huge political year. and you can catch all of that coverage right here on msnbc. that's it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ last christmas i gave you my heart ♪ ♪ but the very next day you gave it away ♪ ♪ this year ♪♪ ♪♪ hi there, everyone. we hope you and your loved ones are having a great holiday. each of these individuals in their own way is on the front lines of protecting democracy. one of those important voices is legendary conservative legal scholar judge michael luttig. judge luttig is a conservative's conservative. he was short listed to be named to the u.s. supreme court as one of the star witnesses during the

january 6th select committee hearings, judge luttig called out donald trump and his cronies as a clear and present danger to american democracy. you will recall that when the disgraced twice impeached four times indicted ex-president was pressuring mike pence to help him overturn the 2020 election results, pence in his moment of legal need called judge luttig for advice and in no uncertain terms he told mike pence that legally and constitutionally he could not help trump do what he wanted to do. now judge luttig is sounding the alarm again, about another constitutional question. does trump's role in the insurrection, not just make him a really, really bad choice to be the commander in chief, but does it actually bar him from ever holding office again? judge luttig argues that under the 14th amendment trump is actually prohibited from ever being the president again. judge luttig's legal theory is being adjudicated in multiple

courts in multiple states right now. judge luttig himself, this legendary legal mind, joined us to explain the thorny legal but urgent legal questions at play. and explained why donald trump's actions on january 6th put him squarely in opposition to the constitution and democracy there selves. >> the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election was not and is not politics. this is, as we now know from the indictments of the former president by the department of justice and jack smith, these were grave crimes against the united states of america, perhaps almost as grave as would have been treason. >> and he's back. that's where we start the hour, with former federal judge michael luttig and former acting

assistant general neal katyal. we will get to your pairing up and partnering up in a minute before we let either of you go, but i want to start with your thoughts on what's happening this week in courtrooms around the country. all that seems to have been put in motion by the argument you started making publicly this summer. >> thank you, nicolle, for having me with you this afternoon. it's a real pleasure. the proceedings and the hearings that are going on across the country this week, next week and the weeks that follow are going to address as professor tribe and i said, literally the most pressing constitutional issue of our times and that is whether under the constitution of the united states of america is donald trump disqualified from holding the office of the presidency again as a result and as a consequence of his efforts to overturn the 2020

presidential election. the question under the constitution -- and we are talking now about the 14th amendment, section 3 -- as you read, is whether or not the former president engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the united states constitution. the question is not whether he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states of america or the authority of the united states of america. that's the issue that's at stake. that's the issue that will eventually have to be decided by the supreme court of the united states. >> do you see any one of these cases as being the one that gets to the supreme court? >> well, professor tribe and i

have followed and monitored the various state court -- state and federal court proceedings that are under way in several of the states, and there will be any number of others in the weeks and months ahead, and it's technical law that determines which would be the better or the best of the cases, but i'm satisfied that colorado is one of those states whose case when it eventually makes it to the supreme court of the united states would be what we lawyers call a perfect case for the supreme court to grant cert on and to decide the question. the other matter that i want to address today before we leave is this, i think that instinctively

americans who think about the disqualification clause think that it is anti-democratic, and that is that the american people should decide whether the former president becomes the president of the united states again. that's an understandable concern, but it's not correct for this reason, it's the constitution itself that tells us that disqualification is not anti-democratic, rather, it's the conduct that gives rise to disqualification under section 3 that the constitution says is anti-democratic. >> and your point is it's the same as being 12, right? if you are 12 you can't be president, either, because you don't meet the age requirement.

you're just saying it's letter and law -- letter of the constitution renders the conduct a disqualifying factor? >> that's correct. that a president of the united states must be 35 years of age. >> right. >> and he must be a naturalized citizen of the united states are qualifications for holding the office of the president. the qualification that he or she not have engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states is a qualification just like the others. >> right. just like age. because i think that it gets put in this trauma bucket, right? the country is so traumatized by trump they are afraid of using this document, this precious document, that maybe the rest of us don't know as intimately as you do, it feels too easy, right? how could there be a document that perfect that says if you have engaged in insurrection you can't be president. but i wonder if we're thinking

about it all wrong that it is as plain as being 12 or 13 years old and saying, well, of course you can't be president. >> we are -- the first thing i'd say, nicolle, is that this is not yours or my constitution, it's the constitution of the american people. and in that sense the american people through the framers of the constitution, both the original constitution, but also the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868, those people were our representatives, if you will, the american people's representatives. it's they who determined in section 3 that an individual who is engaged in an insurrection or rebellion, having previously taken an oath to support the

constitution of the united states and thereafter engaged in an insurrection nl rebellion against the constitution of the united states should be disqualified from holding high public office thereafter. >> what is the threat of trump today? >> as i said before the congress over a year and a half ago, nicolle, the former president and his allies were, as of january 6, 2021, a clear and present danger to american democracy. a year later when i was asked, i think, by michael schmidt of the "new york times," i said that today, one year after january 6, that the former president and his allies were an even graver danger to american democracy than they were a year prior, and most recently i have also said

that now, two and a half years thence, that the former president is a clear and present danger and imminent danger to american democracy today. >> wow. neal katyal, let's stay here. we will wind our way back to the law. the times are so harrowing, but so sustained, and it is voices like both of yours that cut through. and i just wonder your thoughts on the fact that we have to have these conversations at all about donald trump. >> well, and also, nicolle, the fact that we're having this conversation, having judge luttig talk about donald trump. that's like a matter/anti-matter explosion. i mean, judge luttig is a true national hero and donald trump is now in court, i think, by my count right now this week, in five different jurisdictions as

an insurrectionist. it's such a privilege to watch judge luttig and to hear him speak so clearly about what the constitution means and, you know, it connects up very directly to this whole question of the 14th amendment. you know, the judge refers to the concern about it maybe being anti-democratic. the way i look at it is there's some red lines in the constitution that say, look, you're not allowed to hold office if you do these things. you mentioned being 12, but the one that for me is the clearest is the natural born citizen requirement. so, like, arnold schwarzenegger or jennifer granholm cannot be president even if 99% of americans wanted them to be president because that is a red line in the constitution. so, too, in 1868 was put this this other red line, you can't be an insurrectionist, asterisk, they actually said if the congress votes to remove the disqualification and say you've paid your penance or whatever,

then you can run. so there is actually here a democratic process the way there isn't for, say, the natural born citizenship clause. i think the judge makes an absolutely compelling case for why the 14th amendment section 3 should be in and, you know, to hear donald trump talk about it, you know, by the way, you know, donald trump has not appeared in any of these courtrooms, you know, that's who is not testifying. if this were you or me accused of being an insurrectionist of course we would be there to clear our name but this guy is afraid to be in court. instead he sends kash patel as his star witness which couldn't be good for him. i think 14th amendment section 3 is really about this, it's about someone who provided aid and comfort to insurrectionists, been an insurrectionist in his own ways and now the voters are saying, this is a red line, you can't do it. >> will you testify in any of these state cases? >> i would not expect to,

nicolle, but, as you know, i have the greatest respect for neal katyal and as he was speaking there it reminded me to say this, if i had the opportunity, the former president's lawyers are not arguing their case under section 3, they are arguing that the former president did not engage in an insurrectional rebellion against the united states of america. that is a difficult case but it's still a provable case. >> what's the difference? >> that's exactly what i want to say today. >> okay. >> focus on the distinction. section 3 disqualifies someone who has engaged in an insurrectional rebellion against the constitution of the united states.

