their democratic system really reflects the will of the american people. i think that what they're trying to do is to exploit any tactic they can nrd to change the outcome of a legitimate election. and this is what i think our government needs to be very concerned about, this is what the american people need to be concerned about, and that's why i think the decision coming down from the court today as well as other efforts to try to hold people to account, including, in particular, and most importantly mr. trump, sends a signal that our electoral system, our elections are sacrosanct, and you try to mess with them at your own peril, hoping there will be continued outcomes, such as today, that clearly does send a clear signal to these individuals that this is totally unacceptable, and it's going to be dealt with very severely. >> joining our conversation,

former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the u.s. department of justice, mary mccord, who has been covering threats to election workers in the wake of the 2020 election. one of the things, mary, i was most struck by when rudy giuliani came outside the courthouse, delivered his remarks, is that he acted as though the things that he had said were in no way connected to the harassment that ruby and shaye then faced. you can draw a direct line between what he did and said to then the way that they were made to feel unsafe in their own home. >> absolutely. i mean, there's no question the timeline makes it very, very clear that not only the lies that mr. giuliani said about ruby freeman and shaye moss, but also that the former president repeated and many others in positions of sort of power and influence, with a big mega phone, and a large twitter following, these things were said about them, and the threats

came almost immediately. and that through-line is something we've seen repeatedly by people like mr. giuliani and mr. trump. you know, part of the reason that the gag order against mr. trump was upheld by the d.c. circuit is because they could draw, the judge, the trial court judge, and the d.c. circuit judges could draw that line between comments made by mr. trump about people, potential witnesses against him, and others leading directly to real world harm, real world threats being made against those people. we know that mr. trump, when he said you come after me, i'll come after you, the very next day the judge in the january 6th federal case got a death threat that is now being prosecuted criminally. so these things are well established, and they're also known to mr. giuliani, they're known to mr. trump, and yet they don't -- they continue. they continue. now, of course mr. trump, when he's under the gag order, he tones it down a little bit.

but at the various times that gag order had been stayed for appeals and so on and so forth, he ramps it back up. and i do hope that this will send a message that this is not the kind of -- you can't just make up lies that harm people, that cause them to actually be threatened with physical violence and harassed, and this is just one example, right, we've seen this across so many other people, election workers, elected officials, people who aren't able, like ruby freeman and shaye moss who had lawyers willing to take this case for them and bring it to court, not every person is able to do that and i know people who've had to move out of their homes and relocate themselves, to move their children out of schools, because of threats they get, because of lies told about them by people who know better and are doing it for their own political purposes. >> ben rhodes, there's a duality here that we're watching which is these lies have impacted american democracy, they have undermined our institutions,

they've also had really real impacts for individuals, including these two women today who say we can't live in the house that we spent our entire lives living in, disinformation, right, it very often can sound sort of esoteric, it has real world consequences and we are watching it play out in realtime. >> yeah, i mean, it's a really good point and one of the things that i've noticed over the last decade -- for discourse in this country, to donald trump, to rudy giuliani, to frankly the right wing media system that they thrive in, this is treated like some big show, some big entertainment spectacle, some big effort to own certain people, or to insult certain people, or to keep certain narratives alive and there's a complete lack of regard for the consequences of what they're doing. that the fact that they're spreading false information, which is, you know, what

disinformation is, knowingly spreading false information, the fact that they're sowing conspiracy theories, of blaming whole groups of people for things, blaming individuals for things, that has real world consequences, it has real world consequences like in the lives of these two women who suffered so much, and their families, it has real world consequences for our society, and the divisions and dysfunctions, and inability to solve problems that come from this, and it presents real threats and it's not going away, it's a part of the backdrop here, that's why we need these tools to fight back and it's something also we've seen american adversaries pick up on. they know that one way to further divide us and further inflame things and perhaps advance their own interests is to sow chaos, is to spread disinformation and i think we have to be well aware that this next election is probably going to far exceed even the previous two in the scale of disinformation coming not just from within this country, but

coming from places like russia that have a profound interest, or adversaries who want to see americans turn against each other, and divided. i think honestly with the development of things like artificial intelligence, the capacity to spread disinformation is only going to grow. so we better be building our tool box in defense and one of the pieces of that tool box is assuring that individuals who knowingly do this are held to the kind of accountability that is a warning, a bright red blinking light, for anybody else who might choose to follow on that path. >> director brennan, we have talked about disinformation, we have talked about defamation, but this is fundamentally, as ben notes, about national security. >> well, it is, i think it's as ben pointed out, what has happened here in the united states by divisions created on the extreme, particularly on the right wing, that are trying to seed dissension within our ranks, whether you're vice

