hi, everyone, i'm nicolle wallace. when president-elect joe biden is sworn into office, his new attorney general will face a big question, whether to pursue the prosecution of donald trump. once trump leaves the white house on january 20, he will be a private citizen and he will have any and all protection from pending and potential legal cases stripped away from him. but senior mueller prosecutor andrew weissmann says biden's attorney general should investigate trump and if warranted, prosecute him for his

obstruction of justice in their investigation and potential crimes before and after taking the oath of office. weissmann writes in "the new york times", quote, because some of the activities predated his presidency, it would be untenable to let mr. trump sweep under the rug his federal obstruction. being president should mean you are more accountable, not less, to the rule of law. i spoke with andrew weissmann and former acting solicitor general neal katyal and began by asking andrew whether the new justice department's criminal division should reopen the two-volume mueller report. >> i think that is going to be a decision for the new attorney general, as to whether to do that. and the way i look at this, sort of the big picture, nicolle,

is -- and this piggybacks on your last segment, is the rule of law is a crown jewel of our democracy. and the president abusing the pardon power is just another nail in the coffin of rule of law. to be a country that believes in the rule of law, it means are you going to apply that to the most senior levels of the government, meaning a former president of the united states. we have seen around the globe that that applies. yesterday, the french opened a criminal trial of a former president. in israel there is an indictment of the current head of the israeli government. so it's not unheard of to do that. it would be unheard of here, but when the facts warrant it, it means that the president and the

former president should be subject to the law. and if they broke it, they should be held to account just like any of us would be held to account. >> neal katyal, to pick up on andrew's point, today donald trump -- i'm trying to think of a classy word for what i want to say -- further demeaned the rule of law by pardoning mike flynn who pleaded guilty in front of jun as you wi judge sullivan twice, to lying to the fbi, he also lied to the vice president about a conversation with the russian ambassador, no less. it seems that the conversation about what will happen in a biden administration misses the point that joe biden was trying to make last night. whether donald trump is prosecuted or not, in a healthy democracy, in a normal american executive branch of government,

would not be joe biden's determination. it would be up to the justice department. so can you sort of separate out those two ideas and tell me what you hear when you hear joe biden say what he said to lester holt? >> yeah, absolutely. so my take on this is a little different than andrew's. i loved his piece, but for me, i do think we have to leave these decisions up to the new attorney general. and i think joe biden will pick a great attorney general, and let her or him decide this. because the fundamental thing, and this gets to your question, i don't think we want a world in which the president says to the attorney general, go prosecute the last guy, or ultimately, last woman. we want to signal the independence of law enforcement from the political process, which is precisely what trump has tried to destroy. at the same time, i think andrew is absolutely right, we don't want a world in which presidents can break the law, spit on it, with impunity.

and for that reason, i think investigation and ultimately prosecution of the president is going to be appropriate, that we need to send a signal both inside, to the folks in our government, and outside, to the american people, and indeed the world, that this is a country with the rule of law. i can tell you, i remember walking into government buildings like the supreme court, it says "equal justice under law." and you think of it and you look at all the pictures of people at the justice department, who have served there, who did it impartially, all those career folks who go in on saturdays and print their emails because they want to maintain records, or report every chance meeting with every foreign official that they happen to come across and fill out these onerous financial disclosure forms and the like, and then you've got this guy who literally spits on all of that, to literally rip up his meeting notes with putin, who lies about his finances to the irs and others. i don't think the system can

tolerate that. so i think biden is right to say what he said to holt yesterday, which is, i'm going to let the attorney general decide. but boy, there are some pretty serious concerns here. >> andrew, do you want to respond to that? >> we may actually be what they say is radically agreeing. i agree it should not be the president, i think it should be the attorney general. i think that joe biden is sending exactly the right message, which is that we don't want to turn into ann autocrati state where the president uses the justice department as a tool. there is a strong interest here that the new attorney general should take into account, which is, for obstructing the appointment of a special counsel, and here the special counsel was investigating, among other things, a russian attack on our democracy in 2016, it