now, that case can be made, as i've said publicly, by proving that donald trump had a plan and that he attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and remain in power in direct contradiction and violation of what's known as the executive vesting clause. the executive vesting clause is very simple, that's just the clause in the constitution that prescribes the term for the president of the united states as being four years. and that clause says by terms that the president will serve a four-year term and a four-year term only, unless he is elected or reelected to the office of president. so when donald trump tried to

overturn the 2020 presidential election that he had lost fair and square to then candidate and now president joe biden, he violated the executive vesting clause of the constitution. that is what i have said is the quintessential -- quintessential insurrection or rebellion against the constitution of the united states. >> so the refusal to leave office, the refusal to concede and the refusal to carry out the tradition of a peaceful transfer of power is the damage, is the violation of the constitution? >> it is the rebellion against the constitution of the united states. >> the document. >> and so back to what the former president's lawyers are arguing, they don't want to argue that, they want to argue

instead that the former president didn't engage in an insurrection against the united states. they want to argue that he was not responsible for the riot on the united states capitol. >> they're going to play semantics and say how was he supposed to know be there, be wild would make them -- >> exactly. >> but you're saying that's not what section 3 of the 14th amendment says. >> exactly. and i have not followed closely these two cases, but i've followed them a little bit, to the extent that i know that that's what they're arguing. i know that that's not the issue and i've been concerned over this past week, frankly, that by the various courts' reactions to that argument, namely it's not been clear from the courts' questions that the two courts that i'm talking about now in

colorado and in minnesota have focused just yet on the actual issue. >> because you're saying they're taking the bait on questions and evidence about violence and you're saying that the evidence -- frankly, the evidence exists in emails that i think trump is on the record in the congressional probe as having seen where eastman circulates the document and trump is for it. >> that's exactly right. although i wouldn't have worded it the way you did. >> say many people, including our very esteemed guest here. neal katyal, are you as confident as judge luttig is that this stands up before the united states supreme court? >> i think it does end up before the united states supreme court. i think that's the only thing that we can predict with some relative certainty. i don't think minnesota or colorado will have the last word on this, either way. i do think that the hard thing for the supreme court is something we haven't talked about yet, which is not really the law. i think the judge makes an

absolutely compelling case on the law. the hard question is the precedent that would be set if you allow one state or some voters in one state to remove someone from the ballot. that is, i think, what the text of the constitution requires, but i do think it's going to give them pause and some people are saying, look, if they do it to trump, then other states, conservative states, will do it to biden or to some future democratic nominee. my view on that is the republicans are probably going to do that anyway because that party is so lost its constitutional bearings that they will just weaponize anything, whether it applies or not. here this is as the judge says the pair dig mat tick case for applying 14th amendment section 3, but you do have to worry that anything short of that case might be weaponized in some other instance. >> nicolle, if i may, this will not be the ultimate issue, that is, the contemplation of the

constitution is that the processes that are under way right now across the several states will roll themselves up whether those processes are in state court or federal court eventually to the supreme court, and the supreme court will decide whether the former president is disqualified under section 3 of the 14th amendment, and that will be a uniform rule for the united states of america. it will not be the case -- it will not be the case that the former president is on some ballots and not on others. i can assure the american people of that. >> would you argue this case before the supreme court if asked? >> i hope no one asked me. >> that wasn't a no. >> i'm not an advocate, but i know very well someone who is

one of the greatest advocates before the supreme court and it happens to be neal katyal. so i would -- i would recommend that neal argue it, as he did the most important case since our founding for american democracy, moore versus harper. >> if asked, would you argue this case, neal? >> heck yeah. heck yeah. with the judge at my side. >> i think you just made some news. so you heard it here first, neal katyal and judge michael luttig, a legal dream team say they are ready and willing to join forces to argue this 14th amendment case before the u.s. supreme court. that would be epic. coming up for us, one of the breakout patriots to emerge from the ashes of january 6, harry dunn. and later, my beloved and dear incomparable colleague rachel maddow and the lesson to our nation's past that was very nearly lost to history that

rachel says we need more than ever right now. t rachel says we need more than ever right now get a light scent that lasts with no heavy perfumes or dyes. there is a lot of information out there. hamas is a terrorist group oppressing the palestinian people. hamas refused a continued ceasefire, a continued pause in fighting and more aid from israelis in exchange for just freeing more hostages. instead, hamas resumed attacks. not to protect the palestinian people or obtain peace, only to destroy israel. we must stand against hamas and stand with palestinians and israelis for basic human rights.

hi, i'm ben and i've lost 60 pounds on golo. (guitar music) and israelis for with other programs i've tried in the past they were unsustainable, just too restrictive. with golo i can enjoy my food and the fear and guilt of eating is gone.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity.

if these extraordinary times have taught us anything, it is how powerful it is when our fellow americans take something traumatic and turn it into a mission. no one exemplifies that more than our friend officer harry dunn. he lived through january 6, it catapulted him on to the national stage and put him on a new path as a tireless advocate for accountability for those responsible for the violence on that day and healing for those who survived it. >> what i ask from you all is to get to the bottom of what happened and that includes, like, i echo the sentiments of all of the other officers sitting here, i use an analogy to describe what i want as a hitman. if a hitman is hired and he kills somebody, the hitman goes to jail but not only does the

hitman go to jail but the person who hired them does. there was an attack carried out on january 6 and a hitman sent them. i want you to get to the bottom of that. >> there is perhaps no other human who has shown more vulnerability and eloquence and sounded a greater clarion call for justice in the wake of the brutal and deadly attack on january 6th on the u.s. capitol. he has become our dear friend, officer harry dunn. in his new book which is out today, you can buy it right now, he explains why he has taken this role, why he decided to be so vocal about the need for accountability after the insurrection. he writes, quote, i speak out not because i want something for me, but because i want accountability. i want people responsible for that day, including trump and anybody else who conspired to breach the capitol and try to halt our democracy, to pay a price. just like we paid a price. and i want us to never repeat a

day like that. it is a stain on our nation. officer dunn has also started a vitally important conversation about the trauma he has endured that day and every day since as he continues to struggle. he says this, quote, i'm still struggling, still trying to get back to the man i was. i'm a lot better, but i came to realize that recovering from that day is going to be a long process. the hard part is accepting that i will probably never fully heal. joining us at the table is our dear friend, officer harry dunn, author of the new book "standing my ground: a capitol police officer's fight for accountability and good trouble after january 6." i am so happy that this is out. >> me, too. >> let's talk about the book. i had the privilege -- you are always the first person i want to talk to whenever something on this front happens but i didn't know about the role of your daughter. talk about that. >> well, first of all, she --

