you it isn't. >> my uncle is not coming back. no conviction, or life sentence is going to change that. all it did was, you know, making murder murderer out of m cousin's mother. nothing else has changed. nothing else has changed this sunday, the january 6th hearings. >> president trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. >> the evidence? >> we present president trump's plan. the most desperate chance to halt the transfer of power. >> the sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the

presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power. >> the election lies. >> i made it clear i did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and put out, i told the president this was [ bleep ]. >> the riot. i was slipping in people's blood. it was carnage. it was chaos. >> and the warning. >> i say this to my republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible. there will come a day when donald trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain. >> this morning, i'll talk to one of the members of the january 6th committee, democrat elaine luria. the documentary filmmaker who testified on thursday and the republican congressman who defied his party and voted for an independent commission. >> turned out to be the only clear evidence that could identify her at the shooting. how about that. >> gun safety demonstrations, coast to coast. even if democrats and republicans do reach a deal, will the limited changes really make a difference?

joining me for insight and analysis are, amy walter, editor and chief and publisher of "the cook political report", eddie glaude jr. of princeton university. leigh ann caldwell of the "washington post" and david french, senior editor of "the dispatch." welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. never before in this country's history have we witnessed a president accused of a criminal conspiracy to take down the democracy. but that's exactly what we saw at thursday's january 6th opening hearing where former president trump was placed at the center of the effort to both overturn the election and inspire the riot at the capitol. we even heard of testimony that mr. trump suggested rioters were right to demand vice president pence be hanged simply for certifying the election results.

the committee has begun to show its evidence but does the country have the will or ability to hold donald trump accountable in the wake of all of this evidence? if this were happening in another country, what would we think? it's strong enough to preserve its democracy and rule of law or subject to the rule of the mob? and what would the reaction be here to the prosecution of a former president front-runner in the republican nomination in 2024 and may even be an active candidate? shortly after january 6th, we asked, is this the end of something, or the beginning? keep that in mind as you watch the hearings, and remember that many who tried and failed to undermine democracy in 2020 are hard at work to succeed in 2024. >> president trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack. >> january 6th was the culmination of an attempted coup, a brazen attempt, as one

rioter put it, to overthrow the government. >> in a prime time hearing, the house select committee introduced its case that the assault on the capitol was the violent culmination of an attempted coup orchestrated by donald trump. the committee demonstrated that right-wing extremist groups including the proud boys and oath keepers were called to washington and influenced to violence by trump himself. >> trump asked us to come. >> he personally asked for us to come to dc that day. >> capitol police officer caroline edward suffered a traumatic brain injury. >> what i saw was a war scene. i saw friends with blood all over their faces. i was slipping in people's blood. >> and donald trump was implicated by his own advisers

and cabinet members who presented evidence of trump's calculated effort to overturn the 2020 election results. >> i made it clear i did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and put out this stuff, which i told the president was [ bleep ]. >> even his daughter. >> it affected my perspective. i respect attorney general barr. so i accepted what he was saying. >> more of mr. trump's former advisers testify in the weeks to come including several expected to speak to his fury at his own vice president mike pence. >> didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution. a chance to certify a corrected set of facts. >> hang mike pence! >> the rioters chants to hang mike pence, the president responded with this sentiment. maybe our supporters have the right idea.

mike pence, quote, deserves it. >> reporter: on friday, trump claimed, i never said or even thought of saying hang mike pence, and he added, ivanka had long since checked out. >> last night's hearing was a primetime dud. nothing came out of it that we didn't know before. didn't change anybody's minds. >> reporter: the question now, will our democracy hold former president trump and his allies accountable? already, the committee appears to be laying out grounds for a criminal referral of trump to the justice department. >> we are undertaking one of the largest investigations in our history to hold accountable everyone who is criminally responsible for the january 6th assault on our democracy. we will follow the facts wherever they lead. >> joining me now is democratic congresswoman elaine luria from virginia, a member of the january 6th select committee, she's going to lead the hearing on how president trump

encouraged the mob and what was going on inside the white house during the moment-by-moment parts of the riot. congresswoman, welcome. >> thank you. >> we're going to hear three hearings this week. i wonder if we could go through a few of them. one tomorrow. trump know he lost and pursued the big lie. a taste of the evidence here. explain what the vibe will be like tomorrow. >> i think the opening to that was the first clip we showed from former attorney general barr that former president trump was told by multiple people, should have been abundantly clear that there was no evidence that showed the election was stolen and he ignored that, and so the hearing that we're going to have on monday is really focusing on a deep dive in that, getting into the information of, what were all the things to show he knew this was a lie but continued to act on that. >> he was told before the election that he was perhaps going to lose, correct? >> yes. >> and this is going to be the jason miller segment is about that?

