if it's wednesday, we have breaking news. speaker pelosi rejects two of mccarthy's picks to serve on the january 6th select committee. we'll have the latest and reaction from a democratic member of the committee in just a moment. a partisan debate rages on the president's bipartisan infrastructure deal as senate democrats push ahead with a vote to move forward. republicans say the bill just isn't ready. what it means for the president's agenda ahead. and the very latest on a spike in covid cases nationwide as public health officials

continue to sound the alarm. we have a report from inside one south carolina icu pushed to the brink in 2020 as it braces for a surge in hospitalizations yet again. welcome to wednesday. it is "mtp daily." i am in for chuck todd. we begin with breaking news. house speaker nancy pelosi is rejecting two of house minority leader kevin mccarthy's picks to serve on the house select committee investigating the january 6th attack on the capitol. pelosi informed kevin mccarthy that she will not seat republican congressman jim banks, would have been the ranking member on the committee or jim jordan, both objected to certification of election results. the speak said, quote, the

unprecedented nature of january 6th demands this unprecedented decision. look, this move could put the entire january 6th select committee in jeopardy. republicans may choose not to participate at all. we expect reaction from members of both sides of the aisle through this hour, and i will speak to a democratic member of the select committee in just a moment. pelosi's decision to reject banks and jordan as committee members comes as new body camera footage was just released by department of justice showing a violent confrontation in which a rioter assaults an officer with a flagpole. the footage is the kind of thing that could be used as evidence before the select committee, which is having the first hearing next week on tuesday. tuesday's witnesses we now know will include four d.c. police officers tasked with protecting the capitol. what we still don't know for certain is who exactly will be hearing their testimony. for more, i am joined by my colleague, lee ann caldwell. the january 6th committee is supposed to hold a hearing next

week. do you think the committee goes forward, given all of the drama the last hour? >> reporter: garrett, i don't know why i keep being surprised up here on capitol hill, but this was a surprising move to me anyway. i didn't think speaker pelosi, even though she gave herself the power to do so, would overturn some of mccarthy's choices, but it seems like the committee hearing is expected to take place next week. democrats have been prepping for that hearing and are planning on moving forward even before leader mccarthy made his choices or even said he was going to make his choices. the fact that all eyes are once again on mccarthy to determine what, in fact, he is going to do, if he is going to replace banks and jordan or if he is going to participate at all. >> any indication which way he is leaning on this? i know this just happened.

>> reporter: yeah, no indication just yet. we reached out to sources to determine what the direction is going to be. haven't heard yet from republican sources. there's always been a question if mccarthy would even participate. there's a lot in his conference that didn't want to, a lot of members say this is bad politically, lot of members thought it was a political witch hunt and didn't want to participate in it, and also, garrett, i will say talking to my republican sources who were involved in this select committee at least for the past couple of days anyway, one thing they were going to focus on was speaker pelosi's role. i don't know if that had any impact on speaker pelosi's decision at all, but i know that is what republicans wanted to do. turn the tables back on speaker pelosi, make her a focus of the investigation, especially when they say what did she do on

january 6th, what did she do leading up to january 6th as far as security is concerned. they have a lot of questions. we'll see if that's still going to be a priority, if they want to go down that road. >> quickly, i know speaker pelosi said a minute ago it was not the fact that banks and jordan voted against certifying election results that got them banned essentially from the committee. do we have a sense of what the criteria was? troy nails, one of the other picks voted against certifying results. he is still welcomed, supposedly. >> reporter: yeah. speaker pelosi hasn't laid out her criteria other than saying she wants it to be taken extremely seriously. representative jordan has been a huge fighter on behalf of the former president, he ran defense on both impeachment campaigns. jim banks has become a loyal soldier for the former president and of leader mccarthy, i think she didn't have a lot of trust

they wouldn't make a mockery of this, and that's where her decision is coming from. but we'll get more in the next hours of the decision and where it goes next. >> we'll get more sooner than that. lee ann caldwell, thanks so much. some that wanted to serve have been publicly signaling they would serve as attack dogs defending former president trump. >> tell us about your january 6th commission. >> we know what this is about. this is impeachment round three for the democrats. democrats normalized anarchy, rioting and looting. that's an important element we have to point out. >> what took place january 6th was a tragedy. i think it is the responsibility of the committee to get to the bottom of it, you know, make sure it never happens again. >> takes us wherever the