doesn't matter which party russia was helping or hurting, it's equally destructive of democracy, if there is no deterrent to a president who obstructs his special counsel, then let's not bother ever having a special counsel, because this is really an issue of, is there going to be a check on the presidency. and we have substantial evidence -- >> can i ask you a question about that, andrew? >> absolutely. >> would it be better, would it have been better, though, if -- and i know you worked on the manafort prosecution and that was covered in the collusion part of the chapter. i'm not asking you about something you were directly involved in. but would it have been more logical or simpler or easier to explain to the american public if the obstruction section of the report had come out and said, donald trump committed six crimes of obstruction of justice, if it wasn't so -- i think the word you used was "mealy mouthed." >> yes, of course it would be

easier if we didn't have a double negative. and that report now could actually be written in a different way. in other words, once donald trump is no longer president, the concern about, you know, naming and shaming him when he wouldn't be able to have his day in court is no longer going to be an issue. but that's why the attorney general can make that -- can actually now make that call and say, i think there's sufficient evidence, i think it's an important vindication of the check on a president, doesn't really matter that it's this president, that if you obstruct a special counsel investigation in a serious way where there was a serious issue that was being investigated, there has to be a consequence, or what are we saying going forward? because remember, the doj, the department of justice has a policy that's not changing, that you cannot indict a sitting

president. and so if you don't indict a sitting president while he or she is in office and then later you say, let's look forward, because it's too divisive, then you really are placing the president above the law, even if they're going to obstruct an investigation into their own conduct. >> neal, can i ask you just a simple nonlawyer question? i mean, you look at all of that conduct as described in the mueller report, you look at the sentencing memo to michael cohen which names donald trump as individual number 1, all the reporting in "the new york times" about his financial difficulties and an ongoing audit. a trump ally said to me donald trump is facing years of investigations and a lot of money spent in legal bills. how much trouble is he in? if you were a defense attorney who sat down with donald trump the day after he left the government, what would your straight and direct conversation and assessment of his exposure be? >> i mean, honestly, if i were his lawyer, i think i could

retire off of donald trump alone and it would pay my bills for the rest of time. >> he doesn't pay his bills. assess doesn >> he doesn't pay his bills so it would be a problem, but for any other client. andrew is right, there's two bundles of stuff. one is the stuff he did before he was president, the tax problems, the stormy daniels payments, the violations of campaign finance laws. those are federal and state crimes. so let's prosecute that, that's the easiest stuff to prosecute. but andrew's point is, it's actually the stuff he did while president, the inaugural committee, the mueller report, his dealings with russia, what he did with the hatch act, his subordinates, and i joked recently that you could take rudy giuliani and trump's lawyers' conduct over the last

three weeks and teach a whole course on bad lawyering just based on what they did over the last three weeks. with trump, when you add up all the stuff he's done in and out of office, you could literally teach the entire criminal law course. i've taught that course and at this point trump is like prego, he's in there. so yes, massive exposure. it's only been protected because he's the sitting president, as andrew said, but that's expiring. >> thank you both, wonderful to see you. when we return, the dangers of donald trump and the republican party living in their own alternative reality, with powerful platforms they can use to spread disinformation. what if anything can be done about it? plus our good friend rachel maddow will be with us to talk about trump's assault on democracy and the white house corruption scandal that she says looks quaint by comparison. and later, a very special

guest, immediate ycomedienne le. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. my husband and my water broke. at only 23 weeks. andrew: we had to stay in the hospital for 10 weeks, 1000s of miles from family. our driver kristin came along in our most desperate hour. suzanne: bringing us home-cooked meals and gifts. andrew: day after day. we wanted to show you something.

kristin: oh my god! andrew: kristin is the most uncommonly kind person that we've met. suzanne: thank you so much. [what's this?] oh, are we kicking karly out? we live with at&t. it was a lapse in judgment. at&t, we called this house meeting because you advertise gig-speed internet, but we can't sign up for that here. yeah, but i'm just like warming up to those speeds. you've lived here two years. the personal attacks aren't helping, karly. don't you have like a hot pilates

class to get to or something? [ muffled scream ] stop living with at&t. xfinity can deliver gig to the most homes.

the ceos of twitter and facebook appeared before a congressional committee to answer questions on just how they moderate content. as part of a growing tech-lash on capitol hill, jack dorsey and mark zuckerberg took incoming from both sides. republicans slammed the companies for alleged bias, partly because many of their posts about election fraud have been labeled as misleading because they are lies. democrats accused the social media companies of not doing enough to curb the spread of disinformation, especially as the current president, with his massive social media following, seeks to undermine the legislatelegislate legitimacy of the election.