>> it is, and i think that was framed in a timeframe where the week or so where we were waiting for the final election results to be called, i think that was, him going to lose, once this is said and done, all the votes are counted, he's going to lose, it's confirmed. >> wednesday is the focus on the pressure campaign at the justice department. we've heard some stories, was the president trying to orchestrate a change in leadership to get them? >> that hearing is really going to focus, like you said, on the department of justice and you know what, i think it's going to become clear across the compilation of these hearings is that this seven-part plan we'll lay out was every lever of government, you're attempting to use those. whichever one they could pull and have some influence, they move forward with it. so each of these hearings will lay that out, and you know, there was a lot of pressure at the department of justice and i frequently say if there weren't people in the right place at the right time, that included the

right thing, that includes at the department of justice and the former vice president and this pressure campaign. that's widespread. >> all the depositions, we'll see videotape. are we going to see jeffrey rosen and people like that? >> we interviewed a thousand people. a lot of the names you know are involved in this will be part of it either via taped deposition or interviews or we'll have interviews in person across the course of the hearings as well. >> later this week is the focus on the pressured campaign on mike pence. in that scenario, you've got a lot of, it's mike pence's chief of staff. >> well, we haven't announced who our live witnesses are, but it's clear that he provided information to the committee and that will be incorporated in what we present. i mean, when you have the former vice president's chief of staff speaking to this committee and providing information about just what that pressure was, we have information that's been publicly released about that, but knowing from the inside how intense that

was and, you know, the former vice president, vice president pence, he did the right thing at a very critical time. >> there's going to be an effort, a hearing devoted to the effort to find alternative electors and overturn at the state level. is this actions and role of jen ji thomas, the wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas, a lot of evidence that she was certainly involved in lobbying lawmakers on the local level including the state. is she part of this investigation or not? >> it is not the focus of this investigation. we are talking to lawmakers from across the country in these key swing states where this pressure was applied and the evidence they provide us will be included in all of their communications with people trying to pressure them. >> she is not a focus and there is not an effort to reach out to see what more the subpoena or knows or is involved in? >> it's not the focus of the investigation. we are looking at the plot of this wide-ranging seven-part

plan that the former president and his allies had to overturn the results of the election resulting in the violence on january 6th. >> i'm guessing if you thought she had a more organizing role, she'd be a focus but is that the sense she was more of a partisan sort of rooter or champion of that but not involved? is that the conclusion? >> i'm not sure we've reached any conclusions. we're still ongoing investigation, with additional evidence or if there's something to reach the level of needing to dig into it deeper from the committee, we've been doing that all along. >> your hearing is going to focus on what president trump was doing and not doing. >> not doing especially. >> on january 6th. 187 minutes. do you have that? do you feel like you know minute by minute what donald trump was doing throughout the attack of the capitol police? >> i think it's more clear to describe what he was not doing. it's been reported previously that the phone logs at the white house on that day, they're missing information. there is a gap there that we

have tried through these witnesses. we've interviewed a thousand witnesses and a lot of people who worked directly in the white house for the president in his immediate vicinity during that day, so we've pieced together a very comprehensive ticktock timeline of what he did and 187 minutes, this man had the microphone. he could speak to the whole country. his duty was to stand up and say something to try to stop this. we'll talk about that. i'll say his dereliction of duty. he had a duty to act. >> he not only never inquired about the health and safety of the vice president, but also never talked to him? >> that is what we understand from everything we gathered. >> i want to ask about a specific witness. cassidy hutchinson, a special assistant to president trump in the white house on january 6th. is she helping to connect these dots and put, sort of plug the holes that you guys had on the 187 minutes?