she humbles me in a way, you know -- >> kids do that. >> they do. even just now right before we -- she said, hi, daddy. i'm getting ready to get on. turn the tv on. oh, cool. she could care less. but on that day the story that -- one of the stories i tell about her is she was facetiming me as i was trying to find my phone to text my loved ones and tell everybody i was okay and i wiped my eyes because i was crying and i didn't want her to see me disheveled. daddy is okay. i wiped my eyes with my coat jacket and it had remnants of pepper spray on it and i smeared it further into my eyes. even in the middle of the insurrection you have to show up for your kid. >> totally. >> yeah. i kept thinking make it home to my daughter that day. so -- >> you also write about something else that has never come up, that for the first time

ever, ever, you're given helmets. why? >> i don't know. that's the question. you know, i made it clear that i'm not saying that this is some conspiracy. >> i know. >> but it's an unknown question that i guess hasn't been answered yet, like was it -- did they know ahead that this was going to be bad? people suffered a lot that day and i think it would be fair for everybody to just get answers about everything, the totality of what happened that day, not just at the white house and the planning before and everything, but the security failures and the leading up to the intel failures and all that stuff. i think all of that needs to have a big picture to show the failures of that day. so that way we can really be sure that it doesn't happen again. >> you write in the part that i read about the healing and i want to -- i feel like we always end up here and i always have two hours' worth of things that

i want to ask you about this, but you won't get back to the man that you were before. we didn't know you before. and this is selfish, this is about us, not you, but, you know, here we are, welcome to 2023, right? >> yeah. >> but is there any part of you that feels like you could get used to this version of yourself and this role? and i know that when you talk about trauma literally everyone who sticks their arm in the elevator door and wants to tell you their story because you've opened a door for them. is there any part of that that you sit with and think, well, maybe this was a different path but also my purpose? >> maybe. i've always -- like i said, i joined policing because i believed in the idea of public service and, you know, service to your country. my father was in the military and just an idea of something bigger than yourself. so i've always had the idea of public service and everything, but as far as getting back to that individual and embracing this new role, so to speak, we

evolve as humans and when you are faced with trauma you don't just stay right where you are, if you do you will succumb to it, or you evolve and find a new purpose. i realize that i help people out just by being vulnerable, like you said, just sticking your arm -- people come and tell you their stories, hey, you have inspired me and it makes it worth t it's like a continuation of my public service but in a different capacity. >> i'm not suggesting that anything makes it worth it to go through what you went through on that day, i'm just -- you know, you find yourself in these situations where instead of -- and you clearly don't feel sorry for yourself ever. i mean, it doesn't come through on any page, where you have taken this worst day of probably all of your lives, right? >> yeah. >> and you've become this vessel for people to connect to and say, i'm not okay, either. >> so when you were reading that i'd say the "we" as far as the

would think, this trauma that we faced that's not necessarily me, my co-workers, that's this country. >> right. >> that was an attack on american democracy. so everybody, whether you were on the front lines that day or you were in california watching on your ipad, you felt some kind of trauma, or if you did then it's valid because that was an attack on the system of government that governs us. so everybody's trauma is valid. >> what do you get the most -- i mean, what is the thing that -- because i've seen you walking around, i know everyone takes pictures with you, but you also live -- i mean, here, again, the two sides, you also live with people who threaten you every day on social media. what is that like? >> you have to block it out, i guess. i've been fortunate, like i said, i haven't had anything that escalated to the point where i was genuinely 100%

concerned about maybe this is just me being naive, i don't know, but i'm focused on a bigger picture to help individuals and inspire individuals to be resilient. it's not easy doing this and that's, you know, standing my ground, my story, it's my ground. i encourage everybody else to continue standing their ground, even when faced with adversity or tough times because it's not easy because people -- you know, i want to believe -- i do believe that we live in this world where, you know, people want to see you succeed, but there's a small amount of people that seem astronomical that want to see you fail. >> who could possibly want to see harry dunn fail? we are only rooting for officer dunn in every single way. more of my conversation with harry dunn after a quick break. don't go anywhere. y dunn after k don't go anywhere.

getting sick and tired of cold and flu products that don't work? biovanta is the only number one physician-recommended product chosen over all others, including tylenol, mucinex, zicam, and nyquil / dayquil. the combat symptoms and boosts immunity. biovanta really works.

we're back with our good friend harry duchb, the book is called "standing my ground." let me read from it a little bit. even as i imagine that day and the pleasure i will feel i'm brought back to earth by sobering reality, even if trump is convicted, each if he can't run for office again, even if he goes to jail, even if everything i want to happen takes place it won't be over. all those politicians rallying around him and his philosophy of hate will still support him when he had behind bars so will all

the racist and conspiracy nuts, fox news, news max and right wing sites will continue to spread lies and advance policies that divide us by looking to blame and demonize one group much americans so another group of americans can feel superior. it's the most sort of astute and cogent analysis of this moment, right, and our politics are our culture, they're sort of subsumed one another. but i feel the same way. i want the accountability for accountability sake, but i am not under any delusion that it heals anything. >> that's the thing. so donald trump goes to jail, then, yay, are you happy or whatever, you're indifferent, but does the ideology of what trump represented, does the maga ideology, does it dissipate? i don't believe that it does. they just look for their next leader, so to speak. so, you know, on a personal selfish level i will celebrate that for a minute, and then get back to the sobering reality

that this country that we live in is still dominated with people that get ahead in life by spreading hate and bringing down others. >> how do we fix that? >> i don't know. i mean, calling it out. >> naming it is part of it, right? >> naming it is part of it, but even still like people -- does that even work? nothing has worked. i don't know. i wish i did know, but -- but i can't do nothing. >> right. >> you have to do something, you know? this is a harryism, until there's something -- until there's nothing that can be done there's always something that can be done. >> right. >> so everybody has this little part of something that they can do. i don't know. >> when i was trying to help ukraine i started calling all these famous people, i don't know any famous people except you. >> oh, stop it. >> and i said, listen, i don't know how busy you are, but i

just thought it would be nice if everything could do something more than nothing. >> yeah. >> maybe that's how you change, right? you get everyone to do a little thing. >> something different. >> right. >> and the betterment of their mankind or this country, something for the betterment of others instead of just this selfish -- i don't know. i don't know. it's such a -- it sounds simple, how do you stop -- how do you get the world to stop hating? you just don't hate. it sounds simple but we haven't reached that point yet. >> i wonder what you -- where the book brought you in terms of your own journey. like i remember asking you about flash flashbacks, you said there are no flashbacks because any flash forward. what is the process of writing the book and being out talking about it done for your own trauma of that day of january 6? >> i'm processing the fact that i wrote a whole book, it's a heck of an accomplishment. i have a hard time celebrating that accomplishment because i

wanted -- i didn't do it for an accomplishment, i did it to tell my story. like you say, like cassidy hutchinson did for the record because there's so many people saying their record and they weren't even there, which is completely false. the book is to educate the american people and hopefully to inspire people also. so i'm focused on that point now. i haven't really had a time to reflect on how it made me feel. now, the writing process was very cathartic and there were moments where i was where do i go next in this book? i would just get frustrated and just say, what's the point? so it was very -- a sobering reality for me that it helped me snap out of it and say, do you know what, you have work to do. keep it up. stop feeling sorry for yourself. >> you told people you didn't want to heal, you were afraid you would lose some of the drive. >> doesn't that sound crazy?