>> daily the president shakes the foundations of our democracy using a powerful megaphone, social media. the president has used this megaphone to spread vicious falsehoods in an apparent attempt to overturn the will of voters. >> joining our conversation is co-host of "the pivot" podcast, kara swisher. and branding and marketing expert donny deutsch. kara, what's going on? i spent a lot of time after the 2016 election on the road, interviewing trump supporters. and even more than fox news, more than breitbart, nobody mentioned breitbart, they all got their news from facebook. why are they so bad addt readin out lies? >> because it's not their job. you're talking about ineffective gatekeepers, because the old word for media was gatekeepers. it's also taste and editing and things like that. they're bad at doing what

they're not doing, i know it sounds confusing. they never expected to be in this role and the way they built their systems forces them into it. even though mark zuckerberg says he doesn't want to be an arbiter of the truth, he's built a system that requires one and they're just ineffective and bad at it. that's what you're seeing here and why you're seeing such herky-jerky motions from them. >> i think about that documentary where the guy who ate at mcdonald's for weeks and weeks, to see all the body systems that shut down when he gorged on junk food. do you remember that? >> yeah, it was great. >> what was that called? "super size me." that's what i think of, people on facebook and twitter gorging on bad information. what should these companies do? >> i want to remind everybody what social media is, because what's happened over time, we

started to layer social media, it was set up as a news and information service. social media by definition are websites and applications that enable users to create, share content, and participate in social networking. i would challenge the mark zuckerbergs in the world and the jack dorseys of the world to put $1 billion into a public service campaign to remind everybody what social media is. let's stop acting like idiots that just because i saw it on there means it's true. that's number one. the other thing is, number two, why don't we designate within social media, if you want to be seen as a news and information source, then you have to go through a different kind of litmus test. then you can instead of just doing it tweet by tweet, if you want to be seen -- or otherwise the display from twitter is, "we are not news and information, this is opinion, this is social media, this is instagram." so part of the reason is that

we've allowed this overall huge behemoth category to take on an essence and a meaning and a purpose that it never really had. so i want to put that challenge back to these companies to remind what their service is. and at the same time, the one last thing i want to say is, we can't advocate -- i come from an ad background where advertising used to be blamed for everything, people wouldn't smoke without advertising. i always say that's baloney. if people want the truth or don't want the truth, that's up to them. so many people at this point don't want the truth. they just want to justify their point of view and we end up going nah-nah and pooh-pooh. >> let me push back a little bit because i think president obama made clear in his interviews this week, i think the problem is it's now a threat to the democracy in which we live, that there is such a prevalence of

disinformation. and i would send that back to you, kara, it would now appear that this country has no need to be trolled by the russians because we do a perfectly adequate job dividing ourselves with disinformation just domestically. do they see or feel any urgency because of any acknowledgement or understanding of their detrimental role in spreading disinformation? >> i think they do. i'm going to push back on donnie. this is information like you've never seen. this is amplification and weaponization of information. it's not like a billboard or advertising you might see in a magazine or television. those are limited to the number of eyeballs. in this system, you can send 1 million different ideas to 1 million different people. and that's a very big difference. and the flood of information is the real problem. it's flooding. it's not just a drip-drip of cigarettes sold to teenagers. and by the way, advertising did help people smoke a lot more, it just did, it's very clear.

think about that on steroids, to the nth degree, and that's what's happening here. the level of players, of which there are many, domestic and foreign, get on the system and game it. it's perfect to get gamed. it's an almost perfect system of propaganda. anything you put over it causes you to believe it. >> wow, a perfect system of propaganda. >> two points, number within, we're not putting this genie back in the model. it's remind people what social media is and let's take some personal responsibility and stop acting like complete idiots. it starts at the home, it starts with parents teaching children what truth is and what fact is. i don't blame that low-life donald trump. i blame the 50 or 60 or 70 million people who refuse or don't even want to experience what the truth is. you're making everybody out to be an idiot. >> they're not idiots, but when

people have a healthy information diet, they do well. but if they stick it full of sugar, salt, or nicotine, you can't control that. i think people should be smarter and shouldn't believe everything they see. but the way this is given to you, in an addictive manner, and it is addictive, systemically, it's constant, it's always on, and it -- certain articles on facebook look like "the new york times," they hide it, they package it, they have psychologists figuring this out, how you get and receive this. it's a different game. i don't think these people are stupid, i think you have no defense against it just the way a lot of people didn't have a defense against nicotine. you can say, they don't have to smoke those cigarettes, but they kind of did, they kind of had to eat those twinkies. >> i guess this is a big discussion because i think we're giving up a lot of control in the home about what we can and can't teach our children. oops, the truth is over, oops, i'll have to believe everything

