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 more than six months, you

have a better example of the senate bipartisan. schumer didn't pick who went on of the republicans, they already have the report done by two different committees. two main questions. why was the capitol so ill prepared for that day, when they knew on december 14th they had a problem? and what have we done to make sure that never happens again? pelosi has created a sham process. unless speaker pelosi reverses course and seats all five republicans, we will not participate. but we think it's too important that those two questions, why were we ill prepared, why did they know on december 14th. why would they jeopardize the lives of the capitol police. we will run our own

investigation. we have law enforcement, we have military, we have doctors, we have people from all walks of life. they want to know the answer, the american people deserve that. they don't deserve politics. they don't deserve destroying the constitution. no committee in congress will work if one person is picking all who can serve. this has not happened before. house democrats must answer this question. why are you allowing a lame-duck speaker to destroy this institution. this is the people's house, not pelosi's house. we will do our job, though. we have to do our job. we want to do our job.

i may object to the people she put on the committee, but i respect her right to do it, just as every leader has done before. destroy an institution for your own political gain. america expects more and deserves more. with that, i want to bring up congressman jim banks, individual who served his country in afghanistan, served in a state legislature, serves in congress, is chair of the largest caucus in the republican conference. jim banks. >> thank you. i thank the leader, first and foremost for his trust that he placed in me as the leader of our republican to put me in charge of this republican effort. this just goes to show how partisan of an exercise we said this was all along. that nancy pelosi would take me and jim jordan first off of this

committee and the rest of us as well, by rejecting the first two of us. she knows that we were prepared to fight to get to the truth, to find the facts about what happened on that day to make sure that january 6th would never happen again. but she doesn't want to go down that path. she knows that we're already asking questions in just the first couple of days that liter mccarthy appointed us to this task, questions that democrats have never asked, about why the capitol was vulnerable on that day, but we had intelligence for weeks leading up to january 6th that told us that something dangerous would happen on january 6th. she knew we would fight back against their political games and that's why she didn't want to us to participate in this committee. it just goes to show, this is entirely a political exercise on her part. it's a shame. the american people deserve better. they demand answers pant january 6th. because the american people demand that their leaders step up to make sure that it never happens again. we all know that this is an exercise in politics, it's not

an exercise in finding the facts and that's what's unfortunate about this speaker's move. it just goes to show, it begs the question that all of us should be asking, what is the speaker afraid of? i'll leave you with that. jim jordan? >> thank you, jim. the leader and jim are exactly right. this has always been about politics and today's actions of the speaker just confirm that. but frankly, and i've said this before, what else are they going to talk about? the folks on the january 6th committee. are they going to talk about crime? fact that crime is up in every major urban area in this country? are they going to talk about the border crisis? think about this. march was the highest month on record until may, and until june, are they going to talk about inflation? that the price of eggs up, the price of milk is up, the price of bread is up, the price of airline tickets is up, the price of everything is up.

they can't talk about. so they're going to be partisan and focus on this. but as the leader said and as mr. banks said, i don't think they're going to address fundamental question. the fundamental question of why wasn't there a proper security presence at the capitol that day? they're not going to address that. and only one person can answer that question. only one. speaker of the united states house of representatives. my hunch is, my hunch is the reason they don't want to address that question, my hunch is because what happened all of last year. the democrats normalize anarchy. they normalize rioting and looting. and when rioters and looters attacked our law enforcement personnel, when rioters and looters destroyed small businesses, what did democrats do? they went out and raised money to bail them out of jail and they continue to talk about defunding the police. and in fact did that in all of these major urban areas, which is why crime is up. so they don't want to talk about that stuff. they just want to be partisan. they just want to continue to attack the former president.

they want to play their political games. so i applaud leader mccarthy for saying, we're going to do our job -- we're going to continue to work and get to the bottom and answer the questions that the leader raised, the questions that frankly the american people want answers to. with that, i recognize -- >> on the evening of january 6th, when we reconvened to take the certification of the election results from our states, i actually spoke with speaker pelosi on the dais and she brought up a bipartisan, bicameral commission to me at that point. i introduced a bill to introduce a bipartisan, bicameral commission. we had some questions about how this would be implemented and speaker pelosi decided instead to put forth her own select committee that we now know is a completely partisan process. it's very disappointing, because i think all of us were looking forward to our first hearing next week to be able to get answers to some of the questions

that were raised by leader mccarthy, but ranking member banks, and by jim jordan. but we're not going to get those answers in even a partisan manner on this committee, because she chose to take the unprecedented step to try and veto our own members. we'll continue to ask questions. and frankly, there are many unanswered questions about why this capitol was so unprepared. and the key questions that leader mccarthy said, are we in a better position now security wise? there are many issues that we saw and capitol police, ig reports and others laid out reasons why our officers didn't have the equipment, they didn't have the training and they didn't have the preparation and the backup to adequately address what happened on january 6th. why? and what have we done, what has the speaker done? and more importantly, what has she asked the capitol police