like who doesn't want to heal? this anger, this sadness that i have, it's motivating me to still get on this tv and say, oh, him again? yeah, me again. get used to it. hi. >> they love you. >> yeah. but it's motivating me to continue to speak out and hopefully inspire somebody to, i don't know, just make it -- make the world a better place. >> i think you make every table you sit at, every -- and i'm sure your daughter keeps you honest, but you really do, it's a privilege to know you and to have you here. >> thank you. >> i'm so happy about the book and i hope this is the first of many conversations about all the wisdom in it. >> i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to -- you know, i appreciate it. >> are you kidding? we saw you the first public hearing i said we need to know him. we need to not just book him, we need to know him. he is a part of our family. >> and here we are. >> we're happy to know you. congrats on the book. it is amazing "standing my

ground: a capitol police officer's fight for accountability and good trouble after january 6." it's available right now. when we come back the one and only rachel maddow. don't go anywhere. and only rachw don't go anywhere. and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry.

we're blessed here at msnbc to work alongside some of the finest journalists in the world and among those staggerly gifted colleagues of mine one stands in a league of her own, it's rachel maddow. she has been our north star at

msnbc and for all of you. her essential new book now a "new york times" best seller "prequel" examines the fight against fascism in america, it is beyond timely that tells the story of ordinary americans who quietly toppled the push to a nazi agenda in world war 2. >> it's the readers guy to ultra. it's incredible and i keep thinking of something joe biden said, i think it was wednesday, about taking all of his kids to dacau and this conversation story we cover of erasing history is danger, not knowing every word you've written here, every word from ultra is some of the price we pay is the worst chapters of history could repeat themselves. >> the fact that there was a big fascist movement here in the united states in the lead up to world war ii is mostly lost to history because it's easier to think of us as, oh, america was the good guys.

>> liberated the -- >> bad guys were over there, we went over there and beat them, liberated the concentration camps. that's a foreign ideology, we never had to contend with. there was actually a big pro-nazi movement in this country. in times like this, i don't want to get too far off the news here and i don't want to draw analogies that weren't appropriate but i do feel like a lot of what this book taught me is about what people use anti-semitism for. one of the cornerstones that you look for in a democracy that's potentially going towards fascism or authoritarianism is you look for the scapegoating of a disfavored group and not just talking about what you don't like about them, not just saying that they are inferior, but saying that they are a secretive cabal that is somehow in control and somehow squeeming against all that's good and right. you have elaborate nefarious conspiracy theories about

minority groups, almost always against jews and sometimes against other disfavored minority groups, too, but that is function. the reason that always rising at times when democracy is under threat is because you need to plant the seed in people's minds that there are people among us who shouldn't get a vote, who shouldn't get a say who are not part of we the citizens because they are evil and they're scheming against us. once you can sort of turn people's minds that way towards their fellow citizens, towards any of them, you've already set the seeds of destruction for democracy because that means we can't all decide things together. >> one of the things that is so haunting and, you know, i'm always looking for the parallels, right? i try to find the characters in the book in our politics which feel pretty unhealthy right now. >> yeah. >> the one party's desire to make it harder to vote, one party's desire to take away a woman's right to control her body. i mean, we don't have a two-party problem we have a problem in one of our parties. what's so haunting is -- i made

this very low-tech chart here, you know, we look at extremism i do on this flat line, but it goes through media, through faith institutions, through politics, through law enforcement. will you talk about your characters in that respect? >> yeah. i mean, one of the things that surprised me and this wasn't in ultra, this is just something that's in the book, but, for example, henry ford. anybody who knows anything about the history of henry ford knows that he was an anti-semite. most famous industrialist of this whole swath of american history but also an anti-semite. what did you understand is that he's probably the most prolific spreader of anti-semitic propaganda in the history of the english language. a detroit reporter went to germany and interviewed hitler before he became chancellor, she walked into his office and he had on his wall an oil portrait of henry ford and said he is my inspiration. mine comp signaled out henry

ford and how much he had taught hitler about how to hate the jews. there is something about not just a person's radicalism but their influence, their reach. >> the stature. >> that makes the true danger. i grew up -- you and i both grew up in northern california roughly the same time. i was well aware of racist skin head groups and klan groups way out there on the fringe. what i have grown into now that i'm 50 is groups that have used that extreme who have links to people who are in power. and that happened, too, in the 1930s. it is happening again now. when you've got stuff that radical that close to the center of american power. and that's the real -- that's the, you know, tinder, that's real danger. >> i mean, the thing -- we had planned to talk about this over four blocks, but i hope we can be another top on the tour because what i want to do is we have sort of the top of the iceberg, trump says stand by and back by and we're like this is

the proud boys. what? what we're learning through the january 6 prosecutiones is what happens there. right? what happens in the extremist group when the most powerful person in our country says stand back and stand by. i feel like through history we can learn some of what you're talking about. if the person has influence and it has a lot more impact and power than if they don't. >> to see anti-semitism, to see violence intruding into the political space, to see telling people that democracy doesn't work and we shouldn't use it to solve our problems and to see that elevated to the most influential people in politics and by the most influential people in politics, that's when you get into a real danger of a democracy toppling. that said, that's the down side of it, but i also feel like history offers us a little bit of an instruction book in terms of what to look for and how to fight t that you do need to prosecute crimes when crimes occur and violence is always a crime, but you also need people to expose it, you need people to infiltrate them, to do the political work to get those people who are in power

connected to those extremist groups voted out and i believe americans will still do that. you know, people who are very influential in the media have a lot to answer for, too, but there's ways to both expose and combat all of this stuff and a lot of the people who did that most effectively the last time we had to contend with this, those are the people i most wanted to write about "prequel" it's out now, another "new york times" best seller. put it on your holiday gift list. times" best seller put it on your holiday gift list have a driver's license? oh. what did you get us? [ chuckling ] with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. sign today and you're off in a new volkswagen during the sign, then drive event.

love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning. we just wait till we get to the school. so, yeah. right now here in america, millions of kids like victoria and andre live with hunger, and the need to help them has never been greater. you know, people who are very times" best seller. you know, people who are very times" best seller join your fr, neighbors and me to support no kid hungry, you'll help hungry kids get the food they need. if we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them.