>> it's a complex process to piece together. you have 187 minutes, very few records. so everyone who has come to speak to the committee that has direct evidence of that time frame has been very helpful in piecing it together. i can't say there's one person in particular. >> are we going to see her publicly then? >> we are still working on who our panel of witnesses will be, and there are several who have very direct and important information. >> how many witnesses did you talk to that sat with you for 20 hours? >> i'm not sure there's any to provide that much time to our work and effort. >> scott perry and others sought pardons. the only name check was scott perry. the other members of congress, are we looking at one other or multiple others? >> we'll be providing that information through the course of our presentations and our hearings. >> the allegations there's hard evidence they requested these pardons. >> we do. >> how many can you say?

more than two members of congress? >> i'm going to wait and we'll provide that as part of our information that we will be providing in the upcoming hearings. >> last question and i'm curious of this. i think you guys, everybody in the committee has an idea of what happened. who plays the role of devil's advocate on that committee hearing? >> as far as -- >> during -- >> i think we take turns. everyone at different points. people have different perspectives and, you know, the fact that it's bipartisan, it ping-pongs back and forth. different members come in to say, what about this and then other people say, i'm not sure that's the direction to go. it's so collaborative. it's different than any other committee in the house because we work so closely together and really bouncing it off of each other. >> very quickly, the politics of this. you're in a swing district. this is one of those things that some people representing swing districts like, please don't put me on the committee. you've run toward this line. >> it's that important. this is the kind of thing that

will define the history of our country and our democracy moving forward, and if we can't preserve that, i don't know what the country will look like for my daughter. i thought that this effort was so important, that if it means in november i don't get reelected, i can sleep. >> you're okay if your role in these hearings is used, good or bad. in your re-election. >> absolutely. i'm doing the right thing. i served in uniform for 20 years. i took the oath at 17 at the naval academy and throughout my entire career and again in congress. so the work of this committee is more important than something like my own personal reelection. >> elaine luria, democrat from virginia beach, if i got that right. thank you for coming on and sharing with us. good luck with the hearings. joining me now is nick quested, a filmmaker working on a documentary why americans are so divided when they have so much in common. he was im bedded with the

radical proud boys on january 6th. his video showed riots for the first time on thursday night. nick quested, welcome to "meet the press," sir. >> thank you for having me. >> let me start with, how did you get mr. tarrio and other members of the proud boys to say, yes, film us. we want this on the record, document what we're doing. >> well, i had a colleague who gave me enrique's phone number, and i called him, and he was very receptive to the idea. he liked the film that i had produced with my colleague sebastian which was a film about a deployment of veterans in afghanistan. so i think the veteran aspect was appealing to them. >> how quickly did, after january 6th, did you alert

authorities about the footage you had and then how quickly did you get to the point where you were, you felt legally or ethically comfortable turning your footage over? >> well, there's two aspects to that. there's the january 6th footage and then there's the other footage. on january 6th, i was very aware that we had filmed multiple potential crimes and these were on the steps of the capitol. they were inside the capitol. so i called a friend of mine who's a u.s. attorney and former seal and i said, well, i have this footage. what should we do? and he referred me to the criminal department of dc police who then referred me to the fbi. >> the infamous video in the parking garage that coincidentally is the parking garage that i am using right now and in the building i work in

here, when did you realize that was such a key moment and it was going to be a key moment legally because that is certainly evidence in this seditious conspiracy charges that the oath keepers and proud boys are dealing with? >> i mean, we realize its importance instantaneously after the january 6. we thought it was just an optically bad thing to do when we were shooting it, but after january 6th, enrique in the same parking garage having, you know, having met them, having sort of rendezvoused in at the phoenix hotel earlier, that was, that's sort of when we really understood it to be an optically bad situation. >> you had been with them a couple of times for postelection rallies. one in november and december,

and this was going to be the third time. i think i have that time line right, correct me if i'm wrong here, but when did you, how often you had interest can conversations with mr. tarrio, you had tacos with him, dealing with him in baltimore. in hindsight, do you think back to some conversations and go, wow, maybe i should have seen x, y, or z here sooner and now that i've put this together, i see it now? >> i was making a different film at the time, i was making a film about why america is divided. so i was asking much bigger questions about, what does it mean to be american and asking for his point of view on certain issues, whether it be policing or health care or whatever these issues were. my questions to him were much broader and in retrospect, if i had known what i know now, i would have very much changed my