evidence takes us. >> joining me to discuss this and more, one of the democrats on the january 6th select committee, congresswoman stephanie murphy of florida. congresswoman, thank you for being here. let's start here. what's the reaction to the news, the speaker rejecting two picks. >> happy to be with you. it is a reflection how serious she takes the select committee. it needs to be a committee that is committed to finding the truth and the facts around january 6th, which was a domestic attack on the capitol and on our democratic processes. we need to know who organized it, how they paid for it, and we need to figure out ways to ensure that this doesn't happen again, the fact that she has rejected two recommendations for two members who have indicated that they are not supportive of the objective of the select committee is consistent with how serious the committee is, how important it is to have patriots

serving on the committee, not partisans. >> do you have insight what criteria she made this decision? >> well, she has said it is not a prerequisite to have certified the election in order to serve on this committee, and as you will see, she's willing to appoint one of the members that didn't vote to certify the election to the select committee but i do think it is important that people who serve on this committee are committed to objectives and goals, are willing to work in an apolitical way to get to the truth of what happened january 6th. when i look at somebody like jim jordan, there's been nothing he has been involved in that hasn't been a political circus. when it comes to the select committee, the american people deserve better than that. >> congresswoman, republicans have said since the moment the committee was formed that it is purely political and that it is just a creation by speaker pelosi to do what speaker pelosi wants.

how is this not a messaging gift that speaker pelosi is doing exactly what speaker pelosi wants in choosing who can be on the committee. >> to be clear, we gave the republicans every opportunity to have an independent commission, take a clear eyed look. we are in the situation of having a select committee because republicans at every turn rejected the notion of getting to the bottom of what happened january 6th. i think speaker pelosi is ensuring the integrity of the committee by ensuring people that serve on it, republicans or democrats, are committed to the goals and are committed to their country, not to their political party. >> jake sherman of punch bowl news is reporting, and nbc hasn't confirmed that, put a note of caution on it, that minority leader mccarthy is going to pull his picks, not going to submit any republican choices to be on the committee. does it damage the credibility of the work you're intending to do if the other side has said this is too political and we're

not going to participate. >> that would be severely disappointing if that's what mccarthy decides to do but also on brand. he has not wanted to have the committee from the start. him playing political games with it is no surprise. the reality is even without the five he appoints or selects is still bipartisan, and we are still going to move forward to execute our duties to get to the truth around january 6th. >> i talked to a lot of members that praised the work that congresswoman cheney has done on the committee for the work itself, but political ramifications of a republican on the committee seen as more important. i want to talk about the hearing tuesday. we know the witnesses, don't know who is asking the questions, know who witnesses will be. witnesses include two capitol police officers and two metropolitan, washington, d.c. police officers, what's the goal you would like to achieve tuesday. is it to set a factual floor for

what happened that day? >> our objective with all of these hearings will be to set the facts out there for the public to understand but i think it is critically important to start with law enforcement because at the end of the day, they were as much victims of the attack on the capitol as any members of the congress or the vice president, so they were on the frontlines. they heard the things that folks who were trying to attack the capitol were saying. they can share with us what kind of preparedness they were given in order to come into work january 6th. that will be hugely important for us to understand and i look forward to their testimony. >> i would be remiss if i didn't ask you about action on the other chamber, the senate vote on the bipartisan infrastructure package, at least start debating it. should the vote fall apart, should everything in that hard infrastructure package make its way into the democratic only

reconciliation bill, you're talking upwards of $4 trillion in spending. as a blue dog democrat, one of the more moderate democrats, would you be comfortable voting for a $4 trillion plus spending plan to get all those administration and democratic priorities across the finish line? >> well, i am still optimistic regarding the bipartisan infrastructure plan, the american people know that we need to make significant investments in roads, bridges, broadband. that infrastructure plan still has an opportunity regardless of what happens today on this particular vote, procedural vote in the senate, and i know the senators are committed to continuing to work on it until we get that across the finish line. i believe our priority is to get the bipartisan bill signed into law by president biden, and then have the family conversations about what belongs in the reconciliation bill. >> congresswoman, thank you for joining us on a busy news day. we are going to continue to

follow breaking news throughout the hour, and will bring more reaction as we get it. coming up, as the delta surge worsens particularly in red counties and states, some republicans are changing their tune on vaccinations. but can that change the minds of constituents? and later this hour, defense secretary austin and joint chiefs of staff chairman general mark milley will speak on the dire situation in afghanistan and new reporting milley was worried about a coup, compared trump's reaction to hitler. all that. stay with us. o hitler all that stay with us lines and 2 free smartphones. and now get netflix on us. it's all included with 2 lines for only $70 bucks! only at t-mobile. age is just a number. and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health. versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients

for immune support. boost® high protein. the instant air purifier removes 99.9% of the virus that causes covid-19 from treated air. so you can breathe easier, knowing that you and your family have added protection. ♪ ♪ - [narrator] this is steve. knowing that you and your he used to have gum problems.. now, he uses therabreath healthy gums oral rinse with clinically-proven ingredients and his gum problems have vanished.