your gift of just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month at helpnokidhungry.org right now will help provide healthy meals and hope. we want our children to grow and thrive and to just not have to worry and face themselves with the struggles that we endure. nobody wants that for their children. like if these programs didn't exist me and aj, we wouldn't probably get lunch at all. please call or go online right now with your gift of just $19 a month. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives. if you're coming in hungry, there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure they get the healthy meals they need to thrive.

because when you help feed kids, you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever. so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today.

our thanks to my beloved friend rachel maddow, the inspiring officer harry dunn and the legendary judge michael luttig. these were just a few of our most favorite conversations from the last year but of course it is impossible to show you all of them and to thank all of them. we truly treasure every guest who comes to the table. for that you can head to msnbc.com/nicolle for even more of our favorite conversations. and as always, thank you for spending the hour with us and letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. hug your loved ones. i know i will. nary times. hug your loved ones. i know i will. e is verizon! (vo) that's right! plans start at $25 per line guaranteed for 3 years. only on verizon. narrator: time is running out to give a year-end gift like no other, a gift that can help st. jude children's research hospital save lives. woman: cancer doesn't care how old you are, and it's devastatingly scary. if you're donating to st. jude, you're

supporting finding a cure, because the fight never stops. narrator: every gift counts, and whatever you can give will make a difference for children like gideon. make your donation today to help st. jude save lives. when you shop wayfair, you get big deals for your home - every day. so big, we'll have you saying... am i a big deal? yeah you are, because it's a big deal, when you get a big deal. wayfair deals so big that you might get a big head.

because with savings so real - you can get your dream sofa for half the price. wayfair. it's always a big deal. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ (smelling) ew.

gotta get rid of this. ♪tell me why♪ because it stinks. ♪have you tried downy rinse and refresh♪ it helps remove odors 3x better than detergent alone. it worked guys! ♪yeahhhh♪ downy rinse and refresh. ♪♪

president trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack. what happens when the president disregards the court's rulings as illegitimate? when he disregards the rule of law? that, my fellow citizens, breaks our republic. president trump is a 76-year-old man. he is not an i'm press nabl 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. it's now 5:00 in new york, it's the disgraced twice impeached, four time indicted ex-president has a nemesis or a counter,

someone who will fearlessly hold his feet to the fire with facts it is indisputably done most capably by former congresswoman liz cheney. as vice chair of the january 6th subcommittee that was just a portion of what she had to say and do there. fearless. viewers of this program are well versed in her remarkable work in shaping and helming the january 6 committee's investigation and questioning. we heard from tim hafey as well as the production and execution of the public hearings. what we have not heard yet until now is what it was like, what that existence was like from her perspective. what it was like when an angry mob stormed the u.s. capitol on january 6. in her new book "oath and honor" cheney shares her harrowing experience on january 6 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 jamie raskin looking down at his phone said, liz, there's a confederate monuments flag flying inside the u.s. capitol. i couldn't believe t 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 locking them, we were being locked in. people were saying our chairs were bulletproof, that we could take cover behind them.

jim jordan approached me, quote, we need to get the ladies off the aisle, he said, and put out his hand. let me help you. i couldn't believe what i was hearing. really? he and his co-conspirators in the white house and congress had provoked this attack on the heart of american democracy and now he thought i needed or wanted his help? i swatted his hand away, "get away from me you effing did this." as jim scurried off there was another announcement from the capitol police, we have tear gas in the rotunda, please be a surprised there are masks under your seats, please be prepared to don your gas masks. there was an awful din in the chamber as the whine of the air masks mingled with the sounds much 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 back of the

chamber. the mob 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 sounded like gunshots but was likely the sound of glass shattering filled the air. people began yelling, shots fired. get down. a member of congress his voice filled with fury yelled at the mob, stop you, you sons of bitches, stop. 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 stolen 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 tv coverage of the attack on the

u.s. capitol. donald trump refused to tell the mob to leave. it is heart pounding, i have read it three times, makes my heart pound to read it again. it is essential that you read it and we are honored to have you here to talk about it today. i am marked as i'm sure you are when it comes to these pages by the accounts of 9/11 and for the first time you seem to give some texture to the way that the law enforcement officials that protected the capitol that day in some ways rushed inside the burning towers, if that's a fair parallel to draw. >> well, you know, one of the things that i talk about in the boom 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 -- >> to the -- >> exactly, when he was the vice president and the secret service was evacuating him to the pioc. 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 and 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 foundations of our democracy. and i think that what we saw on january 6th was a direct attack on the foundations of our democracy and as you have covered so well and extensively here, that that threat remains and continues. >> i mean, i think one of the reasons we've been so fixated -- i think it's fair to call it a fixation -- on your efforts to root out what's underneath how this came to be is because we don't have near 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 knew in riveting things about that i want to ask you 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 because i think that the way that we dee feel 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 and so, for example, you know, mike johnson has continued to claim that he's for transparency, that he's releasing the videos from that day. he had to release them. he really -- you know, i don't know what he's waiting for. >> he's waiting to blur the faces. >> right. >> which he said is time

consuming. >> the other thing to note is the department of justice has already got all of these videos. >> right. >> but i think it's really important because what he's doing is actually he's released a very small amount and he is suggesting every day that goes by this suggestion that somehow he's going to release something that will change what happened that day. that will change the facts. and there is nothing that will change that violent assault. so i call on him to release -- release them. do it now. >> i want to ask you about what you reveal in greater detail than i understood before reading all of this and that was his role in the objections and his -- this sort of sticks in my brain from covering dominion but the known falsity. it i would appear from his own lawyers the known unconstitutionality of the objections. did 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 and of course the book was finished 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 and he holds himself out as a constitutional lawyer, but i watched throughout this period time and time again he would advocate things he knew were wrong. he would advocate positions he knew didn't have basis in the constitution. when i would confront him and tell him that his legal reasoning was inaccurate, was wrong, he would often, you know, suggest that he agreed and he did the same thing with kevin mccarthy's chief counsel. he knew that he was making arguments for which he didn't have a basis, but he continued to do it. he was desperate in many ways 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 -- it is really dangerous for the

country. >> is he more dangerous than kevin mccarthy? >> he's smarter. >> that's not saying a ton. >> and i think that, look, both of these speakers -- i think johnson has clarified the situation. he's made absolutely clear that the republicans in the house cannot be counted on to defend the constitution. now, certainly as i write in the book at every moment when kevin mccarthy had the opportunity to make a tough decision he made the wrong decision. so this is not in any way a defense of him. i think both men are symptomatic of what's happened to our party. >> and what has happened? >> the party has become in many ways seized by a cult of personality and, you know, i had a discussion i talk about in the book with condi rice who you and i both worked with and this was in the spring of 2021 and we

were talking about this, she's obviously an expert on the former soviet union, and i asked her, i said, are there any examples in history where a country has come through this kind of cult of personality? and she was quiet and paused and said, you know, not without great violence. but we have never seen it before in the united states and it's what we're seeing now. >> do you think -- i've asked people that study democracies the same question and 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 know, 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 6th. you see -- you know, even if you