line of questioning, but as we go back, i really started to spend time with the proud boys from december 11th onwards. that's where we started, so. >> when's the last time you spoke to mr. tarrio? >> the last time i spoke to him was in, we did an interview in miami subsequent, so probably in the middle of february, and then he was incarcerated for a while on the magazine charge and the banner burning charge. i texted him and i was, we were discussing coming down to do a photo-op interview when he was arrested again. >> does he still want to talk to you? do you get the sense he's still got more to say? >> i don't know. i haven't reached out to him since he's been arrested for the

second time. >> now, on december 12th, he went to the white house. what do you know about that white house trip? >> i know very little apart from i im plored him to allow us to come with him, but he went on his own and returned. that's it. >> did he indicate he was meeting somebody or what did he indicate the meeting was about? >> he implied that he was going to meet with white house officials, but i don't know if he did. >> you have become a public figure in all of this. how many times have you feared for your safety? >> at the moment, i don't fear for my safety because my testimony is purely fact-based. i'm testifying about what i saw and i can back that up with the

video that i shot. america is one of the safest one countries in the world, so i don't feel in any jeopardy at the moment. >> you'll still produce this documentary and if so, what's the focus now? >> the focus of the film is about the 64 days. it very much parallels the committee's investigation. we pivoted about three months afterwards, four months afterwards. it took us a while to process what we had even seen. physically, to process this, you know, my hammer was broken. i have been shot with pepper and on the steps. it was particularly shocking because we weren't prepared for this, and this is in the country i live in. i'm used to covering conflicts

abroad and i can process that and separate that from my life, but to see it in the country i live in was particularly problematic. >> can you answer the initial question you were trying to get answered, why is america so divided when they have so much in common? >> i mean, it's such a broad question. it's so philosophical. i don't know if i can find commonality now. i think america has become so divided. i don't know if there is commonality anymore. >> well, that's a question we ponder around here ourselves quite a bit. mr. quested, really appreciate your coming on and sharing your perspective and experience with us. >> appreciate you having me. thank you so much. when we come back, republicans mostly react by calling it illegitimate or a sham but what about the republicans so uncomfortable about january 6th, they wanted their own independent investigation? i'll talk to one, congressman don bacon of nebraska. that's next. so you can customi o

set a pickup time, and jump the line! oh, here she goes! ugh, i thought she was actually gonna jump. just use this code and order on the subway app! ♪ ♪ ♪ (sha bop sha bop) ♪ ♪ are the stars out tonight? (sha bop sha bop) ♪ ♪ ♪ alexa, play our favorite song again. ok. what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? ♪ i only have eyes for you ♪

no problem. the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, ok. so you both stay comfortable and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add a base. ends monday. it's still the eat fresh refresh, and subway's refreshing everything, like the baja steak and jack. piled high with tender shaved steak, topped with delicious pepper jack cheese, and kicking it up a notch with smoky- baja chipotle sauce? yep, they're constantly refreshing. y'all get our own commercial! subway keeps refreshing and-

welcome back. republicans mostly dismissed thursday's hearings as a sham, partisan and have proved nothing, but it is worth noting there were 35 republicans in the house who broke ranks last year and voted to create an independent commission to investigate january 6th. mitch mcconnell in the senate nixed that commission, so how are these folks reacting to thursday's hearing? one who wanted to see an independent commission was congressman bacon. welcome to "meet the press." >> great to be with you. >> i know you believe this committee is not balanced, and i also know you wanted to see an independent investigation. so i wanted to stipulate that. that said, what did you think of the presentation on thursday night and how compelling did you find it? >> two things. one, i didn't hear a lot of new information, but i track the news every day. there wasn't a whole lot new news in that presentation.