board that is made up of her own appointee, what have they done to put this capitol complex many a situation to address another security issue. those questions would have been asked, those questions will still be asked regardless of whether or not she continues to play politics. and i'll end with this by saying, i've seen and witnessed political violence personally out on a baseball field in virginia just a few short years ago. i've seen what well-trained capitol police officers like david bailey and crystal greiner were able to do to run toward gunfire as we ran away from it. and it's disappointing to see that our capitol police officers who i witnessed that bravery that day are still not put in a position to be able to make sure that another type of january 6th would happen again. she needs to answer questions. we were hoping to get those answers, but unfortunately, we're not going to. i would like to introduce kelly armstrong. >> thanks, rodney.

i agree with everything that's been said. i've served for two years with jim jordan on oversight and judiciary. we've been through a lot of tough hearings together. a lot of hearings that would have been similar to this. we know how to do this. we have credibility with the american people. and to strike jim banks and jim jordan from this committee just unacceptable. i think it's important to recognize that every time speaker pelosi uses the word "unprecedented," it happens to consolidate absolute power in the speaker's office. it was unprecedented to build a glass cage in order to make sure she got the gavel. it was unprecedented to put metal detectors on the floor of the house. it's unprecedented to have proxy voting. and it's sure unprecedented for the majority leader to strike minority members for a committee. i don't think this committee is about the last election. i don't even think it's about the next election. it's about the speaker's office maintaining an absolute iron grip on her conference and the people's house for the next 18 months. and i'm concerned after 200 years of precedent, we are completely altering how things

are done in the people's house. but you know what else, i would be concerned if i was a majority member right now, because the map, the math, and their policies will help us take back the majority two years and these things never go back to the way they were once they've started. we need to be calling out what's going on. every member of the house of representatives is elected by their district and they have a right to serve. and the minority has a right to put the people on the committees the way we want and we shouldn't be changing that with this committee or any other can i have. and with that, i turn it over to sheriff nells. >> when i was chosen by leader mccarthy to serve on this select committee, i told him, i'll take the 30 years of law enforcement experience that i have, the 8 years i have of sheriff to uncover, to find out exactly what took place on january 6th. to find the truth as to why this capitol was so unprepared. i spent countless hours. i brought this binder up. i've examined the senate report,

examining, talking, looking at witness statements, looking at the capitol hill's policies and procedures. and i was alarmed, truly alarmed at what i uncovered. i was certainly prepared to help this committee get to the truth. i wanted to get to the truth. but unfortunately, speaker pelosi has shown that she's more interested in playing politics. i stand with leader mccarthy and the other colleagues on this committee. i assured the leader that i will continue to play a role and do everything i can to make sure that what took place on january 6th can never, ever happen again in this great country of ours. i made that commitment, i will remain strong in that commitment to the leader. thank you. >> yes, sir? >> mr. leader. you're complaining that you don't have a bipartisan opportunity here to investigate january 6th, but you stood in the way of a bipartisan

commission made up of independent members -- >> no, i didn't. >> equal number of republicans and democrats. your conference voted against that, at least a majority of your conference voted against it, and it was blocked in the senate. why did you not allow that to go forward if what you say you want is a bipartisan investigation into what happened on january 6th? >> for the same politics pelosi played then. at the same time she used the scope of that. remember how long it took? on january 13th, rodney davis and myself both requested a 9/11 commission. even those who ran the 9/11 commission criticized nancy pelosi for what she wanted to do. we had officer evans killed on good friday, but she said, you couldn't look at that. if you studied the 9/11 commission, they didn't study what happened on just september 11th, they studied what built up to it. but she said, no, you could not do that. why would she make a scope that you couldn't get the answers to?

why would an officer's life not matter to her? that's why people objected. people asked for it before. she played six months with this. why she played her games and continued to do so, the senate acted. two committees. the report is done. the fbi has arrested more than 500 poem. the architect of the capitol has $10 million. and what does she do today? continue the same sham she's done all along. never, never in the history of this institution for a select committee, and she admitted to me when she called me, have they ever done something like this. think for one moment, jim banks is a naval officer. defended his nation. served in afghanistan. elected by his peers of the largest conference in the committee, but she wants to say,

predetermine that he can't serve. that pelosi can pick and choose. jim jordan, is she afraid of a question from jim? is she afraid of what he might ask or fight for? he's a ranking member. not his first committee, but his second. why would she be afraid? did she set the committee itself to be one-sided? yes. more so than any select committee before, yeah, she did. we warned you from that moment in time, she was playing politics. today just showed the american people exactly what everybody was warned. it's the american people who lose in this. but we're not going to allow that to happen. we're going to get to the answer of the question. why were we ill prepared. why if they knew on december, why if they found ieds earlier in the morning, why were not the national guard here at the capitol, but they were running street signs down in the city?

