u can't prevent what's going on outside, that's why qulipta™ helps what's going on inside. qulipta™ is a pill. gets right to work to prevent migraine attacks and keeps them away over time. qulipta™ blocks cgrp a protein believed to be a cause of migraine attacks. qulipta™ is a preventive treatment for episodic migraine. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and tiredness. learn how abbvie can help you save on qulipta™. hi there, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. with the january 6th select committee in the midst of telling the story of the trump coup attempt and the capital insurrection, there's brand new reporting on the key aspect of the plot to overturn the election. the push by the ex-president and his allies inside the justice department cajoled the doj into casting doubt on the 2020

election result. it's a pressure campaign that came incredibly and alarmingly close to actually working. it could have completely changed the game for trump and his allies on january 6th if and only if it had succeeded. "washington post" is out with stunning new details on efforts by doj official jeffrey clark to essentially take over the justice department, efforts which culminated in a january 3rd meeting previously reported on by the post, "the new york times" and other outlets inside the oval office between clark, the man who would become the acting a.g. and his deputy richard donahue and of course one donald j. trump from the post reporting. clark had outlined a plan. in a letter he wanted to send to the leaders of key states that joe biden won. it said the justice department had, quote, identified significant concerns about the vote and that the state should consider sending a separate slate of electors supporting donald j. trump for congress to

approve. in fact, clark's bosses had rejected that letter days earlier. now they learned clark was about to meet with trump, acting a.j. g. jeffrey rosen tracked down donohue who had been walking on the national mall. clark told trump that he would send the letter if the president named him attorney general. history is calling clark told the president according to a deposition are from donohue excerpted in a recent court filing. this is our opportunity. we can get this done he said. donohue urged trump not to put clark in charge. what happens if within 48 hours we have hundreds of resignations from your justice department because of your actions donohue said he asked trump. what does that say about your leadership? so donald trump ultimately decides replacing jeff rossen with jeffrey clark in this three-hour long meeting on january 23rd, 2021 along with

all of clark's actions is the subject of multiple probes by the doj's inspector general, the senate judiciary committee, and yes, the january 6th select committee. the committee was set to have a hearing on this very subject tomorrow. it is now postponed to next week according to the committee member who's leading that hearing. that's congressman adam kinzinger. the post says this about the committee's focus on jeff clark. quote, larger mysteries could still be solved by the january 6th committee hearing slated to examine clark's action including the crucial question of whether clark and his allies were acting on their own initiative or -- or whether they were one piece of a larger well-planned effort to keep trump in power. that question gets to the heart of the committee's professed mission proving there was a a, quote, coordinated multistep effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. joining us now congresswoman stephanie murphy of florida, member of the house select committee on january 6th.

thank you so much for taking time to be with us. i want to get to the delay. there's been some reporting, you guys have been transparent about pushing that in the schedule. i just want to focus on that last point in the post's reporting. all of the efforts including the introduction of the documentary filmmaker and the introduction into evidence of what he observed with the proud boys, all of it seems to be putting on the table the fact that all of this, which has been covered for 18 months as separate pieces of a chaotic day that culminated on the 6th isn't really that at all. it's all connected. is that the right way to start looking at this? >> i think the committee has been focused on the events that led up to and then what transpired on january 6th, and it turns out that quite a bit led up to the actual physical violence on january 6th, and i might argue that some of the more insidious things to our democracy happened before the violence that you saw on january 6th. you've already seen in the first two hearings that the president knew or had been told by all of

his advisers that he had lost the election and then that his fraud claims didn't have any merit, that he was losing court cases in our judicial system, and he began to cast a ballot for other avenues to remaining in power, and i think it's those efforts to cast about for the other avenues to remain in power that is most insidious to our democracy because those are -- while they're not as shocking as the violence on january 6th, they are the things that are most undermining to our free and fair election and our rule of allow. >> your colleague congressman jamie raskin once described them as three ringers, the outer ring, the trump supporters that maybe traveled to washington and traveled from the ellipse to the capitol, the inner ring, the extremists those key groups who have been charged with seditious

conspiracy and the inner ring is the coup plot itself, the subject of this great "washington post" reporting and some of the story telling has commenced from some of your colleagues on the select committee. i wonder if you have the evidence and part of what you show the country is they are all connected. they're not all three separate enterprises. >> we are going to lay out the connections that we have found evidence for. i think when you talk about those rings, there were people in maybe that outer ring who genuinely believed what the president was saying, even though the president knew what he was saying was not true, and i think those are the people who should feel duped by the president. he used their loyalty to him to extract money from them and to take of their time in bringing them to the capitol on january 6th, and certainly there was folks who just showed up and, and then there are folks who came with a very specific mission, and you saw some of that video in the first and second hearing of the snacks that were entering and began the