i think most of the information we had on the attorney general, the president trump's daughter was already out there. i did find it interesting how many people at the white house tried to compel or tell the president that he lost the election. i thought that was interesting, but by and large, i didn't hear new information, so that's one thing. on the other hand, i think the optics of having a producer, everything on teleprompter, it looks so staged. i think a lot of folks see this as really trying to change the dialogue of our country in november for the elections. i think that's what i hear back home primarily, so we would have been much better off with a bipartisan commission with an equal board, half republican, half democrat. there would have been a timeline of when they had complete and consensus on subpoenas and i thought we made a mistake on our side of the aisle by opposing that. what we have today is a very stacked duck in the committee. in fact, the republicans

appointed were kicked off the committee, and i think that hurt the legitimacy viewed by many. >> i understand what you are, i think, voicing, what you're hearing from some of your, perhaps, more conservative constituents. i understand where you're coming from. let's talk about what the hearing discovered, what the hearing uncovered, and i understand what you're saying when you knew a lot of this but the american public may not have understood the piecemeal of this. let me talk about one thing that i'm curious about. this is, i'm going to play a clip from congresswoman cheney, the vice chair on what president trump didn't do during the riot. take a listen. >> not only did president trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the capitol, he placed no call to any element of the united states government to instruct that the capitol be defended. >> she went on to name check. he didn't call the secretary of defense, attorney general, dhs, the national guard.

considering hearing that, a dereliction of duty. at what point is that violating your oath to the constitution? >> chuck, i actually agree with you. i criticized the president on january 6th and afterwards. three hours, he could have gone on tv or made various statements. telling the protesters to stop. i'm all for peaceful protests, but when you're vandalizing the capitol and defecating the capitol, those things happened, that's wrong. the president had the opportunity for over three hours to speak up, and i think it was negligence. he should have done better. i didn't care for the way he treated vice president pence. i thought that was wrong as well. i've been critical of the president on january 6th and beyond. i thought he should have been a better leader in this case. >> you thought the dereliction of duty was criminal? >> you know what, whether it's criminal or not, i'm not a lawyer or judge, i thought it was wrong.

as a citizen, and i think, you know, the american people will have to judge this themselves whether it's charging someone for crime or not, but we have to judge it from a political standpoint, and i think the american people by and large know it was wrong not to intervene and not to say something. we have a duty as citizens and he had a duty as a president and leader. i'm a five time commander in the air force, you've got to speak up, and take charge and he did not. is. >> if formal charges are brought against him for incitement, it sounds like you're not going to dismiss that out of hand, are you? >> no, but i look at this, he's already a lot. i think we should be looking more forward on this, but we'll see what the evidence comes out with in regard to the president. obviously what he did was wrong, spoke up, but getting to the legal matters. i'm a little less confident on. i'm not the lawyer. >> if he's a candidate in 2024, is he fit to be president? >> first, the november

elections, put primary focus on there. i think we need a new majority to serve as a check and balance. the american people, look at this. it's like the 10th, 11th, or 12th priority, inflation of gas prices, border, crime. those are all front and center for the average american right now. look at 2024. i think the republicans should also look forward, we need someone who has conservative policies, but i think we have to acknowledge that the american people don't like name-calling, they don't like the rude behavior, they like folks who treat people respectcally, and i think that's what cost president trump in 2020, so we should take that as a lesson, conservative values with optimism, respect behavior like president reagan as an example. i think that's what we should be embracing. >> i understand, it sounds like you think he doesn't have the character to be president, but is that fair to say?

not fit, doesn't have the character? >> it's the temperament. how you treat other people. i think the american people in 2020, the voters were tired of the name-calling, the twitter, but they by and large liked the policies. we have to remember, we picked up 15 seats in the house that november. i won our seat by 5 points while president trump lost it by 8 points in our district, so i think the policies, we should focus on that, but we have to also learn the lesson, why did we lose in 2020? it was the comportment and the temperament. the democracy respects elections, and our president should have respected the conclusion, particularly when -- >> can you imagine ever casting a vote for him yourself again? >> i'm going to focus on 2022 but looking for other candidates. i mean, we have a great slate of potential republican presidents

for 2024, and i look forward to being very involved in trying to get the right candidate nominated. >> what if he's the nominee? is he a never for you now? >> you know, i'm reluctant to go there, but not going to be my choice in the primary. but here again, i feel like we're missing the boat for folks on 2024. we have 2022 in november and we need a check and balance in congress right now. i think if we have a republican house and maybe republican senate, it will force joe biden and his administration to go to the middle, but right now, he is not. he's catered more to the left side of the aisle, and if we can get a republican house, maybe we can get a more moderate on his policies, that's my desire and my hope. >> don bacon, republican from omaha, nebraska. representative of the second district. thank you for coming on to share your perspective. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> you got it. when we come back, will donald trump be held accountable for january 6th? if so, taking a look at it with our panelists.