president or president xi jinping or others, they see to their benefit because if we're weakened domestically, we're unable then to address the issues of the day, whether they be domestic issues, budget issues, as well as global issues, climate, what's happening in ukraine and so on, and so therefore the ability to be able to exploit the digital domain and propagate false information i think is something that has such an undermining effect on so many different fronts and therefore mr. giuliani who in the aftermath of 9/11 was really revered for his ability to emerge from that very awful attack against the world trade centers, and help to bring new york city out of that, the fact that he has fallen so far, and now is viewed as somebody who is not interested at all in trying to inform the public in a positive way, in an honest way, again, this is something that our adversaries around the globe

were just looking at, again, seeing it as emblematic of some of the dysfunction we are experiencing here in the united states. >> one of the things that ruby freeman said was the work continues tomorrow, your sense of what that work looks like? >> well, i think there's so much work. we've got an election coming up, and so i think that these are women who are committed to doing what they can, and they have already through their careers and up to and including this day and tomorrow, they've contributed by being election workers, i don't know exactly what the future holds for them but i think they really are uplifted as models of the people who do their job, they do it well, they stand firm in the face of lies being told about them, they cooperate, of course, with investigators looking into that, and they know that this is not the end, many more -- we still face disinformation, we still face lies being told on a daily basis, and this wasn't necessarily directed right at ruby freeman and shaye moss, but

i understand mr. giuliani came out of the courtroom today lying about what actually happened in court, saying he was thwarted from putting on any evidence which is probably the furthest from the truth. he refused to put on any evidence, he was defaulted in in the case in terms of his liability because he failed to cooperate at all with the process. he basically failed to participate. so this is a man who just cannot seem to hardly utter a truthful world out of his mouth, and unfortunately there's more people like him out there. so the work to fight back against that, to restore faith in our institutions and our processes, and our democracy is very much still at the beginning. >> a huge verdict today, almost $150 million awarded to ruby freeman and shaye moss if their defmation suit against rudy giuliani. lucky for us, no one is going anywhere. when we come back we return to

the story we were originally going to cover, new reporting that is setting off alarm bells in the intelligence community, missing intelligence related to russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. stay with us. erfere in the 2016 election. stay with us looking for a smarter way to mop? try the swiffer powermop. ♪♪ an all-in-one cleaning tool that gives you a mop and bucket clean in half the time ♪♪ our cleaning pad has hundreds of scrubbing strips that absorb and lock dirt away, ♪♪ and it has a 360-degree swivel head that goes places a regular mop just can't. so, you can clean your home, faster than ever. ♪♪ don't mop harder, mop smarter, with the swiffer powermop.

have you ever thought of getting a walk-in tub don't mop harder, for you or someone you love? now is a great time to take a look at getting a safe step walk-in tub. with safe step's standard heated seat and new fast fill faucet, you can enjoy a nice warm bath up to 20% faster! and the convenient touch pad control is right at your fingertips. each tub comes standard with a dual hydrotherapy system. the ten water jets can help, increase mobility, relieve pain, boost energy, and improve sleep. while the microsoothe advanced air therapy system oxygenates and softens skin. safe step walk-in tubs are built to maximize safety. so you can stay in your home and enjoy the comforts of bathing again. so call now for more information and a free no obligation consultation. call now to receive our best offer of the year! a free shower package plus $1,600 off! with the purchase of your brand-new safe step walk-in tub.

why are we the only birds heading this way? [ screams ] we're trying to get to jamaica. stay close and... everything will be all right. i'm ok. i'm ok. stunning new reporting, breaking today, an incredible new mystery with potentially serious national security implications regarding the intelligence that forms the basis of those findings about russia's interference in the 2016 election. cnn was first to report that, quote, a binder containing highly classified information related to russian election interference went missing at the end of donald trump's presidency raising alarms among intelligence officials with some of the most closely guarded national security secrets from the u.s. and its allies could be

exposed. nbc news confirms that intel officials were so worried they briefed the senate intelligence committee on the missing binder two years ago. cnn adds that the binder contained raw intelligence the u.s. and its nato allies collected on russians, and russian agents. including sources and methods. according to the new york and cnn the binder is still missing. as for a theory about where it went, a former white house aide believes her former boss mark meadows was in possession of it. according to the times, spoke about the contents of the binder during an april 2021 interview for a book about the trump presidency. i would let you look at them if youwanted, during the interview, it's treasure-trove. mr. trump did not address a question about whether he himself had some of the material but when a trump aide asked him does meadows have those, mr.