(crowd applauding) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores. - oh. - what's going on? - oh, darn! - let me help. lift and push and push! there... it's up there. hey joshie... wrinkles send the wrong message. help prevent them before they start with downy wrinkleguard. your skin isn't just skin, it's a beautiful reflection of everything you've been through. that's why dove renews your skin's ceramides and strengthens it against dryness for softer, smoother skin you can lovingly embrace. renew the love for your skin with dove body wash.

welcome back. we have an update on breaking news here. just across the wire, just into nbc news from kevin mccarthy a moment ago, a statement responding to speaker pelosi's decision to not seat representatives jim jordan and jim banks on the select committee. mccarthy writes the decision by

pelosi is an egregious abuse of power. he says the committee has lost all legitimacy and credibility. unless speaker pelosi reverses the decision, he says republicans will not be party to this sham investigation, so you could be looking at five empty seats for the first committee hearing next tuesday. we will continue to follow that story. believe it or not, there's a lot else going on on capitol hill today, so we have to turn to the other big news from the other chamber where the president's entire legislative agenda basically comes down to two pieces of legislation right now and the senate is about to hold its first key vote on one of them. in about an hour, the senate is expected to hold a vote to debate the bipartisan infrastructure deal. the vote is expected to fail. senate majority leader telling lawmakers time to get moving. republicans are countering they're just not ready. >> this shouldn't be held today,

we are making tremendous progress and i hope the majority leader will reconsider and just delay the vote until monday. that's not a big ask of him. >> no time is lost by adhering to a simple principle, we're not going for the bill until we know what the bill is. >> if they're as close to bipartisan agreement as they say they are, they should have no issues with this timeline. we're going to give them every opportunity to finish their negotiations and make their agreement the final product on the senate floor. >> chuck schumer seems intent trying to light a fire under the group and in some respects he has. bill negotiators met late last night, seem to be suggesting they're close to hammering out final details of the bill than they've ever been. the president and many democrats see the bipartisan infrastructure legislation as

critical companion to the gargantuan 3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, and the fate of one will have major implications for the fate of the other. joining me from cincinnati, ahead of president biden's trip there today, mike memoli. does the white house back the strategy from chuck schumer of holding the vote to just start debate today? >> reporter: yeah, that's right, garrett. the white house yesterday and this morning reiterating support for the schumer strategy, saying they very much support this strategy. it was constructive the way the president addressed this a few days ago speaking about the economy, he repeated twice, we shook hands on this agreement, there was implication there, we all knew the pay fors were flimsy, wants to see republicans follow through on their word to support the bipartisan deal.

the white house says, senior officials from the white house are in meetings, working all hours of the day, trying to get an agreement. it is constructive to what the president is doing as he leaves washington during the vote. he is landing in air force one in kentucky, not an insignificant political state, driving across the river to ohio, a state represented by a retiring republican who is part of the infrastructure negotiations, rob portman. because he is retiring, it will be a key battleground in the senate math in 2022. this white house is doing all it can to get its legislative agenda across the finish line, do so with its eyes on it. i spoke with the political director, one of the first interviews, discussing the midterm strategy, the idea is good policy, good governorance. that's what the president is coming for, coming to union allies and national remarks part

of a town hall tonight, garrett. >> mike, thank you very much. joining me, senator bob casey from pennsylvania. senator, we have a lot to talk about. there's still time to change course given how close the bipartisan group says they are to completing their negotiations. should the majority leader delay the vote? >> garrett, i don't think he should. i think chuck schumer is right. we have to move forward and they've had many, many months of negotiation, even the last couple of weeks working out agreement with the president. it is time to move on this. that doesn't mean every piece has to be in place when we vote to proceed, but i am afraid a lot of americans are seeing the same pattern. we wanted to vote to proceed to a voting rights bill and they wouldn't let us do that. now it is something they claim they want to move forward on but once again, it is just republican obstruction on something they claim they want to make progress on. we need to move in the direction

of completing our work on this part because we have to get to the next part of this investment in the american people. >> for people watching at home, i think the question is what's the value of having a vote you know is going to fail, how does that significantly advance the agenda here? >> we'll see what the vote is, but i think there's always clarity that comes with the vote. that was true in voting rights, clear you had democrats trying to protect voting rights, and republicans unilaterally against that. this shouldn't have been one of those moments. republicans should have worked with the leader to move this forward to get to the legislation, fill in the details, finish the negotiations, then we can actually vote on the bill. this is a preliminary step which is necessary to move it forward. i think a lot of americans