if so, taking a look at it with our panelists. our panelists. >> "meet t it's still the eat fresh refresh, and now subway's refreshing their italians. like the new supreme meats, topped high with new italian-style capicola. that's one handsome italian. uh... thanks. not you, garoppolo! ♪♪ subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refres-

it's still the eat fresh® refresh, and now subway® is refreshing their classics, like the sweet onion teriyaki sauce, topped on tender shaved steak. it's a real slam dunk. right, derek? wrong sport, chuck. just hold the sub, man! subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refreshi-

welcome back. welcome back. panelists here with "the washington post," princeton university. david french, senior editor of the dispatch. ian walter, editor and chief and publish of the political report. i want to start the question this way. and david, i'll start with you. i think we're headed towards a criminal referral of the former president of the united states looking for him to be charged as a criminal. now what? >> it's going to be a matter of facts, law, and here's the last bit, this really important, will. what do the facts say, what does the law say? that's going to be sort of easy to discern after all this is over. in fact, it's already been pretty easy to discern, particularly in georgia. georgia, i think, is where trump's conduct was most brazen, most obviously implicating criminal statutes, both at the state and federal level but the

question here, chuck, is will. will somebody indict someone who may be announcing in the next few months, that he's going to run for president again and immediately become the republican front-runner for the nomination? that's where the political will comes into play and the more brazen the facts, sort of the less the bold you have to be, and so that's what we don't know is how brazen will the facts get. >> that's the tragic choice. i mean, the fact is that if we know that he needs to be or he's broken the law in some way, but there's a threat of violence if you indict him, and if you don't indict him, there is the end of the rule of law. so it's the tragic choice that merrick garland faces right now. >> what would we say about another democracy going through this? >> i think we would have a double standard in what we would

say, absolutely, but before we even get to 2024, there's also 2022 and the midterm elections. and i reported earlier this week that last month, house speaker nancy pelosi in a closed door meeting told her colleagues that january 6th is not necessarily on the ballot. people are not going to go to the polls on this. people are going to vote on inflation, on gas prices, but house democrats in the january 6th committee are stewards of democracy, so they need to do this. i also talked to a democratic consultant last night who held focus groups after the first hearing and said they were actually quite surprised at how much this resonated with the independents, the focus groups were with the independents and how much they knew, didn't know before the thursday night hearing and how much it really had an impact on them. >> the question is, how long that sticks, right, we live in a culture where minute by minute, our attention shifts to

something else. by the time we get to november -- >> johnny depp trial. >> a million miles away. i was going to mention that, chuck, thanks. so i think the challenge is twofold. it's, what amy and david put forward, what does the justice department do but making the case that this is not just about what happened in the past, but it's preventing it from happening in the future and also in the present, and that's the case that you're going to hear from democrats in the midterm, especially those running against people who were either actually around on january 6th in the case of the gubernatorial candidate in pennsylvania or active in some shape, way, or form or agree that the president of the united states was duly elected and legitimately elected, but to make the final case that this has to be something that's preventative in the future, but when i was a focus group of independents, i'm worried something like this is going to happen again. so this committee has to answer the question, how do we prevent

that? >> on republicans though, what was really telling was on maybe thursday. republican leader kevin mccarthy asked at a press conference if biden was legitimately elected and he refused to say. january 6th, he said, but now he won't. and the reason is because this is so politically treacherous for republican-based voters, for an actual republican leader to come out to say who knows full well that biden was legitimately elected to actually say it. >> that's cowardly and it's even more cowardly after the georgia primaries, because the georgia primaries, you had one on one confrontation between the stop the steal candidates and republican establishment, including brad raffensperger, who probably didn't need anyone, with liz cheney, to defectly con