look, for example, 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 that they would vote for jim jordan and in one of the most chilling reported episodes, and i talked to a member who was 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 from ohio, a jim jordan supporter, reportedly, you know, responded and said, well, that's not jim jordan's fault, that's your fault. think about, you know, what that means, that acceptance of violence in our political system. >> i want to ask you what it means because i don't know if i read it and felt -- i will say i read it and felt all of the parallels to this time of great threat to the country that we served in government at the same time and 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 that it masquerades

and burrows in under legitimate functions, the speaker of the house, the front runner for the republican nomination. i wonder if you can talk a little bit about what you see as the way forward. >> yeah. you know, part of the challenge is that it is -- as you point out it's 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 to none or 99 to none on the patriot act. the tools were passed, everyone agreed on them and 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 -- actively trying to ensure -- to whitewash what happened on the 6th. and to collaborate with the former president. and i think that's a really important point because the threat that he poses wouldn't be so significant if people had done the right thing, had said, no, he's not -- that's not who

we are, but instead there is obviously 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 just now. the threats of violence are cited in a filing today from jack smith. it seemed part of the work of the committee to prove that the violence was the obstruction of the official proceeding and that that was premedicated. that opposing the results of the election and today jack smith goes back even further than 2020, but the committee develops evidence going back to july, tom fenton email where he's putting this plan in place, you're going to refuse to concede. rudy giuliani was reportedly drunk and not in the inter sanctum on election night but he was the one they put out there to parrot the lie. everyone that you presented as a witness told trump the same thing and i've worked on losing campaigns, you bring out the

data guy, then you bring out the political guy, tells you where we fell short in the count's and if the candidate can't take it, you bring out the campaign manager then you list the family to break the bad news. all of those people went to trump and told them that they lied. with as that all -- were they not in on the fact that he never intended to accept the results, that it didn't matter what they told him that night? >> you know, i think that 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, you know, and in the committee's report we put a chart in this report, very specifically to say, you know, with specificity these are the claims that donald trump was making. here is the day on which he was told that specific claim was false and here is 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, involved pressure on the vice president, on the justice department, and this was a story that wasn't developed by democrats. you know, we heard this evidence from republicans. so the republicans who, for example, were leading his campaign, his white house counsel, his acting attorney general, the most senior people around him told him this is -- you know, you have lost and the claims that you're making are false, and i think that, you know, certainly those claims, as well one of the things that 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 that there were weapons in the crowd and yet he told

them to march on the capitol. and then of course sat for over three hours and refused to tell them to leave. so there's no question about his intent and there's also no question about the level of depravity just from a human standpoint of someone who would sit, watch that violence on tv and not tell the people to leave. >> but you also developed evidence and jon karl released a tape we played in the last hour that watching on tv was his second choice, his first choice was to be there among t why is that important? >> i think that the extent to which we saw testimony, for example, from an official at the white house whose identity we protected who made very clear that what would have happened that if he had, in fact, marched up to the capitol you would have been talking about a very different sort of situation. now, it 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 that he couldn't be

there and that people within the white house were very concerned about the extent to which we could well be talking about an actual coup if he, in fact, were at the capitol leading this effort physically himself to attempt to stop the counting of electoral votes. >> did anyone play out for you what he thought he was going to do there? >> we asked a number of our witnesses about that and i think that it's something certainly i would anticipate that jack smith can get to the bottom of. there were all sorts of things that were proposed in terms of, you know, where the staff with him, as you know when the president travels there's staff that goes with me, where the staff was going to hold and whether he was planning to go on to the floor of the house. 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 his effort to stop the counting of electoral

votes and to seize power. >> one of the earliest things you write about is the toppling of the civilian leadership at the pentagon, the firing of mark esper and the installing of miller, patel, tata and there's one other. what is your belief of what was planned for the four of them? >> well, that's one of the episodes in the book where i watched what was happening realtime and it was of significant enough concern to me just watching the news coverage as he was taking those steps that, you know, we worked to get the living secretaries of defense to send a very public message about the extent to which people would face personal criminal liability if they took steps to involve the military in an election. we learned later that it was -- it was far worse and i think actually the letter itself likely prevented something far worse. >> you name chris miller in the

letter. >> yeah. >> intentionally. >> to the secretaries. >> it was an intentional public warning. there were some suggestions that maybe what, you know, 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, but anyone who had dealt with him knew that wasn't going to happen. but, again, the fact that these secretaries of defense had to write this public letter warning about the illegality, the unamerican 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 had issued statements in mid-december saying, again, what's very obvious, the military has no role in the outcome or the conduct of u.s. elections, that donald trump sent johnny mcentee to deliver a message which was apparently if you do that again you will be

fired. which tells you again about his intent. >> chris miller has to confirm back to mcentee, back to trump that they received the message that they will be fired. >> one of the things turned over was the note that mcentee wrote to the president which the president -- >> turned into pieces. >> yes. >> i have to speak in a quick break. we will be right back. speak in break. we will be right back.

interviewer: time is running out to give a year-end gift like no other, a gift that can help st. jude children's research hospital save lives. subject 1: i think it's the most worthwhile place to put your money when it comes to childhood cancer. subject 2: if it weren't for st. jude, i wouldn't be sitting here today. subject 3: if it weren't for st. jude, a lot of kids wouldn't be with their families every day. interviewer: let's come together to help the children of st. jude fight childhood cancer. visit this website, call this number, or scan the qr code with your $19 monthly donation. join with your debit or credit card right now and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt you can proudly wear to show your support. today, you can help st. jude save lives. subject 4: it takes a heart for somebody to say i have this extra that i'm willing to give to st. jude so that they can help save more lives.

(dad) it's our phone bill... we pay for things that we don't need. (mom) that's a bit dramatic. (dad) we must tighten our belts! (mom) a better plan to save is verizon! (vo) that's right! plans start at $25 per line guaranteed for 3 years. - [speaker] at first, just leaving the house was hard. - [speaker] but wounded warrior project helps you realize it's possible to get out there - [speaker] to feel sense of camaraderie again. - [speaker] to find the tools to live life better. - [narrator] through generous community support, we've connected warriors and their families with no cost physical and mental health services, legislative advocacy, career assistance, and life skill training for 20 years, and we are just getting started. loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds

when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today. in our nation's 246-year-history there has never been an individual 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 had rejected him.