attack on the capitol, and then you are also seeing some of the folks who are on the inner ring, people who knew they lost the election and as judge carter said, it was a coup in search of a legal theory, and they were searching for whatever theory they could use to change the outcome and overturn the will of the american people. >> the evidence from attorney general bill barr makes clear that he thought that the claims of fraud were bs. he investigated the bs claims anyway, which i guess is a conversation for another day, and he told the president they were bs and he didn't use the acronym. he said it. what is the -- and that has come through in the testimony from all of trump's campaign lawyers that the data guy went in, told trump the numbers are not there. you're not going to win. bill stepien the ex-president's

campaign manager advised he wasn't going to declare victory what's the strategic imperative of all of these officials not only knowing trump had lost but telling trump he lost? >> i think it's important for the american people to hear firsthand the advice the president was receiving on the election and in the days after the election, and particularly to the campaign manager for a campaign. there is nobody who wants to win a campaign more than the candidate themselves than the campaign manager. so the campaign manager however fell back on his commitment to being honest and professional, and he said when he saw the president and the team heading in a direction that wasn't, he left. you see the attorney general trying to indulge the president's concepts of fraud and actually investigate all of those, debunk them, go to the president and tell him there's no merit. there's no evidence to any of these fraud accusations, and yet the president chose to continue

to tell his supporters that fraud had occurred. you see people all throughout the republican infrastructure around the president acknowledge that he had not won, but at some point it's sort of split between what bill stepien called team normal and then the other team who were willing to tell the president what he wanted to hear, that there was still some sort of path towards overturning the outcome of the election, and that's such a dangerous thing in a democracy. i come from a country that was a democracy until it wasn't. i worked on countries that were democracies until they weren't. i know the fragility of democracies, and the character of the people you elect determines whether or not democracies survive, and i think we're seeing the character of these people on full display. >> and what you just articulated is something liz cheney has been very public about in terms of her motivation and her role as the vice chair of the committee, and i wonder, it feels like

establishing that donald trump knew he lost, that donald trump knew he couldn't win, even the fox news election official chris stirewalt's testimony that there was no way trump can win. in the history of recounts, no one makes up thousands of votes. you only recount when it's a matter of hundreds. is the theory of the case that donald trump knew he hadn't won, couldn't win, didn't win and was trying to plot this coup from inside and that it all comes together? this doj reporting from "the washington post" makes clear that trump was on the edge of the knife, the pence evidence that we've seen so far makes clear that pence was casting about for advice to dan quayle to judge michael ludig who i know is a witness on thursday. what is sort of the tension in terms of what we have not seen yet in terms of the evidence? >> i think a lot of what we are going to lay out is evidence that there were people who were

going to follow the law and live into their oath of office and their commitment to the constitution and to winning elections in a free and fairway, and then there were other people within the trump circle who were trying to find alternate routes to winning an election, and ultimately the president listened to the people who told him that there was still a way, even if it wasn't one that was a legitimate path. >> congresswoman, the focus of today's hearing was this doj, the coup plot within doj, mr. jeffrey clark. that's been delayed. can you just explain why that happened and when we'll hear that part of the story? >> well, so these hearings are being put on by people with lives in and schedules that have to be accommodated. as you saw in hearing two, one of our witnesses had an incredible life event. his wife -- they were expecting

a baby and his wife went into labor, and so we had to adjust to that. we're really just dealing with the logistics around coordinating an event like this, getting everybody in place at the right time, and also, making sure that the product that we present is credible, has all of the i's dotted, t's crossed. it is based in evidence that there's not anything that is said that, you know, is not accurate. it's so important that we get this right as opposed to being driven by a schedule that has a lot of elements, you know, impacting it. >> and my last question, there's been a lot of scrutiny of the statements, public statements of your fellow committee members about whether or not at the end of this process a criminal referral is on the table. your chairman bennie thompson has said -- who said it is off the table making clear that there's not a split, can you

tell us, i mean, whether or not you send a referral or not, is there any doubt in your mind that donald trump committed crimes? >> i think that we are still in the investigative process. we are still deposing witnesses, collecting information, and i want to be able to see all of that before we make any determination, and we will provide all of that evidence when we write the report, but i think from what i've seen so far, i can say with certainty that he did not conduct himself in a way that was fit for his office or showed any kind of commitment to our constitution, our free and fair elections, our rule of law, or our democracy. >> congresswoman stephanie murphy, thank you very much for starting us off today on a very busy week. we're very grateful. >> great to be with you. joining our conversation, harry litman, former deputy assistant attorney general and the host of "the talking feds" podcast. and betsy woodruff swan, the

