i don't know, it's definitely gremlins. this is always been a backup plan, and cases studio goes kaput. tonight it did, so here we are. again, nothing to worry about. other than the fact nothing to . other than the fac nothing the matter with it except that my lighting makes my head look like richard nixon or the great pumpkin. as you know, president biden held a conference on the start of the second year in office he took questions for almost a at his press conference he warned president putin he'll regret the consequences, but provocatively biden said he thinks putin will try it in

ukraine. again, he said putin will regret it if he does it, but if he had to guess, he thinks he will. president biden said he's not giving up on voting rights. he said it was unthinkable effectively that zero republicans support voting rights puanymore, something tha at least until recently had been a fairly bipartisan thing. he said what republicans are trying to do with election subversion efforts, he said that absolutely poses a riske of delegitimiing future elections onin purpose. interestingly he also said this about the recent reporting on republicans in multiple states, forging fake m certificates of electors, trying to get them the electoral college. this is something we've been reporting on a lot recently. the president referred to it today in his press conference. >> i never thought we'd get a new place where we were talking

about what they tried to do the last time out, send different electors to the state legislative bodies to represent the election, saying that i didn't win, but republican candidate won. i doubt anybody ever thought that would happen in america in the 21st century, but it's happening. >> but it's happening. president biden today saying in effect nobody would have believed they would try to do this stuff to our elections, sending in fake state of ee lengths to try to cast college votes for the losing candidate. hevo said it's unimaginable tha they would have tried this. but, hey, as unimaginable that they would have tried very recently, they did, and that is where we are. debate on voting rights has been frenetic including this sort of interesting decision,

interesting spectacle in which democratic senator joe manchin got up and made his anantivotin rights speech while bind was giving his conference. i'm sure that was purely co-ins den stall. i don't know. we're going go check on the progress in just a moment. we had to make a late adjustment to the show in addition to me broadcasting from hometo becaus when it rains, it pours. tonight we did get a big cannon bawl of news from the united states supreme court. an 8 to 1 ruling against donald trump in trying to prevent the january 6th committee from gathering documents. eight to one. only justice clarence thomas would have sided with trump.

the other three that trump supported to the court, they came down against himhe on this. this d is a pretty straightforwd saying. i don't want you to trust me entirely on this. i'm going to get an expert who you can absolutely trust. as far as i can see, the straight throughline is pretty straightforward.li ipr will happily stand correcte ifwi i'm oversimplifying this, t as i understand it, it basically started this past summer, august last year, the january 6th investigators started to make not enormous but pretty wide, significant requests from the trump white house. not millions of pages but hundreds of pages, potentially thousands of pages. we know from court filings that the documents they wanted to see included things like draft speeches and talking points for communicating to the public about the election. one of their requested documents

that always seemed particularly worrying to me is this one, a, quote, draft executive order concerning election integrity. also this one, quote, a document containing presidential findings concerning the security of the 2020 election after it occurred and ordering various actions. i haveri no idea what that mean. ordering various actions? but i would love to see it or actually more accurately i would love for the january 6th investigators to see it. so we do have these in some cases fairly specific descriptions of court documents that the investigators have been trying to seek. former president trump, you know what happened next. he invoked the concept of executivece privilege. he said these documents the committee was looking for should

not be handed over to them. that's it. he's no longer the sitting president. president biden is. it's only thees sitting preside who gets to wield that privilege. he said, no, it's not privileged. it can be handed over to the january 6th investigators. it was then trump sued, last october, to stop the documents from being give on the the investigation, and on a timeline that was remoorkably quick moving for the federal court system, he sued in october. in november, the first federal court judge ruled against him, ruled that thet documents coul be give on theru the investigators. again, he sued in october. the district court judge in d.c. ruling in november. trump appealed that to the d.c. court of appeals am three-seat panel of judges from the appeals court ruled unanimously against him.

this is incredibly quick for the federal court system these days. now, trumphe then had a choice after that three-judge panel of the d.c. circuit court of appeals turned him down. he could have appealed en banc, which means he could have asked not just that three-seat judge panel but the whole d.c. court to take another look, but he skipped that step and decided to go straight to the united states supreme court. hest appealed to the united stas supreme court. he also filed an emergency application with them to get them to -- before they handled the substance of the matter, tried to get them to weigh in to block this. it's that emergency application in to the united states supreme court that we got the 8 to 1 supreme court ruling.