he is 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 and deep down i think most republicans know it. lynn and i 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 that 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, i mean, it is -- it's emotional, i think that in many ways it's heartbreaking for my dad, for my mom, that that's where our party is today, and, you know, the -- my dad chooses his words very carefully. >> oh, i know. >> and so i think that that kind

of a warning tells you how dangerous it is fundamentally to the survival 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? >> you know, i was representing wyoming, i voted with him in the house of representatives over 90% of the time and there were many policies that he advocated that those in his administration, you know, some of them he may not well have even know about himself but his administration was putting in place. energy policies, economic policies, funding for the defense department, that i thought were important and that were the right ones. there were certainly times i disagreed and i spoke out when i did, especially on issues of national security, but i think that once we saw -- certainly once we saw january 6th but

increasingly after that election and 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 for him, there's no question now that anyone could say we don't know what he'll do. maybe we can trust that he'll uphold the constitution. every day he tells us what he'll do and we watched it all unfold in realtime. >> rachel had a great, i thought, term about your sight lines, right, like you have access to pockets and places that as a former person that worked in the administration that i don't have. some of those are people that left for cause over national security issues. i mean, mattis leaves over cause, john bolton fought with donald trump because he wanted the taliban to go to camp david, bill barr thought that donald trump's foreign policy was

corrupt not just when it came to russia but also turkey, could he look into it. general kelly and i know you worked on the arm services committee and the legacy of your father's work at the pentagon, i mean, that letter from the former secretaries of defense was put together by you and your husband and your father because you know these people and you were raised in their world. looking back do you think even putting aside the conduct around ending our tradition of a peaceful transfer of power that there were national security reasons not to have supported him? >> look, i think certainly there were times when he did and said things that i thought were fundamentally wrong, you know, and then i said so at the time when he stood next to vladimir putin in helsinki and said he trusted putin more than his own intelligence officers. so i think that, you know, 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 that they understand these people who swore an 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 and an mating call for this show, it has been the calls from inside the house. in the beginning they were few and far between. i mean, it was on mouse who we learned was miles taylor, it was comey and they asked to let mike flynn did go, it was the people trump fired because accountability inched too close to him. do you look back to any other efforts -- witness tampering is a couple of chapters in the mueller report, he sought to tamper with your witnesses in the january 6th investigation. >> i don't think there is any way that you can look back on the trump presidency with any sense of sort of, you know, any idea that it should have happened. again, as i said, i supported the policies in many instances,

but i think clearly it would have been better for the country had he not been the president. you know, partly what we're dealing with now is a sense of people becoming numb to how serious the threat is. also people enabling him and there's a really direct connection as you know between members of congress, you know, set aside those who are actively collaborating, we've talked about them, but there are others who just simply won't say anything, who know what he's done is wrong, who will say privately that they know that, but who have been hoping he will just go away and -- >> mitch mcconnell seems to fall in that category. >> yeah. and i talk about that in the book and i have a lot of respect for mitch mcconnell. i've known him for a long time. but his belief, you know, i think he probably thought impeachment itself was enough. i think if he had voted to convict, i think if he had pushed to have the senate come back into session it would have made a big difference.

clearly, you know, i knew at the time, it's more clear now, that ignoring trump will not make him fade away. that he is a threat that has to be defeated. >> he is running as retribution against people like you. he is running on charging general milley of treason. he is running on dismantling the department of justice and the fbi. these are not scoops from investigative journalists. these are the campaign messages. steve bannon has said they describe themselves as the trump davidians, that was after launching the campaign in waco. just with your vast knowledge of threats that are fostered and furthered by permission structure adjacent to the acceptance of political violence, adjacent to

conspiracies and lies, what is the threat? what is your warning? >> you know, the threat is exactly what you've laid out. the threat is that, you know, this is a man that we don't have to guess what he would do and in some ways the extreme nature of the claims that 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 sometimes in our body politic is people ignore t people say, well, that's just him. i think that the challenge that we're facing now is very clearly understanding and recognizing he means what he says, the people who invaded the capitol frankly on january 6th, you can look at scores of those defendants who said specifically we came because he told us to come. he told us to do this. he knows that people will follow his instructions. if he is elected again, those guardrails, those individuals, for example, who stopped him won't be there. think about what it means to have a president who won't

enforce the rulings of the courts. >> it's insane. >> it will be the unraveling of our constitutional system. and 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. 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 very proud of as americans, that with an exception or two, it doesn't matter if these judges were appointed by 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 and they have to be protected against the kind of attacks that you're seeing from donald trump and republicans. >> well, that's what i was going to ask you. and then to your point, i mean, the 61 cases they brought he lost all 60 because inside the court of law facts to this point still mattered and we still have this unprecedented threat from trump. he seems to have found like water an ability to work around those legal defeats. what do we do about the rest of it? >> well, i think that 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 respect to him, but certainly with respect to trump, republicans who suggest that somehow they would be willing to support him if he were the nominee have to be held accountable for that. >> that's every republican running in the primary except chris christie. will you endorse anyone in the primary? >> i haven't decided yet and i'm very conscious of not hurting

someone by endorsing them. but, again, the idea that you would say that you are going to support a convicted felon if he, in fact, is convicted which some of them have suggested -- >> everyone of them has suggested except chris christie. have you talked to chris christie about endorsing him? >> i want to keep our discussions private, but, again, i'm not -- i'm not endorsing someone and 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 for joe biden? >> i'm going to do whatever i have to do to defeat him and -- >> 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 certainly in the next couple of months but i certainly would never vote for donald trump again and i will do whatever it takes to defeat him. >> i mean, you're campaigning for some of the democrats who you served with on at armed

services committee, was wildly successful. you are a powerful voice. you are more than a political player, you're sort of this clarion 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 that you will consider even if it has the impact of aiding trump? >> no, i would not do anything that's going to help him. and i think we're at this really unprecedented moment where our system for so long has meant that we've got a republican candidate, a democratic candidate and contemplating in i kind of a third party run was something that, you know, missouri of us would never do. i think this is a different moment, but i'm not going to take any steps certainly that will help him. i do think it's really important, though, that, again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan fashion, we work to defeat donald trump and we also work to defeat election deniers.

the threat of electing people who have the ability to determine whether elections are certified, for example, and who say they will only honor elections that they agree with the outcome, you know, that also undermines our democracy. >> i have to take another break but i want to ask you about that. i want to get in the weeds, our viewers are well in the weeds with you, i want to ask you about those people with their lands hands on the levers. between you and judge luttig, i know, googled the constitution more times than i care to admit. >> everyone should. >> but the trump enablers have found these little pockets of -- i won't say weakness, but of what they view as opportunity and i want to ask you about those safeguards if you will stick around a little bit longer. we will be right back. stick aro longer we will be right back. it works after your detergent to fight deep odors 3 times better than detergent alone. i love that. try new tide fabric rinse.

lowering bad cholesterol can be hard, even with a statin. diets and exercise add to the struggle.

today, it's possible to go from struggle to cholesterol success with leqvio. with a statin, leqvio is proven to lower bad cholesterol by 50% and keep it low with 2 doses a year. common side effects were injection site reaction, joint pain, and chest cold. ask your doctor about twice-yearly leqvio. lower. longer. leqvio®

getting sick and tired of cold and flu products that don't work? biovanta is the only number one physician-recommended product chosen over all others, including tylenol, mucinex, zicam, and nyquil / dayquil. the combat symptoms and boosts immunity. biovanta really works.