waited for generations for this investment and don't want us to slow down and have the usual washington process where just clearing your throat takes a couple hours it seems. >> i am familiar with that style of speaking on the hill. senator, there's another deadline today getting less attention, that's on the reconciliation package, $3.5 trillion bill not nearly as far along as the bipartisan one. the majority leader wanted all democrats ready to go forward on this, wanted agreement the 50 of you saw this as the path forward. are you there yet? what's your understanding of the whip count on that decision which is an even bigger investment? >> garrett, that's a good question. what we're talking about in that bill is making investments in people that have never been made before, investments in child care, early learning for every 3 and 4-year-old in the country, investing in more education beyond high school, particularly

the bill i am working on, better care, better jobs, investments in home, in community based services for seniors, people with disabilities, lifting up the work force which is mostly women of color in america making 12 bucks an hour. that's what we're talking about when it comes to the services. we have to cover a lot of topics and make the investment. we still have work to do to come to consensus but we have a consensus throughout our caucus on the total number, 3.5 trillion. but that's only a couple days old. we're now beginning the work on the component parts. >> total 50 vote consensus, including the more moderate members like joe manchin on the 3.5 trillion would be news, so let's put a pin in that. i want to ask you, add another topic to this. there's been discussion about the debt ceiling set to expire, current authorization set to expire end of july. do you see that being the next big partisan fight?

republicans don't look keen to help democrats that control both chambers raise the debt ceiling. >> i hope not because in my experience over more than a decade now in the senate it seems like every time we get to a debt ceiling cliff so to speak, the ones that are willing to push the country over the cliff into a dark abyss seem to be republican members of congress. i hope, i hope that they will act like responsible adults because in the past, a lot of republican members of congress on the question of paying our bills have acted like children. i hope they don't do that this time. >> i know how much senators love to be asked about goings on in the house. i want to ask you what's going on with the select committee. that was meant to be -- having the commission vote fail in the senate, that commission vote was to be the last word on what happened january 6th.

are you concerned with the speaker's decision with republicans pulling out entirely that anything that might come out of that committee will be viewed as partisan? are they still going to be able to do the job set out for them given what's transpired in the last hour? >> garrett, most americans understand when it comes to a thorough investigation of january 6th, not just to learn what happened and why and who did what and who didn't take action in the executive branch, for example, holding people accountable for january 6th, you can count the number of republican members of congress who really want to get to the answers to the questions, count them on one hand unfortunately. anyone who voted for the objections to my home state of pennsylvania or arizona should have no role in this. they are by definition disqualified. they voted against the

constitution. committed what i think is a constitutional crime. should be nowhere near the membership and participation in any investigative effort because they are by definition totally biased in favor of a set of actions that are contrary to our constitution. i think the speaker did the right thing. >> senator casey, that viewpoint has been echoed by other house democrats. we're learning more what might have gone into the speaker's decision. thank you. we'll see what happens with the vote later this afternoon. thank you, senator. up next, a look inside one south carolina icu that was pushed to the brink in 2020 and is reliving that nightmare all over again. ll over again ♪ ♪ when technology is easier to use... ♪ barriers don't stand a chance.

♪ that's why we'll stop at nothing to deliver our technology as-a-service. ♪ - i'm norm. - i'm szasz. to deliver our technology as-a-service. [norm] and we live in columbia, missouri. we do consulting, but we also write. [szasz] we take care of ourselves constantly; it's important. we walk three to five times a week, a couple miles at a time. - we've both been taking prevagen for a little more than 11 years now. after about 30 days of taking it, we noticed clarity that we didn't notice before. - it's still helping me. i still notice a difference. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. to make my vision a reality. i have to take every perspective, and see clearly from every point of view. with my varilux progressive lenses i seamlessly transition from near to far.

and see every detail in sharp focus. when you see no limits, there are no limits. book now at your local essilor experts to push the limits of your vision. varilux lenses by essilor. (vo) conventional thinking doesn't disrupt the status quo. which is why t-mobile for business uses unconventional thinking to help your business realize new possibilities. only one 5g partner offers unmatched network, support, and value-without any trade offs. the instant air purifier removes 99.9% of the virus that causes covid-19 from treated air. so you can breathe easier, knowing that you and your family have added protection. ♪ ♪ anything to drink? just water... hold on, we're coming! mio... water tastes like, well...water. so we fixed it. mio.

a pool floatie is like whooping cough, it's not just for kids. whooping cough is highly contagious for people of any age. and it can cause violent uncontrollable coughing fits. ask your doctor or pharmacist about whooping cough vaccination because it's not just for kids. hearing is important to living life to the fullest. that's why inside every miracle-ear store, you'll find better laughs at family barbecues. you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. including innovative technology, like the new miracle-earmini. so powerful, yet it's nearly invisible. we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage.