fron the president, and they won, they beat their maga primary challengers, and yet still, still these republican officeholders in washington are retreating from that question, they're terrified of that question, and yet, georgia just demonstrated that there's a chance here to break the republicans -- >> and to me, without pushing you into an answer, i kind of feel like the real measurement of success or failure with these hearings is how strong donald trump's grip is on the republican party in six months. not today or in a year. i didn't know tom rice was going to vote to impeach. tom rice, everybody had to quickly look up, who's tom rice. people thought it was a mistake. somebody, there's going to be a few people to be moved by this to say, i'm off the train. this was horrible. >> there are folks who made their decisions, right, there are folks on the left and the right. they made the decisions but there's people in between. folks in the middle that we're always talking about. the independents we're always talking about. what does it mean for the

committee to connect the dots? i'm a professor. we tell our students when you write your paper, this is how you organize it. tell what you do it, tell it what you did but they laid out the blueprint. the general architecture, the road map of what we'll hear. by connecting the dots, they may convince folks but i want to say this quickly. we need to stop believing that some of these folks on the republican side are actually democratic actors. >> meaning small. >> they're not, they're liberal. when we treat them as typical opponents we're actually contributing to the problem because we are using this process to undermine democracy. >> we have a controversial abortion ruling, heavy debate on guns, not happy with the state of the world and economy as it is right now, and may have former president of the united states put on trial. do we believe we'll hold? >> i don't know with 100% confidence we will.

this is the reality we're facing right now. a degree of division, but animosity. there's a difference between auburn and alabama fans and what republicans and democrats are doing today. there's an active degree of hatred here, and it's very hard to respect liberty or democracy in an atmosphere of pure hate. >> we pause it right here. quick note, we're campaign junkies here, so i've got to let you know about this. sarah palin advancing to the final round to replace the special election, don young who died in march. nbc news said three of the final four candidates are set, including a former democratic candidate for senate and the name sake, if you will, former alaska politician. santa claus, by the way, actually on the ballot, does still have a chance to place fourth. currently in sixth. got about 22% more precincts to count. coming up, trust or lack of trust in government? we'll look at what americans

think is the real reason people these days run for political office. stay with us. becaassic sweet onion sauce is getting refreshed on the new sweet onion steak teriyaki. you gotta refresh to... uh line? (♪ ♪)

the eat fresh® refresh just won't stop! now, subway® is refreshing their catering. we're talking platters fit for any event, like throwing yourself an over-the-top party. who would do such a thing? yeah, i wonder. subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and re- welcome back. data download time. poll after vote believes the country is on the wrong track and if there's one thing democrats and republicans have in common these days, they don't trust washington to fix it. look, at the turn of century right after the 9/11 attack, trust in government to do the

right thing was pretty high, and it was across the board. 20 years later, it is down to just 20%. let me show you. no real partisan divide here. in october of 2001, large majority of democrats and republicans had trust in the republican control of government. 20 years later, collapsed among both parties. democrats, more than half and republicans, down to 9% trusting government. the democratic government, so it's higher, but this is troubling. how did we get here and what do they think next? it's a cynical public. they believe right now, most candidates that run for office, they don't do it to serve the community. only 21% people think they run to worry about the greater good. 19% of democrats think this. 24% of republicans. now look at the reverse. a full 65% think most candidates run for office to serve personal interests, nothing else.

and this is across the board. 66% of democrats believe this. 63% of republicans. when we talk about the broken democracy, this may be bigger than any polarization problem we have. if the voters don't trust who's running for office to do the right thing, how does this democracy survive and thrive? when we come back, should president biden run for reelection? a growing number of democrats lawmakers told the "new york times" no. that's next. y-order platte and lunchboxes perfect for any party. pool parties... tailgates... holiday parties... even retirement parties. man, i love parties. subway keeps refreshing and refreshing here's candice... who works from home, and then works from home. but she can handle pickup, even when her bladder makes a little drop-off. because candice has poise, poise under pressure and poise in her pants. it takes poise.