i see. maybe if at home we start with our children, being a little more aware of social media, what they see, what they don't see, we're giving up at this point. that's my concern. i gave one solution about what the social media companies do, but maybe on a bigger macro level i think we should not give up on the idea that we're not total idiots. >> i think we should do this every day. i'm living all of this. i've got an 8-year-old, probably upstairs, who is on youtube now. i'm constantly depressed by people believing lies. maybe we should make this a regular thing, you guys have me riveted. >> you can look at it in a benign way, i'll say tiktok and leave out the chinese part, but you can get on to tiktok and you're down that rabbit hole for hours. >> speak for yourself, kara. >> i don't know what you watch,

i'm scared to think about it. >> i'm a tiktok virgin. kara swisher, donny deutsch, please promise to come back, we'll do this again. when we return, as donald trump tries to overturn an election he lost, our good friend rachel maddow tells us about one of the biggest crooks in american history and what it took to stop him. back with rachel after a quick break. so, uh, yeah, just a silly mistake. i guess i look pretty... ridiculous. [ chuckles ] no one looks ridiculous, bob.

progressive is always here for you with round-the-clock service. just so you know, next time, you can submit a claim with our mobile app. good. thanks again for -- for rushing over. are you kidding? this is what 24/7 protection looks like. okay. -you smell like fish. -sorry. i was talking to jamie.

-you smell like fish. -sorry. some people say that's ridiculous. age is just an illusion. how you show up for the world, that's what's real. what's your idea? i put it out there with a godaddy website. donald trump has catapulted

abuse of power in washington to levels unimaginable four years ago. but he certainly didn't set the precedent of corruption and shamelessness in the white house. our colleague rachel maddow and michael yarvitz tell the story in their book "bag man." they write of nixon's vice president who resigned after the justice department found widespread evidence that he collected bribes in office. quote, in a few short months, spiro agnew rewrote the rules for how a white house occupant can respond and fight back when his own justice department comes knocking. damn the investigators, damn the press, damn the opposition, damn the facts, hang in there, baby! a legitimate investigation, it turns out, can be smeared and muddied up with a simple but aggressive counteroffensive, one that privileges feelings over facts, base loyalty over evidence, and obstruction over cooperation. joining our conversation is my friend and colleague rachel maddow, host of msnbc's "the rachel maddow show."

and i'm going to ask you how you wrote a book in the middle of all this mayhem because it was based on your wildly successful podcast. "bag man: the spectacular downfall of a brazen crook in the white house" is amazing and, tragically so a, timely. you have a rave review in "the new york times" and blurbed by rod rosenstein. >> you're the first person whose noticed that rod rosenstein was the first person to blurb this, i've been waiting for consternation on all sides. he had been u.s. attorney in maryland and one of the heroes of the story is one of his predecessors as u.s. attorney in maryland. the reason that i wanted to do the podcast, the reason i wanted

to do the book, was because of the civic role, i think, there is for telling stories of civic heroism. there's a reason we tell each other fables and stories about heroic action and courage and selfless sacrifice. and it's to not only teach ourselves what that looks like, but to try to get us to imagine that we could do it ourselves if the times ever called on it from us. this is one of those stories where it is helpful to remember that there have been other just brazen crooks in the white house, literally. agnew was taking bags of cash inside his white house office. but even more important it is to remember that people acting against their partisan interests, people acting in the face of threat and pressure, did the right thing and won out in the end when it was really, really, really hard. and those people should be remembered and commended.