and we are back with the former vice chair of the january 6th select committee, former congresswoman liz cheney. i want to talk to you about jim jordan. he is fixated on, i think, the inferiority of his efforts and faux investigations to the select committee. seems to be holding himself out as someone who maybe promised he could do something along the lines of what the committee did. he's now threatening to investigate -- let me read you some of what nbc is reporting. jim jordan and loudermilk are launching an investigation into what they say is collusion between fani willis and the select committee to investigate

the january 6th attacks. again, as we learned from jim jordan, collusion isn't even a thing. what do you make of the obsession and the projection of people like jim jordan? >> i think that there's no question that jim jordan has something to hide, probably a lot to hide, you know, if you go back and you look at, for example, the phone records as well as, you know, what he has said himself about his discussions and his conversations with donald trump on the 6th, the very significant role that 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. of course, refused to comply with the select committee's subpoena. i think you have to imagine that he's doing everything he can to help donald trump, to do donald trump's bidding, and, look, i think that, you know, he has so many questions of his own to answer that, you know, people

just need to go back and look at the record, look at how confused he has 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 example, 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 he has criminal exposure? >> i think that he has a lot of questions he needs to answer and i talk in the book about his testimony in front of the rules committee when we were working on the contempt resolution on steve bannon and i just would urge people to go back and watch the video of that testimony. he cannot get a straight answer out about his communications with the president even in the course of about, you know, a 10 or 15-minute period of time. i think that the facts are real challenges -- present real challenges for him. >> scott perry also sought a pardon, do you think he has legal problems?

>> we know that the department of justice has seized his cellphone. we know he was very directly involved and engaged in the effort to put jeff clark in as the acting attorney general. obviously the text messages that mark meadows turned over to the committee have numerous communications with scott perry. clearly the department of justice is investigating him. >> mark meadows comes up in the book in a lot of interesting and important and crucial places. he is -- he has a skilled lawyer. what do you think his status is right now? do you think he is a cooperator? do you think he will be charged? >> i think that, you know, we were surprised that the department of justice, you know, chose not to indict him after the house had held him in contempt and at the time seemed that, you know, perhaps he was cooperating.

there was a whole question about, you know, to what extent does a former chief of staff have immunity and it became clear that the department of justice actually does not believe a former chief of staff has the kind of, you know, full immunity that 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 unaware that he actually had this massive communications on his personal cellphone and, of course, when the attorney committed to the committee that he would hand those over if they existed a turned out that they, in fact, did exist, once meadows had turned those over to the committee, though, his refusal to come testify, you know, clearly was con temp shoes, but it was not surprising that his attorney did not want him to be in front of the committee given the extent of the information that we had and given the likely legal jeopardy

that that would put him in. >> do you think that jack smith uses meadows as a witness in trump's trial? >> i hate to predict, but i would say that meadows clearly has very significant information. he was at trump's side for so much of this. and we know that through other witnesses who did testify, people like cassidy hutchinson. >> right. >> people like pat cipollone, people who came in front of the committee and testified truthfully. we know the role that meadows played. we know the role that he played with trump so he has significant information. >> well, i was thinking of cassidy's testimony to you that meadows gives voice to trump's enthusiasm for the death threats to, quote, hang mike pence and that seems central to jack smith's case. >> yeah, and, look, 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 like mark meadows were doing. two, because before her testimony path cipollone had not agreed to come to testify in front of the committee. of course, afterwards we issued him a subpoena, did he appear and he did testify truthfully and obviously was very concerned about protecting privilege, but, you know, he in his testimony made clear that there was one person essentially in the white house who did not want the mob to leave. >> and the other one was trump. >> right. >> i have a million more questions for you and probably only one more chunk of time. will you stay through one more break? >> i will. thank you. >> we will be right back. i wil. thank you. >> we will be right back

narrator: time is running out to give a year-end gift like no other, a gift that can help st. jude children's research hospital save lives. ava: it is my first time having cancer, and it's the very worst. woman: you just have to give. you have to give someone that hope. because of st. jude, she has a chance at life. narrator: every gift counts, and whatever you can give will make a difference for children like ava. make your donation today to help st. jude save lives.

hi, i'm katie, i've lost 110 pounds on golo in just over a year. golo is different than other programs i had been on because i was specifically looking for something that helped with insulin resistance. i had had conversations with my physician indicating that that was probably an issue that i was facing and making it more difficult for me to sustain weight loss. golo has been more sustainable. i can fit it into family life, i can make meals that the whole family will enjoy. it just works in everyday life as a mom.

she hasn't left us yet. liz cheney is still here. i want to ask you what you want to say about the book, and about the story, and about the choices that you have 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 people like zoe lofgren. >> i think in terms of my fellow members of the committee, it -- 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? and, you know, why have all of these committees, congressional committees, mostly fail. we knew this one couldn't. the extent to which the members

of the committee said we're not going to put ourselves front and center, we're not going to ask questions at every public hearing, we're going to be focused on the evidence itself was really significant. we would not have succeeded without that. and 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, you know, that we were at totally different ends of the spectrum, the political spectrum. but also her willingness to make the tough decisions when we had to, to ensure that the litigation was pursued aggressively, to ensure that the facts were laid out in a series of multiple series of hearings. and i think that what people need to know about this story is partly how quickly we began this descent into a party that is an anticonstitutional party now in so many ways, how quickly it

happened, and 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 are 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 that we had in place, all 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, he was responsible, that's what the

republican leadership was saying. and so, from that perspective, we were at a moment where we could have turned away from the danger, but that didn't happen. instead the party embraced him. >> you talked about talking about lessons of history there are no lessons of history with a country gets this close and this intoxicated by propagandas and conspiracies and permissive of political violence. do you think we break the mold and become 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. and 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 have covered your every

utterance and i didn't think there was more to learn in the book and i was wrong and i read the book, parts of it twice, i didn't think there was more to learn by your appearance but there was. i hope you'll keep talking and i hope you'll tell us and i think it is so -- i mean, i've walked a different journey, but to sit at a place where i've earned the trust of people who mostly didn't vote for the people i worked for, and still respect and revere is a humbling journey and i felt some parallels to your partnerships with a lot of democrats and i applaud you for everything you've done and everything you've said and everything you've written. >> thank you. well, thank you for everything you've done as well. >> i hope the conversation can be continued. >> it has to be. >> it has to be. liz cheney, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the book is called "oath and honor," it is a memoir and warning, out today, it is vitally important you read it with a pencil and fold pages and go back and read parts of it 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. k for us we'll be right back. more carbs?" before you decide... with the freestyle libre 2 system know your glucose level and where it's headed. no fingersticks needed. manage your diabetes with more confidence. and lower your a1c. the number one doctor prescribed cgm. freestyle libre 2. try it for free at freestylelibre.us

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. when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis takes you off course. put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when i wanted to see results fast, rinvoq delivered rapid symptom relief and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining.

check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save. welcome to "the beat." i'm ari melber. we begin with the actually unprecedented collision of law and politics that america is facing in 2024, whether we like it or not, whether we're all tired or not, which i get. but the nation has never actually put a