trump replied, meadows has them. meadows denied the claim. his lawyer said he never took any copy of that binder home at any time. john brennan, mary mccord and ben rhodes are still with us. director brennan, what went through your mind when you first heard this reporting. >> oh, my god. it's hard to be surprised or shocked, but clearly the fact that there was a ten-inch binder of information related to russia's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election that has gone missing, and has been missing over the past several years and really quite disturbing, and worrisome. let's make clear, there is indisputable intelligence that russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in order to help donald trump get elected. that intelligence was collected primarily by the fbi, the cia, and the nsa, and it involved a wide array of sources, human sources, technical inflection

systems as well as that came from our allies and partners around the globe, and this was very sensitive information that was including in these intelligence reports, and the cnn reporting refers to raw intelligence, and raw intelligence is the unevaluated intelligence reports that are generated by these three agencies, and there's also underlying intelligence related to the names and identities and the technical collection system details that are involved so it's unclear, at least from my perspective, what type of information was included in that binder, but it could have been the crown jewels of the intelligence community, those three main agencies, and the fact that it was, now it's been missing for so long raises serious concerns about where is it, who might have had access to it, whether it be domestic or foreign and also it just makes the ability of the intelligence community to carry out a damage assessment, that much more

difficult, because if this binder is gone missing, who knows what might have been compromised inside of it. so, again, this reporting today, that's come out, is breathtaking, and i hope that there's going to be determined efforts to try to locate this binder. >> breathtaking indeed, ben, i just want to understand how information this important, what director brennan just referred to as could be the crown jewels just goes missing and how it then stays missing for two years. >> only if someone is very determined to take that information and to keep it, conceal it or give it to somebody else, and i want to reenforce something john said as someone who was a recipient, a consumer of intelligence, including from the cia when john brennan was the director of the cia, even when i was in the white house, i was not usually receiving raw intelligence, i was receiving summaries, analytical judgments based on raw intelligence, the raw intelligence is much more

dangerous to be out in the open because that is literally sources and methods. sometimes people may hear people like us talk about the danger to national security and intelligence reports, and think what could that be? this is not subtle. this is potentially indicating what human intelligence sources are technical collection, how does the united states gather information or our partners about russia and its intentions in ways that human beings are involved in, right, so that's why this information is usually very secure. because you want to absolutely limit any possibility that it gets out of even a particularly secure type of government facility, the cia, for instance, and so just to assemble this binder is strange, you know, just to try to be cherry picking intelligence reports and raw intelligence reports and keeping them in the white house, or the white house chief of staff office or wherever it was, that's not normal, that's a very unusual thing to have happened before it even left the white house, and then, as they're going out the door in this chaotic scene, for this to just

disappear, this incredibly sensitive information about u.s. intelligence collection about russia, this is like a highly relevant, highly sensitive, would be of acute interest to, above all, the russian government vladimir putin, but that should just go missing for a couple years and for there to be this game of denial where everybody's talking about this binder, they're referencing this binder, they clearly have a sense that the binder is out of the white house. even in that trump -- that you alluded to, it's not like they think this stuff stays secure. that's how casual they are about this thing and i think we need to get answers, we need to know why this has taken, where it is and what's been done with it. >> i want to come back to the intelligence implications and security implications and mary, i'm also curious, the implications for whoever has this binder in their possessions, mark meadows or someone else, do they have criminal exposure? >> yes, absolutely, so long as they know they have it. i mean, if it was planted in somebody's safe, i suppose, and they never opened it they can

try that as a defense. this would have classified markings all over it, anyone -- it would be obvious to anyone immediately upon looking at it that it needed to be handled only in a sensitive compartment, and information facility, a skiff, it's not the kind of thing that should be, you know, outside of a skiff at any point. i'm a little troubled even the way the reporting shows that mark meadows had it in a safe in his office, but depending on his office itself not every office in the white house is itself a skiff. so even within skiffs you often have saves within skiffs. my office did, for example, so -- but certainly if someone has this in their home, even in a safe that is not -- that is not a sensitive compartment information facility, that's not handled in the right way, we could be looking at the types of charges mr. trump is facing based on mishandling of