and that should be part of what we know about american public service. so i want those prosecutors to be famous. >> and you will help them make them so. and you are, you know, the most gifted storyteller of this moment in american politics. can you weave this together for me? there's no way donald trump knows this history, but it's very probable that bill barr does. >> mm-hmm. >> where do you see the story intersections between what he did to mueller and what happened here? >> i think that's exactly right and the right way to think about it. it's two things. one is that agnew and trump essentially ran the same play in terms of how to deal with a legitimate investigation that was brought upon by some people being caught red-handed doing the wrong thing, and that was, rally the base, demonize the investigators, demonize the press for reporting it. agnew went so far as to have his

lawyers subpoena reporters for their sources, just for reporting on the case against agnew, not that anything they had reported was wrong, it was just the fact that they had any bits of the story. i mean, that sort of aggression as a form of defense is the way that guys like agnew and trump are wired for sure. but the other part of this that isn't just like an historical echo or historical context but is directly newsworthy is that the agnew case is how we got the start of the justice department policy that a president can't be indicted, which of course is why mueller didn't accuse trump of crimes and didn't phrase it that way. and that's been trump's lifeline through so many of his scandals, russia scandal, individual ones, and all the rest of it. that derived from this mess around the prosecutors trying to figure out what to do with the fact that they had caught agnew for what they believed was the basis of what could have been a 40 felony count indictment against him.

>> when you look at -- you said you want to make prosecutors heroes again. i think we held up nearly too much hope that they could fight against all that was pressing down on them from trump and ultimately barr and for a little while, i guess, sessions. it was actually really hard, i mean, sdny, maybe we projected too much hope on what they would be able to do. i know you interviewed lev parnas. we've all covered the investigation. you've interviewed michael cohen. we've all covered the investigation that sent michael cohen to jail, that may ultimately include and encapsulate rudy giuliani's conduct. but at the end of the day, there was, it would seem, enough political influence that trump, individual number 1 in that campaign finance case, while mueller chronicled ten acts of obstructive criminal conduct in his report, no one ever contemplated charges. and there's already this thing

in the water, and biden furthers it a little bit by really wanting to turn the page. what do you think a biden justice department should do with all of trump's conduct? >> it's really hard. agnew is the last case that we had where you had somebody in the white house, president or vice president, who wasn't just a bad guy or did scandalous things but like legit committed crimes and prosecutors had to contend with what they were going to do about it. and the resolution of that really upset the prosecutors at the time, these young, idealistic prosecutors who worked so hard, had him dead to rights, flipped all these witnesses, had the irs agents take apart his finances. they had the case against him nailed down. they were enraged that agnew wasn't going to go to jail. the reason why he didn't go to jail is because the attorney general, he will yelliott richa this ramrod straight paragon of

integrity, realized that what the country needed was to make sure agnew would not become president. it was in the middle of watergate, in the middle of a big nixon health scare which no one remembers now. there was a big chance agnew would end up in the white house when they knew already that he was taking cash bribes as vice president. so they came up with a deal that they believed served justice and served the national interest the most of t most, which was to get agnew to resign in order to keep his butt out of jail. now, that's not going to happen with trump, there isn't a tradeoff like that, he can't hold the office hostage in the same way agnew did. i think everybody has rights to be concerned about becoming a country where the last occupant of the presidency or the last person in office all get prosecuted for reasons the regime decides to pursue.

but there's also a concern about somebody who was literally named as individual 1 by prosecutors in new york and pay nothing for it. >> yeah, no, biden is inheriting nothing but conundrums everywhere he works. i have to ask you about one more thing, i speak for all my viewers and all of yours when i say the longest nine days after the election were the days that you and susan were dealing with covid in your home. and i texted you but i'll just say this on tv, when you came back and told your story and your experience, i have met more people in my real life who were covid compliant, they were doing the right things, but they were like all of us, thinking,ny do 90% of the things i'm asked to do, i can still go in and have some tea or a glass of wine at drop-off. and hearing you, made them, whatever that last 10 or 20% compliant was around the

question of covid. and i just wonder if you know, if you've heard this, if you know how much impact you've had, that you opened up the way i have never seen you do before on tv, about what susan went through. >> you'll make me cry on your hour of tv. >> i'm going to cry. >> it's really nice of you to say that, that's the reason i did it, was because i hoped that i could impart just a sliver of how much i was changed by that experience. i'm -- i mean, having been so scared for susan, i will never be the same. and it changed my mind about covid. i think it changed my mind actually about a lot of things in my life. i am a different person now for having been through that. but to the extent, if anybody out there is like me and you are not that scared for yourself but you do love someone, the fear of -- and the near -- the brush with the possibility of losing someone is the most motivating

thing in the entire world. the thing you need to do for that person is not to get covid and not to transmit it because they may very well be the one that you lose. to the extent that that was helpful, i'm really glad, i hoped that it would be. i'm also never going to do anything like that on tv ever again because it took me a week to recover, having said that much about myself. >> when you got up to turn your phone off, i almost died, and i called our boss and said, where did she go, where did she go? it was very scary, knowing what you and susan were dealing with. it was momentarily scary when you left the shot. but it was, as everything you do in your life and on tv, it was perfect. so rachel maddow, my friend and colleague, thank you for spending time with us, thank you for putting this podcast into words, into a book, that dare i say, is a little breezy for you? i read this quickly, which i cannot say about your last book.