who made that judgment? yes, sir? >> you said in your statement that republicans were, quote, set to pursue our own investigation of the facts. >> yes. >> what does that look off, firstly, and is this your final move, pulling your appointees, or is there a way to reverse this? >> the only way to reverse this is seat these five. that's the only way. but i will add to this, to be able to look at the challenge of what happened and answer those two questions, why were we ill prepared and make sure it never happens again. >> in addition to those questions, do you intend to look at why this happened? not the security failures, but why there was an attack on the capitol? what led up to it? >> we'll answer all the questions, yes. >> i want to know more specifically, what do you say to these families and officers, including officers that you met with about this? and more specifically, you know, many of them, they're just

frustrated. they see this as politics, but at the end of the day, you and the speaker are fingers at each other, so how does that help help. >> we'll make sure they're protected. we'll go through and get the answers. >> mr. leader, on may 20th in this room, i think you told us that you were prepared to testify about your conversation with president trump on the afternoon of january the 6th. do you still stand by that? >> my phone call is out there. the question is, you make a phone call after people are in the capitol to advise the president of what's going on doesn't get to the answer of why were we ill prepared. that's really playing politics. and it really shows that that's the issue they want to go to, of where they want to drive. we want to get all the answers. >> your ranking member, john catco, said the scope of the

bipartisan independent january 6th commission that he crafted had the ability to have a wider scope. outside of january 6th. and you still said no to that. and republican leaders still opposed it. what -- the question is, you know, what would you need to have it -- like, you know, you opposed the independent commission, like, what would it take for you to sip on to something, you know, similar to that? >> it's very easy. exactly what we said on the 13th of january, when pelosi played politics. make it just like 9/11. why was that decision made that the national guard were not here -- >> you said it was similar to it. >> let me answer the question. on december 14th, they became aware that there was a problem. they made a decision to have national guard without weapons down on the streets to do traffic, but not in the capitol. they found ieds earlier in the

morning. we had an officer killed beyond that day on good friday. but pelosi would only allow a scope this far. >> mr. leader, speaker pelosi didn't actually enumerate her rejections in her official notice about rejecting her members, but -- democrats told us that among the objections are that republican members recently were photographed with someone who was here and broke into the capitol on january 6th. and also, they complained -- >> they didn't say anything about that. >> this is something that we're being told as an issue. >> she said her members didn't want her to put this people on. >> can you speak to that idea -- >> i don't know what you're talking about. >> okay. and the idea that some of your words about needing an investigation of last summer's protests and riots that you say are -- >> let me be clear -- let me be clear. they shouldn't object to that. if they want a 9/11 commission, the 9/11 commission looked at september 11th, but they look

what built up and caused 9/11. should we not look at what built up and caused this? should we not question why the national guard was not allowed on to the capitol? should we not question why were capitol police not fully trained? you're putting their lives in danger. why were the riot gear stuck and locked in a bus down the street? we need these answers for these officers. we need to not ever put them in this place again. yes, sir? >> will the republican committee look at president trump's actions leading up to and on january 6th? >> we'll look at anything that built up of what caused this place to not be protected. and we'll look to make sure that it never happens again. yes, sir? >> sorry, it's my first presser. you mentioned mr. banks and mr. jordan not being allowed on -- but at the same time, given that

mr. jordan is a ranking member and mr. banks also is a leader of a large caucus, mr. davis is also -- or representative davis is also a ranking member and speaker pelosi didn't object to him. and representative nells also voted to object, along with representative banks and representative jordan. why do you think there was a difference between her objecting to representative banks and jordan as opposed to representative davis and -- >> i don't know, but she has raskin who objected and asked for an impeachment, too. i don't know if the objections matter, because her members have objected before. >> leader mccarthy, the large bus with the gear on it, that's a finding from the senate report. that's exactly what they -- >> yeah. >> -- investigated. what do you want to find out? who locked the bus? why didn't they have the gear there? >> wasn't the answer just they were incompetent? what more do we need to know

about it. >> what's the solution? weapon want to find solution. when you look at sheriff troy nells, 30 years of law enforcement. first, what did he do that day? he had been a member for three days. he's inside the chambers. people are breaking in. first, he joins other members and they barricade the door. people are breaking the glass. officers have their weapons drawn to protect from people coming in. a member for only three days. we didn't call him congressman that day, we called him sheriff. he looks through the glass, he didn't have a weapon, but he calms the situation. he talks to those on the other side. that's a leader. he sat through the entire senate report, he's laid out every chronological order of what has taken place. he used his own experience of being a sheriff for eight years, preparing for situations just as