[♪♪] call 1-800-miracle today and experience if you have diabetes, it's important to have confidence in the nutritional drink you choose. try boost glucose control. it's clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels and contains high quality protein to help manage hunger and support muscle health. try boost today. welcome back. here are the facts you need to know about the coronavirus pandemic at this hour. team usa men's beach volleyball player taylor crab is the latest member of the u.s. olympic team to test positive for covid just before the games. he joins two basketball players, tennis star coco gauff, tokyo officials say the city has seen 150 increase in covid cases from last week. pasadena, california reinstating indoor mask mandate, following the footsteps of l.a. county, as cases rise across the golden state. mask mandate applies to everyone

regardless of vaccination status. at least a half dozen counties in california are requesting residents to mask up, but are stopping short of mandate. a new study suggests the johnson & johnson vaccine may be less effective against the delta variant which now makes up more than 80% of new cases in the u.s. the study which hasn't been peer reviewed raises questions whether johnson & johnson recipients need a second shot. a top j&j official down played that study in an interview this morning. >> i think we've got to be very guarded in terms of a test tube study that makes conclusions of one aspect of immunity. it is probably best for everyone to defer to health officials who have not yet recommended a booster even for less duration vaccines who have the benefit of all the data before we make conclusions when and if boosters are needed. >> after months of vaccine

skepticism, some gop leaders are shifting messaging. number two republican in the house, congressman steve scalise shared he got his first dose of the pfizer vaccine, calling it safe, effective, widely available. minority leader mitch mcconnell who to be clear continues to strongly reiterate his support for the vaccine has continued to do so again yesterday. and sean hannity and some other fox news hosts have urged people to get vaccinated. all of this comes as nearly every state is seeing a resurgence in virus, particularly states with low vaccine coverage. allison barber in one of those states, west columbia, south carolina, where hospitals have troubling jumps in icu hospitalizations. you were at a hospital you were at this time last year. what's the situation like now, is the hospital prepared for another surge in cases potentially? >> reporter: yes, so the numbers are not nearly as bad as they were this time last year, but

they're rising very quickly. that's what's worrying doctors here. last week on monday, they had zero covid patients in intensive care. one week later, monday this week, they had eight. when we were on the icu floor yesterday, a ninth patient was brought in. they said eight out of nine on the floor while we were there had been ventilated at some point of time. all but one unvaccinated. the biggest outward, obvious difference you can tell looking at patients compared to when we were seeing covid patients in the icu last year were ages. these patients were younger than what i saw last time. there were people in their late 20s and 30s and 40s. i asked one of the icu doctors if any of them had co-morbidities, said the vast majorities did not. there were some, some were considered medically overweight or obese. other than that, didn't have

other health issues, and didn't have known pre-existing conditions at all. the only commonality between patients in the icu by and large is that they're unvaccinated. garrett? >> and you were able to talk to some patients. what are you hearing from them? >> reporter: yeah, we spoke to one man who spent two months in the hospital here. he was able to get vaccinated, eligible to get vaccinated early in the year but decided not to. he said he was concerned it was so new and didn't feel like he needed it. he is 40 years old. he contracted covid-19 in april, ended up in the icu and on a ventilator. says his decision not to be vaccinated when he had the chance is a decision he regrets every single day. he is hoping if people will not listen to many voices in the health care profession, the many doctors telling them to be vaccinated, that they'll listen to him. here's some of what he told us.

>> were you able to breathe on your own? >> not at first. they had to turn me on my stomach. i think it was like three times because like the cold and blood was filling up the lungs. i might have already been on the ventilator. i don't know. i was so out of it. >> it is a miracle you survived you think? >> oh, yeah, it is. i would tell you go ahead and get the vaccination because the covid is for real. it had me on my dying bed and i don't know if i was going to make it back or not. >> reporter: he has oxygen tubes on the interview, still needs an oxygen tank even though he has been out of the hospital for

weeks. garrett? >> important reporting. i want to turn to dr. peter hotez, dean of school of tropical medicine at baylor. hospitals are filling up with younger, unvaccinated patients, are we at risk of hospitals overwhelmed or challenged in areas with low vaccination rates? >> that's absolutely right, garrett, this is what we're going to see, a surge across the south as many of us predicted. places with a one-two punch, high levels of delta variant and low vaccination rate, and as you report, the character of the epidemic and surge in the south will look somewhat different. won't have as many older individuals, many of them are vaccinated, but the defiance around vaccination is occurring among young people, parents of adolescents. so this is what we're going to see. even though the death rate may