one who writes quickly about these is josh gerstein. i want to know why they think the ruling may be the most significant moment yet for the january 6th select committee investigating the attack on the capitol. i'm no law year here. the title of the document is "an application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review." those are all words that i understand individually and alone, but i do not necessarily understand them when they're all put in that order. said, i think the basics here are fairly straightforward, but i do have some questions, for which i think weue need some expert hel. the first question i have, probably the same one you have, is this it? is this it? i mean trump was waiting -- he

filed a supreme court order. what we just got tonight from the court is a clear 8 to 1 no to trump, but it's also a ruling in response to his emergency application for a stay, right?a which is a different thing than just a ruling on his case. so how should we understand that, particularly us nonlawyers. maybe to nonlawyers, not so. does that mean his impact is more limited either in terms of duration or in terms of what documents it applies to? bottom line, is this going to be the last word from the united states supreme court on this issue or is there something else we're going to wait to hear from him on? that, i feel like, is the basic question we needed advice on. ised this it? the january 6th investigatoret

put out a statement tonight saying, quote, the select committee has already begun to receive records that they had hoped to keep hidden. they say in response -- in a very - short amount of time -- very short amount of time having elapsed, they're already getting documents. does this mean they're going to get them all? does this mean they're ohm going to get some selection of them and gthere's ruling yet to be made on the rest of them? if they are going to get them all, when? howm fast does this happen? especially since it looks like it's starting to happen tonight. joining us now to help sort me out t on some of these issues i linda greenhouse. she's a long time court reporter and an intellectualist as well. her book is "justice on the brink." linda greenhouse, i'm always grateful when you can be here and for being here on short nigh

it is. thank you. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> let me just ask -- >> please. >> the document artist of the united states who took issue that said, yes, this stuff is releasable but i'm not going to release it until i can make sure the court is not going to stop me. that's why they were all coming out tonight.me this isin it for that bunch of documents. i think it's 700-some-odd pages. there are a bunch of documents that the archivalist hasn't gone through, but certainly the opinion that came down, the unsigned opinion is just one paragraph. one paragraph long. it could be one of the most important one paragraphs that we've seen in a very long time from the court. >> and as you mentioned, this would appear to apply to about 700-some-odd pages that the

archivist had come to handling it. the types of claims that he has made with the courts in trying to block the handing over of these documents, does this ruling settle them all? i mean the archivist may have something else as to the privilege claims trump is making, but wille this apply t all the documents? >> well, i think that's a fair guess, although, the technical matter, not yet. but what a court does when it asks for an emergency action like this is stay an injunction. it balances the two sides, the need that the app can't is putting forward, and trump says it's my right as president to have this executive privilege

claim and the compelling need on the circuit side. there's a compelling need on the other side as shown by the fact that congress is asking for this material, and president, the incumbent president has weighed any kind of executive privilege. so it was a combination. in other words, it was the entire w architecture of the government and the current white house saying, yes, this is releasable. the supreme court did something kind of interesting in his unsigned opinion. interpreted detective took one took one way of reading it in saying it doesn't matter that trump is theformer president, being the incumbent. it doesn't matter that president biden, they incumbent has waved

any kind of privilege. in what way either an incumbent or former president was making this claim or privilege, it wouldn't hold up. it's not strong enough, good enough to overcome the c compelling public need to get this material. the supreme court said we're not deciding whether trump had a more orng less of a right. that's not the case. we leave intact the d.c. circuit's finding that he didn't have a right to get it, no matter what title he was cloaked in when he made the claim. >> and, linda, one of the other things wene have watched unfold over the past few months, a lot of people have received s&ps from the january 6th investigation. most people have complied. but a bunch of them have sued the january 6th committee, some of themh echoing the privilege claims that trumpth was pursuin

in thetr courts that as you kno appear to have been cut off at the knees by the supreme court's unsigned ruling tonight. do you expect that this rule willing have sort of cascaing implications for the other people who have sued the committee to try w to avoid testifying or handing over documents? >> iha would certainly think so. i mean if i were any of those people, i would not be sleeping very easily tonight. now, i suppose someone could make a claim that, well, there was a compelling public need for the kind of documents, rachel, that you showed on the screen earlier, but, you know, i'm just a little fish, and there's nothing compelling with my role in this, so the subpoenas overthrow the s&ps unjustified, that kind of thing. certainly we've seen subpoenas from the court all the way up, the justices taking a very dim view of any kind of claim of privilege here.y so i think this will really kind