"bag man: the wild crimes, audacious coverup, and spectacular downfall of a brazen crook in the white house," is out tomorrow. thank you, rachel. >> thank you, nicolle, thank you so much, my friend. when we come back, the one and only leslie jones will join us. her commentary about our commentary has helped brighten what has been a very dark year.

♪ we made usaa insurance for veterans like martin. when a hailstorm hit, he needed his insurance to get it done right, right away. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. usaa i know this guy's game, steve cash he can ee korneki, ig it wrong. what's up, joyce? when nikki puts her glasses on, it means that needs to be read. i'm only here for nicki today.

>> she is a marvel and anyone who knows anything about what i like to do when i'm not sitting in this chair knows i love watching leslie jones. commentary on our commentary. i will never be able to see some of our regular guests quite in the same way after watching leslie opine on eddie glaude's bookshelf, or claire mccaskill's kitchen. but most of all, at one of the darkest and toughest moments, not just in american political history but in our country's history, the "snl" alum knows how to do two things better than anyone else on earth. one, make us laugh, and two, say out loud for everyone to hear, reveal some of the most ridiculous parts of anchoring cable news in the time of covid. with no further ado, let's bring in comedienne/actress, host of abc's "supermarket suite." and lately moonlighting as a commentator, leslie jones, thank you so much. >> what's up!

>> all right, so i have to tell you, i'm going to do your room, take me behind what's behind you. >> okay. all right. that's right, you know i was going to do it right, nicki, i was going to make it look good. you can't talk about mine unless you're going to go there, nicki, unless you're going to go there. how are you doing, beautiful? >> you know -- >> how are you? >> i started -- you know, this is a rough one. this is a rough day. the number of people dying from the pandemic, the lunacy of the guy in the oval office, i mean, i have always been a fan of yours, but i became like a hooked addict the friday after the election. i was watching your -- i was filling in for rachel maddow and i was watching your videos on the commercial breaks. there were some viewers that were not happy that i was doing

that. and i barely got the sound off when kornacki came on and i sold you out, i said, you know, leslie jones loves you, and he looked at me like, what? >> he's like, who the hell is leslie jones? i love steve. >> you say out loud what everyone thinks. >> yes. yes. exactly. because that's what needs to happen right now, nicki, everybody needs to start being a little more honest. we got too many faces up. everybody needs to really start being a little more honest, because, you know, there's a lot of liars among us, so we need to start telling each other the truth. >> i guess that starts with cutting the kind of bs behind us, because i also understand now, i watched enough of your videos, you know a lot about

actual art, you've always got a theory on which artist was influencing the artist that actually painted the thing behind people, you know a lot about history. i think you've read as many books as eddie glaude has. but underneath -- >> nobody has. >> but you've got a sharp take on what's happening right now. what is your sense about what trump's doing right now? >> okay, nicolle, that brings me to a question i might have for you, you know what i'm saying, like, you know, you worked with the republicans a long time ago, with the bush administration. the question that has been burning my brain, what did they ever offer nicolle, what is the difference between those republicans you worked with then with these republicans that we work with? i mean, is it -- like, mitch, because a lot of them are still

there, why won't mitch budge? is it about money? is it about power? is it about racism? or is it all of that? what is driving people to believe these people, nicki? that's the question. >> so that's the right question. and george bush came out and congratulated joe biden as soon as the election was called. and no one followed him. and when you're an ex-president, you don't have a lot of power. but historically, you've still had some clout. president obama is basically still covered as though he's the president. he picks his places and he sort of opines when there's an emergency or a crisis. but he's still covered. george w. bush came out, said that he congratulated joe biden on his much-deserved and clear victory. none of the republicans in the senate followed him. so this is just sort of anthropological at this point.

they either are such hostages of trump and trumpism, which is i think the actual answer, or they've lost sort of -- or they never had a moral compass. i don't have any excuses for any of them. i struggle to explain it. it's a political tragedy. there are two parties in this country and one of them is corrupted at the highest levels. >> because does trump have something on these people? it's being played so dirty now, i don't understand how mitch and lindsey graham is still following him when they really didn't like him as a candidate. i'm just so confused, how kentucky don't see that mitch mcconnell is not taking care of them. i'm so confused. is it a cult? do they love this man so much, do they not understand that trump is going to destroy democracy just to save himself?