not be as high, we'll see a lot of devastating illness, icus are filling up across the south. it is heartbreaking because none of the hospitalizations have to happen. almost all of these hospitalizations are preventable. >> let's talk about the study suggesting johnson & johnson vaccine may not be as effective against the delta variant. we mentioned where it is on timeline of the science, not peer reviewed or published in a medical journal. how seriously should we take it, how concerned should j&j recipients be about their level of protection from the delta variant? >> i think it is important to point out the study didn't look at protection, it was not a clinical study, it was a laboratory study, test tube study. what they looked at was levels of virus neutral icing antibodies in ten or a dozen individuals with a single dose of the j&j vaccine, showing the level of antibodies went down

when they looked at it versus the delta variant. it is potentially concerning. when you look at the decline, looks similar to me the decline of the variant from south africa. the reason i say that, corresponding studies show there's some level of protections. i think it is a small study, needs to be expanded. we need actual clinical data. i think there's going to be some level of protection. the key is whether or not to recommend a booster of a second dose of the j&j vaccine. back in phase one and two studies last year looking at the data, i thought this would be a two dose vaccination because it is so much more robust. i'm sure the company is in discussions with the u.s. food and drugs administration and cdc to make important decisions. >> we keep hearing more and more about break through infections, some olympians were break through infections, folks fully

vaccinated. what is the science telling us with the recommendation this is a moving target whether or not fully vaccinated people can transmit this variant, and are we likely to see break through cases no matter which flavor vaccine you got? >> from studies in israel and the uk, the level of protection of the two dose mrna vaccines, pfizer, biontech and moderna as well, it is lower against actual documented infection cases, around 64%, israel around 80% in england and scotland, robust against serious infection. almost all break through cases are likely not to be serious infections. the question is people who are vaccinated because the delta variant replicates in higher amounts in the nose and mouth,

whether vaccinated individuals, even though they're not getting very sick could be passing virus onto other family members, including unvaccinated kids, because with earlier lineage, it seems less problem because the vaccines halted asymptomatic infection. that's going to beg the question whether we need to start considering a third immunization to jack up virus neutralizing antibodies more to prevent that. those decisions are being discussed. >> dr. hotez, thank you very much. going back to colin kaepernick -- to capitol hill after speaker pelosi rejects mccarthy's picks promising him to pull all from the investigation. mccarthy is speaking to reporters in a few minutes. we'll bring it to you live after this. minutes we'll bring it to you live after this don't settle. start your day with secret. secret stops odor- causing sweat 3x more. and the provitamin b5 formula is gentle on skin. with secret, outlast anything. no sweat.

secret. all strength. no sweat. like many people with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's disease, i was there. be right back. but my symptoms were keeping me from where i needed to be. so i talked to my doctor and learned humira is the #1 prescribed biologic for people with uc or crohn's disease. and humira helps people achieve remission that can last, so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you and them.

ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. (vo) conventional thinking doesn't disrupt the status quo. which is why t-mobile for business ask your gastroenterologist about humira. uses unconventional thinking to help your business realize new possibilities. only one 5g partner offers unmatched network, support, and value-without any trade offs.

welcome back. we are expecting to hear from

house minority leader kevin mccarthy in just a moment, expected to discuss his decision to pull all five republican members from the january 6th select committee. that's in response to house speaker nancy pelosi's decision to reject two picks. representative jim jordan and jim banks. lee ann caldwell joins me. we normally do back and forth next to each other on the hill. let's talk through this a little bit. my reporting on this is that the speaker was calling around, trying to gauge interest, what the caucus was thinking before she made the decision. what else are we learning about how she came to the decision to tell two gop jims they aren't welcome on this committee. >> reporter: yeah, garrett. we are getting a little more insight into her thinking and there was concern among members regarding, of her members, regarding representative banks and jordan, specifically they

point to the statement representative banks put out monday after he was assigned to lead the committee on behalf of republicans. i am going to read to you a little of banks' statement from the time because his words are better than mine explaining what he said and what democrats are upset about. it says if democrats were serious about investigating political violence, this committee would be looking at january 6th but the hundreds of political riots last summer, goes on to say of course the committee would not overlook the good friday murder of capitol police officer billy evans, perpetrated by a far left extremist, representative banks says. he says make no mistake, nancy pelosi created this committee to malign conservatives and justify the left's authoritarian agenda. so really, really harsh fighting words from representative banks as he was put on the committee