of turn on the faucet of being able to t find out more about wt happened on january 6th. >> wow. linda greenhouse, supreme court reporter and analyst for "the new york times,"st lecture ter yale law school.rk linda, again, i really appreciate you agreeing to be here on short notice, this momentous short ruling. thanks for being here. all right. you know, all day long yesterday and all day long today and live right now as we speak, the united states senate has been debating, democratic legislation, on protection of voting rights and block unanimous results. the question at hand is whether democrats as they say would go nuclear and allow themselves to pass these voting rights protections with a simple majority vote. and i'll tell you. i was just looking back today when republicans were the

majority in the senate and trump was inna office. during that time, right, republican senator mitch mcconnell is running the senate, trump is in the white house, during that time, mitch mcconnell and the senate republicans went nuclear and decided it would be a majority vote only, 50 votes only to confirm supreme court nominees. then mitch mcconnell went nuclear another time and said it would be 50 votes needed for lower executive branch nominees. then he went nuclear a third time and decided he would change the filibuster rule and there would only have to be a majority vote 50rks-vote threshold for federal district court judges. even since biden has been president, the united states has decided to go nuclear to require a majority vote on a bill to fund the government last year. they also g did it, went nuclea

decided majority, 50 votes, for aot random vote that didn't go anywhere about vaccine requirements. we use the phrase "go nuclear" because it's like end of the world, terms of destruction. it turns out they go nuclear all the time. it turns out they feel 50-vote majority is enough that we can't have a 60-vote majority for a particular amendment or vote. they do that all the time now, teen snarkts even when republicans wererk in control wh trump in there white house. it happens all the time. butns democratic senators joe manchin and kyrsten sinema keep saying that this wouldky be an unprecedented thing to do even thoughen that's absolutely not true. they justte keep saying that wot do it for voting rights. tonight in the senate, they're not even voting to go nuclear like they have on so many other issues in ther recent past.

tonightes they're vote tong narrowest possible way to do this, ana rule to require a talking filibuster, a physical effort to speak and hold the floor for a long time if you want a voting righting specifically, and v presumably senator manchin and cinema will vote making that change, too, but just in case, vice president kamala harris is presiding over it right now and she is available if she has to weigh in. all night they've been going back and forth. republican senator tom cotton of arkansas at one point tried to say democrats were hypocriting because he read a letter from 2017 in which several democratic senators said they supported keeping the filibuster as it is. one of the senators who signed that letter is new hampshire democratic senator maggie

hassett who's talked on our show a few times including last night. after senator cottonud invoked r and the other democratic senators who signed that letter, senator hassan actually got up for an impromptu response. this is really interesting. watch. >> i know i was not scheduled to speak, but i do want to respond as one of the signatories of the letter. i associate myself with the have talked about in terms of wanting to restore the senate's tradition of extended debate on issues of grave importance to the american people, but let me be clear about the reason that i now support an adjustment to the long-standing rules of the senate. it's because i never imagined when i signed that letter that not a single member of the republican party would stand up for our democracy since january

6th when we saw an acceleration of state laws that would allow partisans to overturn the impartial count of an election, but if we do not have a functioning democracy where people know that when they vote, that vote will be impartially upheld and people will accept a defeat so they can have an accountable elected representation in washington, then there is no democracy. and when i signed that letter, i never imagined that today's republican party would fail to stand up for democracy. >> new hampshire senator maggie hassan with impassioned remarks today in the united states senate. i never imagined that today's republican party would fail to stand up for democracy. when president biden was giving

his press conference this afternoon as i mentioned earlier, democratic senator joe manchin chose that moment to get up on the senate floor to defend his decision to block voting rights with t republicans. gave that ly he speech in front ofic a big sign that he and his staff made that said the united states senate has neverha been able to end debate with a simple majority, implying that what democrats are trying to do in terms of having a majority vote on voting rights is implying, stating there that it's completely unheard of. thisit kind of thing has never been done before. that is deeply, deeply wrong. deeply epahistorical and wrong. it's just not true. but don't take it from me. here was senator amy klobuchar of minnesota speaking in part in response. >> there are 160 exceptions, 160