what he was drawn into. and he has even more questions. that's why he wanted to serve. that's why we put him on. this is a microcosm of our conference. we have a right to name. but this is what nancy pelosi is denying. yes, ma'am? >> when you initially laid out your reasoning coming out against the bipartisan commission, you raised concerns about any additional investigations interfering with other federal investigations -- >> there's a concern there. now you're getting individuals that are, decisions being made, whether they're serving time or not. you don't want to interfere with that. the language mattered. from the very beginning, remember, i asked for a commission back in january, just like 9/11, pelosi played games all along the way. she had to deal with the scope and it was very clear of what we laid out. equal number, equal subpoena

power, equal scope and don't interfere with any law enforcements going forward. she could not agree to that and we watched today, even when the sides were separated, even when the power went to one, she went further than anyone's gone before. i think it's very clear to the american public, this is a sham, but we will make sure we will get to the real answers. thank you very much. >> should congressman cheney step down -- >> all right. we have been listening to house republican leader kevin mccarthy and the republican members that he recommended to the january 6th select committee react to this late-breaking decision by house speaker nancy pelosi to reject two of his suggested members. there's a lot to unpack. a lot to fact check, based on what we've just heard. and lucky for us, we have with us, nbc news capitol hill correspondent, leigh ann caldwell, mike memoli, and sahil kapur. and leigh ann, i was struck by the degree to which the number

of questions in that room reflected the fact that kevin mccarthy did not approve of the bipartisan commission that was suggested and that was voted on before the house speaker took steps to set up this select committee. so you could make arguments that this has unfolded in exactly the way that kevin mccarthy wanted. when the house speaker rejects them, he then says, i told you this was a partisan pursuit all along. >> reporter: yeah, jeff. one of the members on that select committee who is now no longer on that select committee, represent rodney davis, he told me a couple of weeks ago that the fact that republicans refused to go along with this non-partisan commission that republicans blocked, especially in the senate, that it was becoming republicans' worst nightmare, because now you go from this nonpartisan commission

to this partisan select committee that is run by the democrats, where republicans don't have a lot of control over it. i was just texting with some sources, some house republican sources on how this is going to play out. if this is short-term and long-term is going to be good for republicans, bad for republicans. and what i'm hearing back is that ultimately this is they think better for republicans, because they think it looks like a farce before it even began. and so that it looks like it is all pelosi's fault and that what republicans are going to say is that this is just a political exercise on behalf of the speaker. so, you know, we'll have to wait and see how voters and how the public responds, but this was dangerous for republicans to participate anyway. they didn't want to, and now it looks like they're not going to at this moment, anyway. >> help us understand why the

house speaker rejected jim banks and jim jordan. she didn't want them to serve on this committee. >> she said that she surveyed her members and her members had a lot of concerns with those two. they point to the fact that a statement that representative banks put out monday night after he was selected to lead the republican portion of this committee, where he was talking about, again, this is just politics, that this is an exercise of authoritarianism on the left, he says, and similar with representative jordan, as well. they've always had a lot of concerns with representative jordan. he was the leader of two former -- the first -- the only two, i should say, impeachment proceedings of the former president. and so they didn't think that they had good faith in this exercise and so that's where they're coming from. what's interesting, though, is leader mccarthy was really trying to turn the tables in his

press conference, saying he didn't support the original idea of a commission, because speaker pelosi didn't want to expand the scope, and the scope that he was talking about was, he wanted to include the racial justice protest from last summer to be included and be investigated, but there is no equivalent and those are not the same things of telling people over and over again that an election was stolen, and motivating those people to come here to the capitol to take their government back. so speaker pelosi rejected that and leader mccarthy says that they are going to do their own investigation, and that's part of what they're going to look into. jeff? >> and sahil, is there even a mechanism for that, for the republicans to do an investigation of their own, as kevin mccarthy says? >> not formally, jeff. it won't be an official house of representatives investigation, but sure, the minority can put a few members in a room and investigate whatever they want. they can put out the report, you know, they can go to their preferred media sources and talk about it.

they can write press releases, i suspect that's what's going to happen. at the end of the day, the results in all of this, jeff, is that both parties seem to be getting pretty much what they wanted. republicans never really wanted to investigate the january 6th attack. it's a politically awkward subject for them, because the simple reality is, it was supporters of former president trump who violently attacked the capitol. and senator mccarthy in particular has hugged the former president closely. he believes that is his path to becoming speaker of the house, he believes a year and a half from now after the 2022 elections. and democrats had made clear from the start, they were going to investigate this with or without republicans. democrats did prefer it be a bipartisan committee. they did make concessions that both parties would have bye-in and it would be a 9/11-style commission that everyone can point to and look at and say, he's the official version of what happened. but at the end of the day, mac