to lead it on behalf of republicans. but republicans are in lock step in messaging at this point. i just caught up with representative scalise, leader mccarthy's number two, and he says that what this move proves on behalf of pelosi is that this was just a political witch hunt and this committee was there to be a political exercise. that's something that representative jordan also said in his statement announcing the news that he and the other members are not going to serve on this committee because of what pelosi did. >> i think we're seeing the choice that speaker pelosi had. do you have banks and jordan on this committee which they publicly said essentially their goal is to undermine, almost like grouch oh marks, i don't want to be part of a club that won't have me. you've got members that say their job is not do what the

committee set out to do. if you're speaker pelosi, do you have them on, leading the republican side of the committee, or say no, they can't come on, risk what we're seeing now, which is republicans pulling out all together. i wonder your view of how kevin mccarthy is dealing with this. did mccarthy not get exactly what he wants here which is an opportunity to wash his hands of this entirely? there's nothing as you well know that he likes to do less than talk about what happened january 6th and the investigations into it. now he can say this is speaker pelosi's event, i am not participating in it. is that sort of how they're viewing this? >> reporter: yeah, i think so. and i think it goes both ways. we have to see how this plays out. we talk about this all the time, everything is infused with politics, especially as we get closer to election year. we talked about the fact we both have sourcing that there were

members, republicans that didn't want to serve on this committee because they're worried about the midterm politics regarding this, so, you know, mccarthy did have a choice to participate in the committee, help to steer the direction and have a seat at the table and be able to massage the messaging around it or completely now he is not going to be part of it at this point anyway and throw bombs at what the democrats are doing. so i think either way, he had a tough assignment ahead of him, and the person who was probably best to take on the assignment was representative jordan. he has proven very effective at republican messaging, often to the detriment of democrats, and he has been a very loyal soldier to leader mccarthy and the former president, so i think both options are risky and we'll have to see how this plays out,

not only in the press but for voters, too. >> mccarthy also had two other options, remember, we're only doing a special committee, this only exists because republicans in the house and senate broadly oppose the idea of a select commission that would have done this in a bipartisan way. i asked mccarthy at a press conference whether he regretted trying to block the commission, he could have at least had a nonpartisan effort. now he has a wholly democratic partisan have pursued someone like a john catco, someone who voted for the creation of the commission to be the ranking member on this committee, which might have given it more legitimacy, might have made it look more bipartisan. that's not really what he wanted here. so, do you think there'll be republicans, whether mccarthy or perhaps even some of those in the senate who are on the fence about this, who might have a bit of buyer's remorse for not having supported a commission,

given what they're going to face now, a democrat-only, plus liz cheney. and i think that's an important caveat. democrats plus one republican on a democratic messaging sort of platform here, pursuing this investigation. >> yeah, garrett, i think that some republicans had buyer's remorse right away. one of the members that mccarthy original showed for the select committee, representative rodney davis of illinois, he told me in an interview a couple weeks ago that the select committee is turning into republicans' worst nightmare. because they are going to be the minority. they're not going to have a lot of say. and as you laid out really well, that they were going to have a lot more power in a non-partisan commission that was never created. so there is some buyer's remorse. and yeah, the person who was going to be the messaging on behalf of republicans is representative liz cheney and

she's working really closely with the democrats. she has proven that she has still a lot of fund-raising prowess and support behind her, outside of washington. and so she's going to be able to move this and steer this. and i'm told she's very likely going to have a leading role, even though she's sitting with the democrats, but she has proven a very effective and serious member of their selections. >> for anyone just joining once a quick reset here. we are waiting to hear from house minority leader kevin mccarthy, the top republican in the house, to explain his decision to pull all five republicans off the special select committee on january 6th. this after speaker pelosi announced a little more than an hour ago that she would not seat congressman jim banks or jim jordan on the committee. they had been picks that kevin mccarthy put forward. as we wait, i can't help but think of the enormous pressure now on that one republican who will still be on this committee,

liz cheney, who has been threatened to lose her other committee positions for selecting this role. lieu ann, how do we see cheney's role going forward, and how important do we think that pick ultimately was by speaker pelosi to put her on this committee, given that now, she is apparently going to be the only republican to participate? >> it was a politically prudent move on behalf of speaker pelosi to name representative cheney and, from what my sources are telling me is that she is very -- she's been ingratiated with the group. and she is part of the group, she's attending the meetings, the pelosi choices were supposed to meet this afternoon, to plan for next week's hearing talking

to these rank and file police officers and they're expected to meet monday as well to prepare for that hearing. and representative cheney has had a seat at the table throughout, and her democratic colleagues have a tremendous amount of respect for her we are told, and that she comes with a different point of view, a different perspective, but with the perspective that the constitution is what matters and she wants to get to the truth. and as we were talking, garrett, representative banks just came out with his own statement in reaction to the events of the last hour or so and he says he's a sitting member of congress and the speaker knows how hard i will fight for my country. he goes on to say, we said all along this was a purely political exercise and nancy pelosi's rejection of me and jim jordan shows once again she is the most partisan figure in america today. finally, the american people deserve the truth.