exceptions to the filibuster rule. things have been changed to benefit my colleague from the other side offi the aisle. somehow it only takes 51 votes to put in place the trump tax cuts or the bush tax cuts. somehow it only took 51 votes to put amy coney barrett on the supreme court of the united states, a change by them, made by them. somehow it only takes 51 votes to try to overturn a regulation or try to mess around with the affordable care act. but then when it comes to something like voting rights, suddenly everyone on the other side of the aisle is hugging that filibuster tight, knowing that so many times in history, including most recently with the debt ceiling, changes have been made to allow a vote with less than 60 votes. the national gas policy act in 1977, in 1995, the endangered

species act, in 1996, a change to the reconciliation process. 160 times. >> i think by voting this down, by not allowing us to even debate this to get to the conclusion of a vote, that is silencing the people of america all in the name of an archaic senate rule that isn't've anyone the constitution. that's just wrong. i yield the floor. >> all ini the name of an archc senate rule that isn't even in the constitution. joining us now live is the senior senator from the great state of minnesota, senator amy klobuchar. senator, i know you're in the think of it.of thanks for giving us a moment, giving us your perspective. >> thank you, rachel. >> tell us what happened tonight? >> first of all, thank you for playing that clip of maggie hassan. i love maggie hassan.

she stood up and made the case like no one else could. first we made a vote to get on the mbill, and both manchin an sinema whobo are co-sponsors of the bill that we worked with them all summer on t freedom to vote act they've been leading, they did vote for that, because they do support the bill. i think it's important for people to know. now there's going to be the second vote, and that is where the argument really pivots because to me if you're serious about voting rights and you so well pointed out, rachel, how many times there's been exceptions, and i note 160 times we've changed the process. i could even add to that compensation for victims of space accidents that we changed the numbers for. >> wow. >>e you can go through history and it's replete with examples. why? because senators wanted to get things e done, because they cam to washington d to do things. and when they saw an obstacle in

their path, still allowing the filibuster to stay in place, they made practical changes to get things done. sometimes on small things, but sometimes onll really, really b things like r supreme court justices, which mitch mcconnell did, like the bush and trump tax cuts, the trump tax cuts, the recent ones for the wealthy, all on 51-vote margins. >> senator klobuchar, you have beenbu telling this history in various waysen throughout the debate and particularly as the debate has p become more and mo heated and focused on this point. i find myself frustrated by the assertion from senator manchin and from senator sinema that it would be unprecedented that it's never been done ntbefore, that there's nothing in history that can have a 50-vote threshold for voting on a bill like this. like it would be something that you would need to be able to

move mountains. i wonder if you have any perspective on. this clearlyu you know the history. clearly senator manchin didn't just say it. he put up a board on the floor giving a statement about this. i wonder how you and your colleagues are handling this. >> we keep making case. i think we're pretty sure how this is going to end tonight. but what's been important for me is that we have every other senator on board. you know, your viewers should know, we have an election coming up. neither of those two are coming up, but there are strong possibilities forth taking over senate seats across the country. if we get to 52, that's a whole different ball game when it comes to the senate rules and getting this done. your viewers should know that we have a justice department filled with people like anita gupta and christa clark who are committed to supporting the voting rights act and the bills that are right now on the books. we're going to be mobilizing in

state legislatures across the country. we're going to a be working to fund elections, something we can do with mail-in ballots and the like. there is so much work we can do including fixing the electoral clnl. none of it, i want to make clear, , rachel, why we worked hard this year, up in of it would have related to the freedom ofd right act. that would havee put the standards in the law. everyone knows what's happening here. get writ of same-day registration in montana. it's been in place for 15 years. get rid of registration during the last month, the runoff period in georgia. 70,000 people registered that time. those thingspl were put into la with what one court described as another voting rights suppression law as surgical precision. we're going to continue to see that, and i will not give up this fight. >> minnesota senator amy klobuchar. a busy night for you and your colleagues. thank you for helping us

understand it and other things. >>de rachel, martin luther king jr. once said disappointment is fine night but hope is not. let's not forget that. >> thank you. good luck tonight. we've got much more to get to on this busy night again. i apologize for the set here looking a little different than it usually does. it's not a set.it it's my house. technical gremlins. nothing weird going on other than technical gremlins am full show going on tonight. late-breaking decisions. huge filing overnight in the trump family business case that's being pursued as a civil matter in new york state. there's lots going on. big show. still lots to come. stay with us. big show still lots to come still lots to come stay with us and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps?

the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner.