classified information at mar-a-lago and then of course the intelligence community, the fbi, the department of justice are all going to be very interested in why does somebody still have this, if it exists, has there been any transmission of the information within the binder to those who aren't qualified to know it, don't have the clearances to know it, and it's quite possible and likely whoever has it right now doesn't have these clearances. so there certainly is a lot of criminal liability here, but i think in many ways, much more importantly, are the things that john brennan and ben rhodes were highlighting, which is that this is information that would also be very, very -- of great interest to our adversaries, especially vladimir putin and his government, who would want to know exactly what we have ascertained about the influence operations in 2016, that that -- those conclusions of the intelligence community were that there was a dramatic increase in

russia's attempt to influence our elections covertly and overtly, and so this is information that is not, you know, no longer relevant, or no longer of interest, it certainly remains very much of interest. >> well, director brennan, let's add to that the fact that this binder went missing during the final days of the trump presidency when as you know he was trying to declassify cross fire hurricane, the fbi's probe into russian interference in 2016, for his own personal benefit. i want you to take a listen to what cassidy hitch inson told nicole on this program a few months back. >> do you know what he was doing with all the cross fire hurricane classified documents? >> declassifying them. i'm under the impression that the documents are still not fully declassified. this is a long-winded effort, where there are multiple people involved, some at the white house, not till later stages, some from capitol hill that came to -- that came to the white house to help with these efforts. i am under the impression that

these documents still have not been declassified because there still are issues with the classification markings. >> director brennan, trump was obsessed with this information, classified information, did it just become another thing for him to use in personal vendettas? >> it certainly seems that that was the case, and according to the reporting trump himself asked for this material to be brought to the white house so that he could move forward with what he referred to as declassifying it, but i think it was, he wanted to actually release this information. now, i work very closerly, especially with three presidents, presidents clinton, bush, and obama, never did they ask for this type of intelligence for them to be able to retain it. they recognized and respected the requirements that mary was referring to in terms of the -- that this material needs to be kept in a scif, a special information compartment facility so that there can be security accorded to these documents but

the fact that trump asked for them in the waning days in his administration, and they were being shared about and copied, mark meadows' office is not a scif, and if he left the building with these in a binder this is a violation of the security requirements that are incumbent on all public officials. so, again, this is very disturbing and i can see why the intelligence community officials, including briefing the committees on the hill, are really focused on this because ten inches of material can contain such a wealth of information that r our adversaries would just love to get their hands on. >> then my 7-year-old daughter does a better job keeping track of her homework folder, the once leader of the free world had a binder of top secret information that went missing, you talked about how the verdict in the rudy giuliani defamation case makes us look in the eyes of our allies and adversaries, how

about this new reporting, what does it tell the world about our country? >> well, it tells the world that there are these fundamentally unserious people that were in charge and want to be in charge again who don't care at all about national security of the united states, about who don't care at all about the actual truth of the matter. the reality is, we have to continue to say, the intelligence is overwhelmingly clear, in 2016, that russia intervened on trump's behalf. but what he's been trying to do here is assemble some cherry picked group of documents that he can manipulate to show a certain narrative. the fact that that's even what he's thinking about at all while he was president of the united states tells you this is someone who's only thinking about himself. that's what the rest of the world sees and they see this person not just as a -- they see this as potentially the next president of the united states, someone with a 50/50 shot getting back in the oval office and coming back in an even more deranged state. the two things that bring these segments together, that we've

been talking about, one is he was fixated on disproving the reality that russia intervened in the 2016 election, and we all had to live with that obsession, and then he was fixated on disproving the reality that he lost the 2020 election. this is someone who's building their entire identity around lies and conspiracy theories, and that can seem keystone comical if the stakes weren't so high and the reality wasn't that authoritarian, autocracy, it often depends upon trying to make people believe things that aren't true. if you can make a mass of people believe that the sky is green instead of blue, and there's someone else to blame for that, and someone else to hate for that, to distract them from everything else, and to distract them from their own flaws, that's what this playbook is all about, and so he has to be very clear that the stakes really matter here, this isn't just a kind of side show thing, this is both about compromising national security, about a president who doesn't care about national security when it comes to chief adversary, but it's also about whether our country is going to succumb to this endless loop of

conspiracy theory and victim blaming by donald trump. >> the stakes are sky high. ben, you are sticking with me after the break, a story of back room deals and unlikely alliances, a stunning new look at how the supreme court made the momentous decision to reverse 50 years of precedent and take abortion rights away from millions of women.