mccarty did choose to stand by his members. he's absolutely correct about that. whatever you think of jim jordan, he has quite a bit of support there. he used to be associated with the far-right fringes of the house gop, but he is now the ranking member on the house judiciary committee. jim banks chairs a group called republican study committee, which is aiming to push the caucus in a more conservative direction. so mccarthy made a decision that he had to stand by them and looks like this committee will have to go forward with the eight appointees from speaker pelosi. that includes seven democrats and one republican, liz cheney, who is an outspoken critic of the former president. >> and sahil, i was just going to make that point. they have a quorum and the house speaker gets to say, this is a bipartisan committee. i think her decision to appoint liz cheney to that group now

seems prescient. say what you want about nancy pelosi, but she's certainly not new to politics. the first hearing they'll have tuesday at 9:30, this moves forward, right? >> it does. democrats had made clear right from the beginning, from the day they appointed their eight members that they had a quorum and they were not going to let any kind of delays or foot dragging by kevin mccarthy stop them from doing their work. their first hearing is next tuesday. they'll hear from a couple of members from the capitol police and d.c. metro police trying to defend against that attack. that was always going to happen. it looked over the last few days like it was going to happen with the republican members, especially because speaker pelosi initially kept the door open to allowing these five to take their seats, simply by saying, the vote to object to counting electors was not an

inherent disqualifier for those members. three of them voted to object to biden-won elector observe that evening. it turns out pelosi's reason for rejecting them was different. it was not because of their votes, it was about negotiations that she believed they had that were linked in some way form or fashion to that attack that she believed were unacceptable. and it seemts like the democratic caucus is supportive. >> we'll put a pin in this for a second and talk about the other big story on capitol hill. there's just so much news coming from across the street right now. this is about the vote that's expected to happen in the upper chamber on infrastructure. some time this hour if it's not started already, there'll be this test vote to move forward on this bipartisan infrastructure framework. it's widely expected to fail, but that won't be the end of the road for this infrastructure push, leigh ann. bring us up to speed. >> reporter: that's right, jeff.

this test vote needs the support of 60 senators, so that means 10 republicans, and we don't expect 10 republicans to vote for this. the reason is because they say they are still in the throes of negotiating their bipartisan infrastructure package and they don't want to vote to start this morose. this is not a vote on final legislation. this is just a vote to open up debate and start the process. and they say they're not willing to do it until they have a agreement and they have seen legislative texts. they've worked through the night and working all day today to try to finalize that, but they seem like they're going to hold firm on that position and they're really pushing leader schumer to hold off on that vote and visit on monday. they think they'll be wrapped up by monday, but this is a test vote and we'll see where it goes.

schumer has indicated that he'll likely bring it up again, so it won't be the end of these bipartisan attacks. it's just meant to put a lot of pressure on these negotiators to get things done. and some could argue that perhaps it did. because they are very close to finalizing those last details, jeff. >> i'm going to ask you three to stand by. mike memoli, i promise i'll get to you. but i want to bring in now tammy baldwin. thanks for your patience this afternoon. senator schumer in explaining why he's pushing ahead with this fest vote today said, we waited a month, it's time to move forward. how concerned you that republicans are simply trying to run out the clock. obstruct the bipartisan infrastructure framework and obstruct the democrats' only proposal focused on social spending? >> so we are kplitcommitted to g to advance both the bipartisan infrastructure measure?

the first stage of our budget reconciliation before the august recess begins or stay in washington if that is necessary to get that done. there are limited remaining legislative days and we have got to move forward. a lot of this is just lost on my wisconsin constituents who are so excited about the opportunity to really not only rebuild our crumbling surface transportation infrastructure, but make it stronger and more resilient in the light of extreme weather events we've been seeing. the pandemic taught us how important and a lifeline broadband access is. and they just want to see us work together to make progress

on these issues. there's already a bipartisan commitment to doing so. we should just move this afternoon to the debate and get started to we can finish by the end of this month. >> yeah. well, mitt romney says there are at least ten republicans who would vote for the bipartisan infrastructure deal, if a deal comes together next week. that's a big "if." based on your own conversations with your colleagues, do you think that's right? do you think there are at least ten republican votes to get to 60? >> i think that there are ten republican vote. frankly, infrastructure throughout history has been a very bipartisan issue. and i believe that they're not still negotiating, really. they're just getting their framework drafted into bill language. that's the only thing we're waiting on. and we might as well start debating what's about to be

before us. so we can dispatch with it expeditiously. you know, one of the things that i fear that those who aren't supporting this bipartisan are doing is trying to slow walk this, to try to make it impossible for us to get all of the work done that we need to done before the august recess and by september. so we have to hold their feet to the fire and you can't finish a bill without starting it. this is the first step. let's start our debate! >> fair enough. tammy baldwin, great to see you. i want to bring back mike memoli, sahil kapur, and leigh ann caldwell. mike, give us a sense of what president biden is up to today in ohio as he makes this sales pitch for the infrastructure bill we've been talking about,

the infrastructure proposal. and i also understand that the white house has released a statement about everything that's been happening with this january 6th select committee. bring us much speed on that front, too. >> reporter: i'll start there. while you were speaking to the senator a few moments ago, i have got this statement saying that the president has made clear that the events of january 6th deserve an investigation to make sure it never happens again. that just in, reacting to the speaker's decision to veto some of the members on that select committee is entirely in keeping with how this white house has approached this entire thing. the president could have established a presidential commission on the events of january 6th, but the white house's standard line has been that they are deferring to the speaker. they say the congress itself was the best forum for this investigation to occur.