and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

we have a quote here. -- they were based on the assertion that the triplex apartment was 30,000 square feet in size. the actual size of trump's apartment was only 10,996 square feet. he lied about the actual square footage of his apartment, and not a little bit. not like he added an extra room.

he said it was three times as big as it actually was. if you're thinking maybe he wasn't lying, maybe he wasn't just mistaken, how many square feet is my apartment, i don't know. in this case, documents demonstrating that the actual size of mr. trump's triplex apartment was only 10,096 square feet. it was signed by mr. trump. but the square footage is just the start. there's also this. the supporting data for mr. trump's 2015 statement reported ta t value of his triplex apartment was valued at $327 million. mr. weisselberg admitted that

the valuation of trump's personal apartment amounted to an overstatement of, quote, give or take, $200 million. the error was, "give or take, $200 million." the most expensive apartment in the country was $169 million. trump said his apartment was worth almost double that. year after year in financial statements he said his apartment was worth nearly twice as much as the most expensive apartment in the country and it was three times larger than it actually was, which is wild and flagrant and almost impressively dishonest, and it does make you think back to his hand size at

the debate. too on the nose, right? according to the attorney general, it's not just an interesting personality pa tholgy. it was part of the behavior pattern of trump and it was partly illegal. quote, since moving to compel the testimony of eric trump in august 2020, the office of the attorney general has collected significant additional evidence indicating the trump organization used fraus lent or misleading information. attorney general leticia james has getting this for nearly 15 years. now, there is a parallel criminal investigation these been run by state prosecutors in the manhattan d.a.'s office, but this by tish james, this is a civil investigation. that means if she finds legal activity, she can bring a

lawsuit against the trump organization, which is kind of a bigger deal than it might seem on the surface. others have succeeded in shutting down trump's scam university and charity and now they've got their sights on his family business. tish james says her office has not yet determined whether they will take legal action against the trump organization, but their investigation would appear to be nearing its end because, you know, they're kind of going after the big fish, if you will. the reason we got this filing late last night is they're asking the court to compel testimony from donald trump himself and his son john jr. and his daughter ivanka who are both involved in running the family business. the most details allegations we've yet seen about the potentially fraudulent activity at the trump family d business

that they're investigating. if you look at just one property just as an example, the family own as place called seven springs. follow the bouncing ball. in 2004 trump said it was worth $80 million. three years later it was worth $200 million. a few years after that, it was worth $291 million. what's happening there? some enormous flock of geese has moved into the pond and is laying golden eggs by the millions. where are all these extra millions coming from? then they brought in an actual appraiser to value the property. the professional appraiser said it was worth a maximum of $50 million. i thought it was $281 million.

even after that, the trump organization insisted in its official financial statements that the property was worth $291 million. how did they come to that language? the basis of that valuation per the records was, quote, a telephone conversation with eric trump. that was the basis for the trump organization's assertion that it was worth $291 million despite an appraisal that said it was worth 50 max. how did they get to 291? they asked eric and eric said it was definitely worth $291 million and how can you argue with that? seems legit. the new york attorney general's office writes, quote, asked to explain, eric trump immediately invoked his fifth amend privilege. he pled fifth more than 500

times to the attorney general office. all of this asset inflation was not just bragging rights and puffery and hand-size stuff. she said the trump organization in some cases was using this kind of information to actively lie to banks or insurance companies about like where these valuations were coming from for the purpose of doing business with those bangs and insurance companies. quote, representations to insurance companies were prepared annually by professional appraisal firms. those presentations were false. they were prepared, in fact, by trump organization's staff, contrary to what the insurance company was expressly told and believed. so it's one thing to make up fantastical valuations for your properties. another thing to go to an insurance company in order do business with that insurance company on the basis of those fantastical assertion of the value of these properties and

then to tell those insurance companies, by the way, that appraisal came from the pros. that's a professionally done thing when it was not. it was like a call to eric or somebody else working in the trump organization apparently making these things up. tish james also alleges trump and his company may have lied to the irs. he got tax deductions worth millions of dollars. they were based on a wildly inflated valuation based in part on what the trump organization asserted were several mansions on the property, but they were mansions that did not exist. that's just one example, one trump property. the attorney general has filed over 150 pages in court covering many properties, many that have other stories like this one. there are still no charges in those pages. it's just an investigation. is it going lead to charges? is it going to lead to the kind of civil suit that could take