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. (♪♪)

the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com

the court just told us that

we are not equal. the court just told us that we don't have a right in the constitution to control our own bodies. >> this feels like a betrayal. it feels like my country doesn't love me. and appreciate my body as a woman. i can't even -- i can't even say it because i can't say anything. it hurts. >> barbaric restrictions are having real life implications on real people. i may have been one of the first affected by the overturning of roe in texas, but i'm certainly not the last. >> those are the consequences of the supreme court stripping away the constitutional right to an abortion. new reporting by "the new york times" shines a light on the secretive process in the nation's highestcourt, and how very close roe came to survives in one worm or another but in the 11th hour back room deals by unelected justices a 50-year precedent that underpinned the state of reproductive health care in this country was swept away. one of the most shocking

revelations was that a justice that anti-abortion advocates hoped would be the one to strike down roe once and foall didn't even want the court to take u the dobbs case. the times reporting that, quote, justice amy c barrett, the newest member of the court, made a strong stance, this was not the time, she tol alito, according to two people aware of the comment, she'd arrived even three months before. if the others intend today hear uld change her vote to oppose tang it. ultimately four of conservative male justices on the court, alito, thomas, gouch, and kavanaugh voted t hear the case, not a single woman on the bench voted to take it up. the times also uncovered that the case led to an incredible unlikealliance, quote, chief justice robts jr., a conservative along with liberal justice stephen breyer worked to prevent or limit the outcome, just breyer considered to save

roe v. wade by eroding it. they tried to get justice kavanaugh to sign with them on a 15-week abortion ban, derailed by the leak of the draft decision in may. the person responsible for that leak? still unknown. joining our conversation "new york times" reporter adam lip tack and president and ceo of reproductive freedom for all, and an unbelievable piece of deep, deep reporting, what surprised you most writing this story. >> so it's a very difficult institution to get inside of, and my colleague jody canter and i spent many months on this, and uncovered internal documents and messages and vote tallies, and i think a point you highlighted at the top may be the most important one, the conventional wisdom about the dobbs decision, which overruled roe, is it's obvious. ruth bader ginsburg died, she was replaced by justice amy coney barrett, the third trump appointee, president trump of

course vowed to appoint justices to overrule roe v. wade and yet justice barrett, when it came to decide whether to hear the case voted against it. now when it came to vote on the case itself, she was in the majority, but nonetheless, and that image you put up is very striking. it only takes four votes to put the case on the court's docket, and those four votes were all from conservative men. >> i want to know your general take on this reporting, but i also, looking forward, this is the same court that's going to be ruling on the abortion pill mifepristone, what does that tell you? >> well, you know, again, congratulations on the "new york times," this was a tremendous piece of reporting, we've been riveted by it, reading through it. great info graphics too if you haven't checked out the story online. what this story did was

underscore both the court's understanding of how devastating this decision could be on their credibility, and the public approval, and yet they did it anyway. right? and you -- remember, we are one of the organizations, one of the fit reproductive rights organizations sned onto a court reform coalition, we've been vocal about the ethical challenges with this court, particularly justice thomas, we have been pushing for the senate judiciary for aggressive hearings, we have grave concerns about the credibility of this court, we believe it's extremist, we believe to some extent it's illegitimate. with the mifepristone case coming up we have no indication that's a favorable outcome for abortion rights, it's even more disturbing it came up through matthew kacsmaryk's court as it did. and trump appointed judge, and it's interesting to note that amy coney barrett was very

concerned about the optics of appearing to gut and overturn roe as a woman, and yet had no -- no ability to stop herself from doing it. and her line of questioning in dobbs oral arguments was frankly pretty horrifying. >> you name checked kacsmaryk and coney barrett, i want to talk, adam, about samuel alito, that was one of the most shocking parts of the piece was the role that he played, this was from your rertg, quote, justice alito appeared to have pre-med the decision among justices, out of you from other colleagues to safeguard a coalition more fragile than it looked. talk to me both about the fragility of that coalition, and the way in which this normally works, right, the fact that he was doing it out of view of the other justices. >> when he circulates his draft opinion, ten minutes later it's like a 98-page opinion, ten