unfortunately, speaker pelosi is afraid of the facts and we'll likely hear a lot more from him and leader mccarthy in a few moments. >> i suspect we will. leigh ann, stand by. in the last day, we've now heard about more criminal charges coming down on someone close to the trump administration, as 2017 trump organization committee chair tom barrack was indicted in a new york federal court on seven counts yesterday. barrack is charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent, illegally lobbying the trump administration on behalf of the united arab emirates. the charges also include obstruction of justice and lying to the fbi. barrack becomes the eighth member of the trump team to be indicted on criminal charges and joins paul manafort and rick gates as other trump associates charged with not disclosing his role in working for a foreign government. this is apparently the third one, which makes it a trend. barrack will be held in the l.a. county jail until his bail

hearing on monday. nbc's pete williams joins me now to break down the charges and i guess my question is, what exactly was barrack doing and why would the uae want to use him in the first place? it's not as if they cannot afford to hire traditional lobbyists to work on this administration. >> the sense you get from reading the charges is he already had a good relationship with several countries in the middle east and suddenly, here's a guy he's close to who's now running for president and looks like he might get elected and he does. there's no suggestion that tom barrack was paid for this, but there is a federal law that makes ate crime to lobby the u.s. government on behalf of a foreign government without notifying the justice department, and that's what the government said he did. that he got pro-uae language inserted into candidate trump's specious, that he arranged meetings for americans with uae officials and he also promoted the uae on his own, in his own media appearances. and under the law, that still

counts as lobbying. the government says he was in constant wuch tuch with a businessman in the emirates, that he met with some of the officials in 2016 after the election and suggested he give them a wish list of foreign policy goals that they would like the u.s. to adopt. basically the charge is he took advantage of his insider access to help the uae, such is his role as the chairman of the trump inaugural fund in 2017. and there's an additional charge here. the prosecutors say when tom barrack was questioned about these allegations, he repeatedly made false statements and denied that he was lobbying for a foreign country. so that's the essence of the case. >> pete, i feel like every time one of these stories pops up, you hear from folks on twitter who think, aha! this is the thing that will trip up former president trump. this will be the thing that somehow ensnares him in one of these outside scandals. is there any indication that anyone in the white house or that the former president did anything wrong and is associated with this? or is this just another person

in the trump orbit with shady dealings of their own? >> well, that's the government's allegation, is the latter, not the former. there's no indication in any of these charges documents or anyone we've talked to that president trump was even aware of tom barrack's dealings with the uae here. he just thought he was getting advice from somebody who knew the middle east and knew something about energy policy and knew something about foreign policy. there's no suggestion that the president was aware of this relationship with these folks in the uae here, no. >> pete williams, thank you. we'll jump back across north capital street to my colleague, leigh ann caldwell, waiting to hear kevin mccarthy on his decision to pull republican members from this select committee on january 6th. we are less a than a week from that hearing. how do we think the democrats and liz cheney will proceed with that hearing, knowing that now

they'll have the opportunity to make their case largely unhindered. >> reporter: that's right. it could be a much easier job for them, actually, to get to the points of what they want to get to and they've said all along that they are interested in not only find ought what happened on that day, on january 6th, but in the lead up and what speaker pelosi has said repeatedly over the past couple of weeks is that also the money behind it, the funding behind the protests and the riots on january 6th. and so they have -- >> leigh ann, i'm going to wrap you here. we have kevin mccarthy at the podium along with the five members who will not be on the select committee. let's hear what they have to say. >> speaker pelosi has taken the unprecedented step of denying the minority party's picks for the select committee on january 6th. this represents something that has not happened in the house before for a select committee by the historian.

it's an egregious abuse of power. pelosi has broken this institution. denying the voice of members who have served in the military, jim banks, a navy veteran, who served in afghanistan. er is law enforcement, as well as a leader of a standing committee. jim jordan has served on select committee and serves on one now. made it undeniable, this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and it shows exactly what i warned back at the beginning of january, that pelosi would play politics with this. for