there are areas where there are incredibly close elaboration wean the president, between the congressional leadership, but there are areas where the white house is incredibly deferential to the speaker. we might have one of our colleagues to see if the president himself will weigh in on this question. interest as you also talk about the vote ahead today on his infrastructure agenda. the president's response this development but also what he's doing today when there is such a key development on capitol hill speaks to the white house's strategy here. he is doing, when we have one of the most arcane, congressional procedures, a debate to hope debate on a piece of legislation, the president leaving washington to speak directly to the american people. he's coming to a very conspicuous state.

he's land in the home country of mitch mcconnell and drive across a bridge to get here to cincinnati. he'll be meeting with some of his union allies before he prps in a televised town hall to speak directly to the american people. this is the president deferring to congress to run the affairs of the congress while he speaks at a much higher level directly to the american people about his agenda. but likely, also, his strong reaction to how republicans in his view have handled the events of january 6th. >> and it's his third trip to ohio as president if memory serves. look, we told you, it's a very busy news day here in washington. we're also following breaking news out of the pentagon this morning. chairman of the joint chiefs mark milley just appeared at a pentagon briefing. it's one of the first time we've seen general milley since the release of several new books written about the trump administration. and those books revealed a number of new details about the trump/milley relationship, including milley's concern that

president trump would attempt a coup to stay in office. and there's also that reporting about disagreements between trump and milley about how to handle the protests around the police killing of george floyd. general milley was asked about the reporting in those books at the pentagon press conference he declined to elaborate. >> i'm not going to comment on what's in any of those books. let me just say this, though. i always, personally, provided the best military professional advice to president trump previously to president biden or any other president. we take an oath, an oath to a document, an oath to the constitution of the united states and not one time did we violate that. >> joining us now is nbc news pentagon correspondent, courtney kube. it's not surprising to me that general milley, who wouldn't comment through a spokesperson, he's certainly not going to comment standing behind the podium in the pentagon press briefing room. tell us more how he handled

questions about allegations laid out now in a number of these books? >> reporter: that's right. we weren't expecting him to come out and say, that's right, i stand behind everything in those books. he went a little further than we expected. he pointed out, some of the sound we just heard, that at no point did he or the joint chiefs violate their oaths to the constitution. he also shade that they maintained the tradition of an apolitical military. but that's really the point that some critics have been zeroing in on these allegations and with these quotes that have been attributed back to general milley. that's for the chairman of the joint chiefs, a role that is supposed to be purely apolitical, that if, in fact, these comments that are attributed to him are correct and some of these actions that he took during the transition period from president trump to president biden, if they are correct, then he really was pulling the military more into

politics than many if not all of his predecessors. and i tried to zero in on that with him and say, what do you say to the rank and file that it is so important that the political remain apolitical when some of these comments really draw you into politics. he would not talk about that >> i asked him specifically, you know, you've not discussed any of these comments, you're declining to comment, so by extension, the american public and the members of the military must believe, well, these comments must be true if he's not denying them. he wouldn't touch that either. secretary of defense lloyd austin also chimed in on this and defended general milley's character. the big takeaway here, general milley is not denying these

stories about him and the joint chiefs resigning, potentially resigning over actions that president trump may take. the concerns about a coup. he's not denying any of that and he did not deny it again today, jeff. >> courtney kube, thank you for bringing us the latest from the pentagon. >> coming up next, the latest trump ally to face charges. tom barrack accused of. influencing foreign policy and his obstruction. we'll dig into his indictment, coming up next. n. we'll dig into his indictment, coming up next catch! mio. thank you! water tastes like, well...water. so we fixed it. mio. 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. ♪ ♪ it's a new day. and it's coming at you fast. k it could be the dayyour fa your workforce doublesion.

or the day your visitors quadruple. with comcast business you'll be ready with the flexibility to control multiple wifi networks from anywhere— all on the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. get started with internet and voice for just $64.90 a month. plus, for a limited time, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card when you upgrade. call today.