down the trump family business? what kinds of allegations in these kinds of filings, what kind of legal case allegations like these add up to? i have just the person to ask about this and she joins us next. stay with us. this and she joins next stay with us

in late night legal filings last night, new york attorney general leticia james asserteded an ongoing civil investigation into trump's business has uncovered evidence that he has used fraudulent means. my next guest has been covering trump finances since 2015. she was part of the pulitzer prize that has obtained trump tax documents and brilliantly translated them for public understanding them. joining us now, suzanne craig, reporter for "the new york

times." thank you for reporting on this. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> did you learn anything you did not know or anticipate that you and your colleagues turned up at "the times?" ? >> i was intrigued by one of the legal arguments that surfaced in the documents which these cases are difficult because people like donald trump and others often say when they're in this situation, i rely on the advice of experts i hire, accounts i hire, accounts and lawyers i rely on for advice, and often that can help them navigate or is a good shield against these sort of charges. last night we saw an avenue the attorney general is going to be going down which she said -- i'll read from it. they misstated it. what she's saying is they were much more involved in setting these valuations than we may

have thought and i think she's going to use that to say they have some liability potentially here and it wasn't that, oh, they were just phoning the lawyers and the accountants. they certainly have those. they were very, very invfled in them, in some of the valuations that ended up in banks and insurance companies and elsewhere that could get them in hot water. >> that's interesting because it occurred to me that making those misrepresentations to brarng or insurance company would have itself been a problem in your duty to be honest to those types of institutions when you're trying to get money out of them, but it could have undercut any claim they would have made that they were getting professional advice. >> it undercut it. it's one thing for donald trump to sign off on a document that says okay on a post-it note that it's okay but it seems like they're building toward a case

that would say they're heavily involved and were sort of the direct link to donald trump's forwarding information to a bank or allen weisselberg or a cfe who was a cfo for decades. they were deeply involved and in contact with the financial institutions. that's where they could get into trouble for filing false information with regard to financial institutions. >> in terms of documents like you mentioned post-it notes, it's surprising to me there's a filing cabinet. we know trump doesn't use a computer or i'm or put his thoughts in a remilkable format that investigators would like to see. but there's a filing cabinet with correspondence that the attorney general seems to know about. does that concern you.

>> i'm not a lawyer, but i would want to know about it. there's a filing cabinet where everything is chronological. they've kept all of mr. trump's post-it notes and handwritten notes for years, correspondence to employees. they don't know what's in there. i'll volunteer if they need a middle man to go look. wow, i'd really like to see that. that could go to what we're talking about. millions of documents have been turned over already according to the filings, but this filing cabinet still is one of the things that there's still a lot of tension over, and they haven't seen it yet. there's other douchlts as well. this one in particular is like, okay, i'd love to see it. i'm sure the investigators would. >> suzanne craig, investigative reporter for "the new york times." suzanne, i really appreciate you taking the time to be here tonight this. is fascinating. >> yeah, it is. thank you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. is thank you. >> we'll be right back stay with us

heads-up tonight. this is a story where we don't know what's happening, but something is. an outlet in texas has reported fbi agents have been seen near the home of a democratic congressman, henny cuellar in laredo, texas. he's a conservative congressman. as to why the fbi was at his home today or outside his home, we don't know. the fbi only says, quote, this is a court-ordered ongoing investigation, and they will not release any other comments. congressman cuellar said he will fully cooperate in any investigation, but nobody knows what investigation this is. he was not known to be under investigation for anything. this is all quite new and very mysterious. clearly something is going on. we'll keep an eye on this story

as it continues to unfold. watch this space. s story as it continues to unfold. watch this space

all right. that's going do it for us tonight for this show that we have unexpectedly had to shoot from my house because we had -- again, we had technical gremlins. nothing weirder than that is going on. this is always the backup plan if something goes weird at the studio. something went weird. had technical troubles. this is where i've been. any rumor that suzanne craig was in a different room in my house

is totally not true. i know it looked like we were in adjoining cabins. it happened to be a similar aesthetic and that was weird, so -- enough. that's going to do it for me for now. i'll see you again tomorrow for what will look like a more normal backdrop. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. look, i didn't overpromise. what i have outperformed anyone. one thing i haven't done is get my republican friends to get in the game of making things better in this country. >> president biden facing a series of setbacks insists he did not overpromise on his agenda, arguing instead that he has outperformed expectations as he marks one year in office. the question is do the american people agree. one of those setbacks, voting rights reform. republicans block