it's still the eat fresh refresh, and now subway's refreshing their italians. like the new supreme meats, topped high with new italian-style capicola. that's one handsome italian. uh... thanks. not you, garoppolo! ♪♪ subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refres-

welcome back. a few minutes but breaking news. it appears chris murphy and john cornyn have come to an agreement on a deal to do something when it comes to reforming our access to guns. leigh ann with details. >> i was told from a source there's a deal announced on gun/mental health legislation today around 11:30, 12:00 p.m. eastern time, and these, this deal is going to include the things that they had been

talking about. incentives for states to implement red flag laws. >> but don't call it a red flag law. >> a different name for it. much more complicated. there's going to be a separate background check process for ages 18 to 21 years old. there's also going to be a lot of money for mental health services. there's going to be money to secure schools, and so this is, there's going to be a clarification on who needs to apply for a federal firearm license, so that's an additional kind of background check. >> a dealer. >> there's a lot of people who are illegally purchasing these with evading the federal firearm license. this is big news that a deal is going to be announced today, and this is what the negotiators between, you know, senator chris murphy of connecticut, senator john cornyn of texas have been leading in these negotiations. >> david, we were talking during the break. the red flag, the phrase red

flag law had started to become a bit politically problematic, crisis intervention act, i guess? >> state crisis intervention orders. >> and the importance of that? >> the importance here is that we have 50 years of study. this is sad, terribly sad. 50 years worth of mass shootings to study. the national institute for justice funded study, found mass shooters in a majority of instances leak their plans beforehand, in other words they broadcast their deadly intentions, and we keep seeing this time and time again. what a red flag law or crisis intervention order does, gives police, parents or principles to say, this person seems to be in a state of crisis. they should not have a gun and provides an easy process, very similar to a domestic violence restraining order that people are very familiar with to remove guns and bar that person from obtaining guns and it's one

thing that seems very targeted at the actual crisis we face and targeted the behavior that mass shooters exhibit. >> look, i'm not going to pretend this is enough something for some people, but it is something. >> it is something. but i'm just going to keep it in the foreground with the 11-year-old who testified, who had to smear herself in blood. i'm going to keep in mind the babies who couldn't be identified because of an assault weapon or weapon of war in the hands of an 18-year-old. this is the beginning but we have so much more to do. >> there was a moment earlier this week. we had it in our open of matthew mcconaughey, who's been an uvalde, texas, native. he was, he spent a lot of time with lawmakers off camera. did a couple of on camera things. went to the white house, went to a conservative cable channel, and had the same message. and this feels as if, at least, it fits where he was. hey, can we have something?

some middle ground here? what did you make of it? >> it's sort of appropriate that this is coming after your data download on the lack of trust in government that, but it is. it's important that americans can see that government can get stuff done, and it's not going to be perfect, and it's not going to stop a lot of this, and there's still more that needs to be done in terms of preventing these kind of mass shootings, but it is a start. and i think for a country that feels like all washington does is look out for itself, it's a step forward. >> you wrote a very powerful piece last week, i think you titled it gun idolatry. that sentiment is still out there, and there are people who believe any restriction is an attack on the constitution. how are they going to react to this? >> there are people who will be volcanically angry at this for the exactly the reasons you described. they will be particularly angry at the red flag language, believing it violates due

process, but again, you have to drill down and get at, there's an exhaustive majority of americans who are ready for some compromise and some progress, and you have to push past that fringe and drill down to that ex hasted majority, and to the red flag law in particular. sell that to the american people as directly designed to deal with the exact behavior we see mass shooters exhibit. this is the government reform aimed like an arrow at a very serious problem. >> well, look, we were going to talk about a political problem that had has arisen for the president, the "new york times" going public with a lot of democratic angst over his political prospects, but i think we chose the right focus considering every once in a while, we'll see if congress can act. try to act. nothing voted on yet, and let's remember that. nothing has been officially announced. before we go, i'm excited to tell you about "meet the press" now. our new show on nbc news now, a news-focused streaming service. every weekday. 4:00 eastern time. you can watch us for free just

about anywhere you find video, youtube, peacock, meetthepress.com. no subscription ness seas. we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." a rare bipartisan deal reached on capitol hill. a group of senate negotiators have agreed on a framework for new gun safety legislation. we'll go over what's included in the deal, what's been left out, and what lawmakers and the white house are saying about it. plus, we're looking ahead to today's second public hearing by the house select committee investigating january 6th. lawmakers on the bipartisan panel say that this morning's hearing will focus on then president trump's baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen. and for the first time, gasoline price