this afternoon, there are new developments in a story that was just breaking as we were on the air here yesterday. that's the arrest and indictment of los angeles billionaire tom barrack. a longtime ally of donald trump who served as the chairman of trump's 2017 inaugural committee. now, barrack is accused of secretly conspiring to influence u.s. policy to benefit the united arab emirates. both before and after trump was

elected president. now, prosecutors said he also provided uae officials with sensitive information from inside the trump administration. beyond all of that, he's charged with obstruction of justice and making multiple false statements to the fbi. now, prosecutors told the court that the evidence against barrack is overwhelming and that he poses a serious flight risk. joining us now are nbc news investigations correspondent, tom winter, ken vogel, and new york law school professor and former manhattan assistant district attorney, rebecca royfee. this is just the latest trump ally accused of similar crimes. what more can you tell us about what he's accused of and what it means that you have a foreign country secretly paying a close friend of the former president for influence, allegedly, and the public doesn't know about this financial arrangement? >> the whole point of the idea of registering as a foreign agent, jeff, is that you do give a heads up to the public and to

the department of justice that you are working on behalf of another country or another nation. it is completely legal in the united states to be paid to lobby on behalf of another country and to try to push forward that country's interests in what they're trying to get writ becomes a problem is where you fail to register. and in this case, it's actually even a little bit more different from that, because his whole thing here is not just that he represented a specific entity or a specific enterprise, it's that he was acting as an agent on behalf of the united air rapp emirates, the government. so that's even a little bit more serious. and i think that's something important for us to remember. look, the president here in some respects, and just based on the filings we've seen so far. we'll get more details about h case. the president is the victim here. and same with the rest of the trump white house. there does not appear, at this point at least, to be any indication that they knew that

barrack was all--in on team uae, according to these charging documents. i think that's something that we need to keep in mind. as far as this case going forward, we mentioned that tom barrack was called a flight risk by federal for thes yesterday. he's in jail right now and he's going to stay there until monday when they have another bail hearing. prosecutors out of brooklyn, new york, where this case originated from have told the judge in california that they want him to stay detained until he could come to new york, a a very minimum because of the private airplanes that he has. he's a citizen of lebanon. he has ties to the united arab emirates and saudi arabia. all three of those countries don't have an extradition agreement to the u.s. >> rebecca, these foreign agent laws have been on the books since before world war ii, but rarely enforced until now. so what accounts for that and

explain what is so serious, particularly as laid out in this case. >> this particular law that he's charged under was actually enacted in 1948, but it's part of that assignment series of laws. and as we were talking about, it really has to do with being a foreign agent of a government entity, as opposed to working for some kind of foreign entity or business or something like that. they are extremely important because, what they require, it's like a prophylactic rule to make sure the public and department g run by american-elected officials, not by some foreign government and that the foreign government isn't able to serve of a misinformation campaign, propaganda or any kind of effort to turn the u.s. into its own puppet, and i think the reason why these are being enforced so much more now is because of the internet, pause of the

sophisticated methods of getting messages across. it's become much easier to run these misinformation campaigns and propaganda campaigns that give foreign governments an unusual amount, a disproportionate amount of control over what's happening with the american government. >> ken, having covered the trump campaign, i remember what a big deal it was when tom barrack came out in support of donald trump because he was the first big, you know, money guy to lend his stamp of approval to donald trump, and as it turns out he was also person who helped to recruit paul manafort to join the trump campaign, but on this issue, the ways in which barrack used his friendship to influence and shape u.s. policy, i want to read to you some reporting from your own paper, the "new york times," and it says this. once mr. trump was elected, they said mr. barrack invited senior emirati officials to give him a wish list of foreign policy moves they wanted washington to make within the first 100 days. first six month and first year and by the end of mr. trump's terms, prosecutors said.

among other key emirati objectives mr. barrack pushed for the trump administration not to hold a summit with qatar, a rival persian gulf power that was under blockade, that the emirates and saudi arabia, an emirati alabamay had organized. >> he definitely had influence in the trump administration in pushing the interest of the united arab emirates, but to what effect is still unclear. you know, some of that didn't happen and it was envisioned and the uae opposed and there were talks about ended that blockade and resolving that dispute between the uae, saudi arabia and qatar, and so maybe he wasn't successful there. some of the other things he pushed for, a big nuclear deal, did not go through, but, you know, to be able to try the case

and get an indictment and potentially a conviction you don't necessarily need to show that he was successful. to the law professor's point you just need to show that he tried and that he was acting on behalf of a foreign agent. there's certainly ample documentary evidence in this document that suggest that the prosecutors could have a strong case to that effect and take a picture here, jeff. you mentioned his role on the trump campaign. he really personifies the sort of blurry line between lobbying on the one hand, business on the other hand. he is firm, did about $1.5 billion worth of business with the united arab emirates during the time in question in the indictment and then -- and then politics on the other hand. he's running the campaigns, so you see this sort of murky set of rules and this to me is what these foreign lobbying rules are intended to clamp down on. >> good point.