minutes later neil gorsuch signs on shortly thereafter, other justices sign on, and that can only mean that he selectively sent it around and got buy-in ahead of time and other conservative justices and that is not unheard of, but it's unusual. and you also asked about the fragility of the coalition, well, it turns out that chief justice roberts had staked out a kind of middle ground, he was urging his colleagues to uphold the mississippi law that would impose a 15-week ban, and that's a serious matter that would severely cut back abortion rights but it wouldn't do away with roe entirely and he got support from that from a liberal colleague, justice stephen breyer, and they worked on a couple of the newer justices, notably justice kavanaugh, but also justice barrett, to try to compromise, to try to find some way to come to the middle, and

amazingly justice breyer, a lifelong liberal and supporter of abortion rights, in order to save at least part of roe considered joining that coalition around a 15-week ban which of course abortion rights proponents would still think was a devastating loss but it would still allow the majority of women to get abortions. and doing away with roe entirely was a different kind of catastrophe for the abortion rights movement. >> right, i mean, it is hard to evaluate that alternative, mini, given what we know now. >> yeah, i mean, look, what's really interesting is the 15-week ban conversation in the reporting that was really remarkable, justice roberts -- the fact that it could be a compromise. we now have seen just this week in the kate cox case in texas that as well in recent elections in virginia that now more

americans than ever understand that 15-week bans are not compromises, right, we're seeing the devastation for our patients who have dangerous pregnancies in later in their term, and the limitations on bans with exceptions, right, so it's really interesting to have this reporting now in the midst of a significant sea change of american public opinion on what compromises limits of a 15-week ban would have been, and i think it shows how legitimately concerned the justices should have been about the credibility of the court. it is a -- adam is correct, we were very concerned that a 15-week ban being upheld would be devastating to roe, and would be harder to communicate, but make no mistake, would have been devastating. but of course this is much, much worse, that outcome is much, much worse. >> adam, after all this reporting, do you have a -- any insight on the leak itself, on the role it played, the dynamic among the justices, and then secondarily, the sort of -- all

the movement on dobbs, where it has left the justices of the unit? >> so we don't know the identity of the leaker. i don't know that we know the motive of the leaker. but we know the effect of the leak, the effect of the leak inside the court r our reporting shows completely froze the situation, and frustrated this attempt we were talking about of chief justice roberts and justice breyer to find compromise, so much so that the chief justice who had been working on preparing a opinion laying out his compromise was reluctant to circulate it electronically because they didn't know whether the communication system was secure. so a grave practical effect. as for dobbs, you know, the court claimed that it was getting out of the abortion business, returning it back to the states, it was done with it, and yet just on wednesday the

court agreed to hear the mifepristone case, the abortion case we've been talking about and they're back in it. to the ex-ent they meant it, to the extent they were serious, they turned out to be quite mistaken that dobbs would end the debate. in fact, as we see in texas, as we see around the country, as we see in this new abortion pill case, abortion continues to be hotly contested battleground, both legally and politically. >> adam liptak whose name is on the by line of this remarkable reporting, adam, thank you so much, mini, as always, thank you for your time. a quick break for us, when we return a bill passed in the senate and nato from donald trump that even republicans voted for. that's next.

what happened? well, when you opened up the chewy box, you went a bit... ...bonkers. that's one word for it. i guess i blacked out. this is the best squeaky toy ever.

probably shouldn't. but we did get you a few more gifts. honey. ooh, there's more. chewy's prices were so great. you don't need to explain yourself, linda. keep on saving. pets aren't just pets. they're more. well, i hope i got a leaf blower this year. you got a turtleneck. unwrap the excitement with a free, $30 egift card at chewy. michael strahan: st. jude has helped increase the overall childhood cancer survival rate from 20% to 80%. sofia vergara: we're helping kids grow up to be whatever they want to be. joanna gaines: like emmanuel, who's chasing quarterbacks. subject: tina, the star of her quinceñera. michael strahan: and haley, who's an astronaut. sofia vergara: or maggie, who's a doctor. maggie: a doctor, saved by st. jude doctors. marlo thomas: give thanks for the healthy kids in your life, and give a gift that could last a lifetime. 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) ♪ (husband) yoohoo, surprise! (son) dad? (husband) ♪ hey there family! while you're shopping, ♪as into i-did-its. ♪ get me a 5g phone, it's on my list. ♪ (wife) seriously? a better plan is verizon. (husband) they'd take this mess? (caroler) ♪ very much so. just trade in that old phone. ♪ ♪ for a free 5g phone, plus netflix and max ♪really just h (caroler) ♪ this didn't land, she didn't like that. ♪ (husband) honey! i immediately get it! (avo) this holiday turn any samsung phone, in any condition, into a galaxy s23+ on us. and now add netflix and max to your plan for just $10 a month. save big this holiday. only on verizon. ♪i'm hearing different ways for me to screen for colon cancer.♪ ♪it's time to use my voice,♪ ♪i've got a choice, more than one answer.♪ ♪i sat down with my doc.♪ we had a talk. ♪knew just what to say.♪ ♪i asked for cologuard and did it my way.♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur.