>> they don't like him either. but -- you know, remember when the "access hollywood" tape came out, they wanted him off the ticket. four years ago, when he did something nearly as appalling as his attack on the election is, reince priebus, then the chairman of the rnc, wanted trump off the ticket. it happened really quickly. but they have stopped being anything other than part of basically something that functions like an organized crime family. >> right. right. it just feels like "the sopra sopranos" at this point. then too, you know, nicki, it's like a bad '80s movie. okay, so i didn't win and i didn't get invited to this party so i'm going to have a bigger party on the night that they have their party, let's see who has the better party. >> it's like their holding the boom box, "say anything," they want to defy the result because

they can't accept it. >> see, nicki, this is what my problem is, is with us as citizens. how are we not together and going, okay, this is so obvious, you guys, come on. >> leslie, you have a surprise guest, you're two humans. claire mccaskill is going to join us. >> ah! >> i'm having some of that gd coffee. >> where did you pull up with the mug. did you pull up with the mug. >> i pulled up with the mug. i pulled up with the mug, leslie. and with my gang of dishes and my dangerous wiry stairway. [ laughter ] >> hey, hey listen, here is what i have to tell you. first, my friend, nicki is the best in the business. and you figured that out. nick-a. always nick-a. but let me tell you something,

lesl leslie jones, she's right about humor at a time of a crisis and the feeling to act on it, people who are smart are the only people who could be really funny. >> wow! >> and that means you. it takes great intelligence to be really funny. so you're really one smart broad. >> why do we keep you doing this. how do we keep you watching -- any of the cable -- because i can't live without it. >> it is like crowd work. and just like claire said, this is a moment, i am a comedienne and i do understand that humor is medicine and this is the best medicine for us right now. we need to be able to laugh, we need to -- i know it is sad. i know just like john told me yesterday, this is hope now. we have to have some hope now. and i'm mixed in with a little humor, you know what i'm saying, we could just start -- you have to choose joy. you have to choose it, nicki. you have to choose joy. this is a time where we can't just go all willy-nilly with our

feelings. we have to choose to be happy. we have to choose to help other people be happy. that is our mission. if covid has taught us anything, it needs to teach us to take care of each other. and show us how to do that. >> thank you to my friends leslie jones and claire mccaskill. we will be back after a quick break. a quick break.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ last month in her time of need, brenda grant humbly asked

her friends to add her to their prayer list. she just tested positive for the coronavirus and was in the hospital. not even a month after that, she was gone. brenda was a remarkable person. popular and an inspiration according to people who knew her. for 22 years she drove a bus for mid dell public schools in oklahoma. she did so even through her cancer treatments, through her surgeries, with wit and with her signature feisty person alts. this christmas holiday we are thinking of her, her husband dwayne and wonderful children and every family across this country staring at an empty seat at the table. let's do them justice this holiday season and simply remember. thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. we are grateful. and from all of us, we wish you a safe and happy holiday season.

doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff, or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220. brita? 110... seriously? but zerowater- let me guess. zero? yup, that's how i know it is the purest-tasting water. i need to find the receipt for that. oh yeah, you do. my job is to help new homeowners who have turned into their parents. i'm having a big lunch and then just a snack for dinner. so we're using a speakerphone in the store. is that a good idea? one of the ways i do that is to get them out of the home. you're looking for a grout brush, this is -- garth, did he ask for your help? -no, no. -no. we all see it. we all see it. he has blue hair. -okay. -blue. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. -keep it coming. -you don't know him.

it was a political rise for the ages. from senate candidate -- >> there is not a liberal and conservative america. there is the united states of america. >> to presidential candidate. >> yes, we can. >> to a two-term president. >> and every day i have learned from you. you made me a better president and a better man. >> and now comes the obama presidential memoir. a look back at what happened and a road map for the work that lies ahead. >> i want you to remember what this country can be. but you can't just imagine a better future, you can't