my thanks to the three of you. we're going to turn now to the jarring news from public health officials today revealing that u.s. life expectancy fell by a year and a half in 2020. that is the largest one-year decline since world war ii. no surprise, the cdc says, is mainly due to covid. more than 3.3 million americans died last year, far more than any other year in recorded history, and with that as a sobering backdrop let's bring in cal perry and former obama health official and msnbc contributor dr. patel. i would like to read from an alabama newspaper. there's a doctor there who says all but up of her covid patients did not receive the vaccine, and the vaccinated patient, she said, just needed a little oxygen. this is a quote. i'm admitting young healthy people to the hospital with very serious covid infections.

one of the last things they do before they are intubated is beg me for the vaccine. i hold their hand and tell them that i'm sorry but it's too late. so dr. patel. is there anything that's going to convince unvaccinated people before they get to that point, before the point where it's just too late? >> yeah, jeff, perfect question. that's actually what we're seeing playing out in the real clinical world now. you're seeing 20-year-old, 25-year-old who are watching other young people being hospitalized because they also saw friends and peers and they are scared and that's appropriate to come in and then ask about the vaccine, so i do think having people who kind of look like you or are at least you know of, friends of friends, that, unfortunate events happen to the unvaccinated people can influence people to come in and get vaccinated as soon as possible. >> so cal, you're in pasadena, which is, what, like half an hour away from los angeles where officials risch ewing their own

order requiring masks in public places, so what's happening there? >> yeah. look, pasadena is part of l.a. county, but like long beach it has its own health department. they make their own decisions here. 150,000 people live in pasadena and the numbers, this is a numbers game for the health officials. 10 million people live in greater los angeles. 4 million of them have not been vaccinated. 4 million people without vaccinations, and you look at the numbers and this will earn can doctors everywhere. since july 1st here in pasadena a 240% increase in cases and doubling the hospitalizations. while the number of folks in hospitals is still low, that percentage is rising. it's that crunch on the health system that has people worried so that's why pass deepa is announcing this indoor mask mandate like l.a. county. it will be interesting to see if this spreads certainly across the state of california, bay area, five counties are recommending a mask ordinance, not mandating it and the same thing in sacramento. two counties up there are

recommending a mask ordinance. i'll chime in on the combination of vaccines and tell you 92% of the new cases, 98% of the hospitalations in l.a. county are coming from unvaccinated individuals. take that for what you will, but that's more evidence that these vaccinations are working and keeping people out of hospital. this truly is, at least in l.a. county, a story and a pandemic for unvaccinated folks. >> dr. patel, we've talked today and we've talked previously about, you know, what is it going to take to get the vaccine hesitant on board? and it appears, you know, republican commentators and republican lawmakers are changing their tune on this. take a look at there. >> theis shots need to get in everybody's arm as rapidly as possible or we'll be pack in a situation in the fall that we don't yearn for that we went through last year. >> i'm very concerned about vaccine hesitancy among anybody. republicans as it turns out are

the most hesitant group so that's the group we must be concerned. >> please take covid seriously. i can't say it enough. enough people have died. we don't need anymore deaths and it makes sense for many more americans to get vaccinated. i believe in science and in the science of vaccinated. >> i've been vaccinated and many of my colleagues have been vaccinated and it's safe, effective and widely available all across the united states of america for anybody who wants to get it. >> mitch mcconnell has been encouraging vaccines all along. it's been a different story obviously for the fox news personalities but in your former capacity as a public health official for the obama administration is this too little too late, do you think? >> well, definitely never too late as cal is covering these hospitalizations and deaths, but i do worry too later, jeff, because i don't know that the vaccine hesitant are looking to mitch mcconnell as guidance and certainly sean hannity and the media will help a lot. we need a forest of the voices.

we have tucker carlson and others who are legitimizing lies and it really is too little. you need a lot more noise on the side of science than what we're seeing playing out on the ground. >> you're connecting to us from a helicopter. what are you experiencing in terms of your vrp workday. >> we're getting people who are work hesitant, not anti-vaxxers, but they were hesitant and they are coming in and asking for the vaccine and when i ask why do you want, it just curious, they said look, someone owes grant mother, someone's aunt, sister got infection the with the if -- >> we've seen unvaccinated people going to the emergency room and kind of a trauma for us

on the health care stuff. we're bracing for what's going to happen but we hopefully can get it over here that will do it for me today. ayman mohyeldin picks up our coverage right now. good afternoon, everyone. i'm ayman mohyeldin in new york on what is shaping up to be a very busy day on capitol hill. house republican leader kevin mccarthy saying republicans will not take part in the january 6th select committee unless all of his picks are seated. he blasted house speaker nancy pelosi for blocking two of his choices for the panel, ohio congressman jim jordan and indiana congressman jim banks. the. >> 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. >> and for her par