ask your provider for cologuard. ♪i did it my way!♪ sure, i'm a paid actor, and this is not a real company, but there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. search talent all over the world with over 10,000 skills you may not have in house. more than 30% of the fortune 500 use upwork because this is how we work now. congress pasd the defense bill this wk with bipartisan support in the senate and house. it also quietly approved a stipulation that speaks volumes about the concerns of trump 2.0 by both parties. even as republicans line up behind him. the provision spearheaded by democratic senator tim kaine and republican senator marco rubio bars all future presidents from withdrawing from the nato alliance without the approval of congress. serious concerns have been

building for years in this country and the world about trump's plans to withdraw from nato. ben rhodes is back with us. pretty amazing. you've got republicans making moves to protect the country from donald trump even as they still support him? >> yeah, i mean, this has been one issue in the past we've seen some republicans break from trump. a couple of things here. first of all, if you're so afraid of donald trump's danger to national security and the fact that he could essentially blow up the entire international order of security that the united states has replied upon and been the bedrock of for over 70 years, and frankly hand ukraine to vladimir putin and put at risk the rest of europe, if you're so worried about that that you're willing to do this kind of legislation, which is only about donald trump -- it's not like there's some other president in the future who would yaw from nato -- then why are you supporting donald trump in the first place?

maybe the better way to protect the country is not support someone who would pull out of nato and do vladimir putin's bidding in an election? this is a really live concern around the world. i was recently in europe in several different countries. number one, two, and three question i heard about donald trump coming back to office potentially is, will he cut off ul support for ukraine? will he pull out of nato? those things are seen as related. this bill addresses one of them. let's be clear, if trump is president, he may not be able to formally pull out of nato but he won't commit to that alliance. he's not going to provide assistance to ukraine. he's not necessarily going to come to the defense of a nato ally if the article v collective defense commitment is triggered. this is an insurance policy but it doesn't solve the fundamental danger of donald trump returning to office. >> let me ask you about how he's currently framing it. his campaign website says he intends to finish "fundamentally re-evaluating nato's purpose and

nato's mission." "rolling stone" reported trump's gaming out how to wind down the united states to a "standby position" in nato. what does standby position even mean? >> beats me. the core of the whole -- the reason we set this alliance up after world war ii is collective defense. an attack on one is an attack on all. did there's an attack on a nato member, all nato is obliged to come to their defense. nato invoked that to help defend the united states after 9/11. i guess a standby member is someone that has less commitments and isn't going to follow that core commitment? the question i have here, this is not like controversial. like, a lot of american foreign policy is controversial. we can talk about what's happened in gaza, how much support should be given to ukraine, other wars, actions around the world. nato is totally bipartisan.

the u.s. gets so much out of this alliance. the security umbrella over the u.s. and europe has been the basis of our security and our prosperity for decades. this is not the problem. the only actor who would benefit from the united states withdrawing from nato, the only one, is russia. vladimir putin. it would put in danger not just ukraine but the eastern flank of nato. it would frankly i think create huge divisions in europe. it would be a boost to the far-right in europe. you might see more autocratic leaders with russia's support trying to come to power. it doesn't help the united states in any way to pull out of nato. it's either his strange affinity for putin, his strange antagonism toward democratic allies, or something more insidious. there's no reason for him to be obsessed with this policy. >> ben rhodes, thank you for spending this hour with us.

thank you for spending part of your friday with us. we are, as always, so grateful. welcome to "the beat." we begin tonight with a reckoning for lies. a d.c. federal jury issue adnan miscellaneous verdict holding rudy giuliani accountable for defamation. that's $148 million. that's the amount of damages that a federal jury det