national correspondent for "politico" and an msnbc contributor, and with me at the table, nick con fi sor ree, an msnbc political analyst, betsy i want to dive into some of the reporting. the production of what they're doing, which is really writing to taped testimony is so intricate, and theirs goes on for two hours. the delay is understandable, but this piece -- and you've done some reporting on this, the jeffrey clark plot, and there's some great new reporting in the post that brings us even further inside the room, this doj piece is central to the whole thing. this is that innermost ring that congressman raskin talked about, donald trump's plan to have the election results cast as invalid or corrupt by doj, and then in the words of donald trump has taken in notes by mr. donohue, me and our allies will do the rest. >> i don't know that people realize just how perilous this

particular meeting was for the way that the u.s. government works and for the way this the final few weeks of trump's presidency could have panned out. it's very sobering to think about what might have happened and how things might have been different if the quote, unquote team normal senior doj officials hadn't realized that jeff clark was about to have a meeting with trump and had it rushed to the white house as quickly as they possibly could, even in the case of one of those officials wearing jeans and a t-shirt. the prospect of trump being able to actually install someone at the doj who would have had the department do his bidding is something that would have had enormous consequences. what i also found really striking about this post reporting is that it specifically looks at the fact that trump wanted the attorney general to have a press conference about election fraud.

what trump knew at the time and because bill barr it did it, was that the justice department controversially actually was investigating allegations of election fraud. it actually was looking at, you know, the atlanta suitcase conspiracy theory, all that wacky stuff. those investigations are something that i've reported on extensively that's very much publicly known. what seemed much more important to trump than the fact of those investigations was having a senior doj official say we're worried about this. we're finding problems regardless of whether or not the justice department actually identified any problems there directly analogous to what happened to trump's first impeachment in ukraine when he wanted ukraine's then and current president to have a press conference. trump cares about optics and he cares about what people say, and it's so consequential that nobody at the justice department was willing to be a puppet for him. >> betsy, it's so important to point out the pattern of how he

rolls, and not in his defense is what i want to say, but to understand why he does it, you look at the people that came. i mean, the reason he does it is because all of his supporters came, and he just needed these handful of officials to fall his way and then the plot would be complete. i wonder what you make of where the committee is heading in terms of knitting all three of these seemingly adjacent swirls of criminal conduct and antidemocratic behavior inside the president's executive branch of government and his campaign, inside the extremist groups who have been charged with seditious conspiracy, and those trump supporters who were at the rally on the ellipse and traveled to the capitol. >> yeah, it was all an effort to spread the president's lie about the election outcome, and then once that lie had been propagated broadly enough despite the fact that the

attorney general, acting attorney general wasn't willing to be helpful in spreading that lie, that lie had been propagated widely enough, the next step was weaponizing the lie to at the very least and the most benign possible explanation at least terrify mike pence and members of congress into refusing to certify the electoral college votes. the most benign possible explanation of what the goal was for the president and his allays when they put that rally together and urged people to march to the capitol building so they could be in the direct physical proximity of the vice president while he was performing that important but ceremonial ministerial work. this is something where i think the connections are probably going to become more clearly fleshed out as these hearings proceed and perhaps most importantly, it's the same characters who keep showing up over and over and so much of this comes down to lawyers, to the president's understanding of the law, and to his efforts to bring people on board who would

tell him that the law said whatever it was most convenient for him to think that the law said. tracking the lawyers is kind of a fun way of paying attention to how all these hearings are going to play out and to how the january 6th probe is unfolding. >> to that point, he finds that lawyer in john eastman, and john eastman is the one who's in the oval telling pence and pence's most senior advisers what to do, how to overturn the results of the election. you learn that jeffrey clark was in on the eastman plan, and i wonder in terms of whether this becomes a criminal lens through which all this conduct is examined what that portends for messrs. clark and eastman. >> well, it surely does and that's why mr. clark already has pleaded the fifth repeatedly some 500 times. look, eastman and clark, these folks are not as if they were some of the adults in the room and everyone dissented.

all of the adults in the room -- and this has been part of what's been so effective about their presentation said this is a lie. you can't do this. these were just people whose only sort of qualification is they got themselves to him saying i can make something up for you. i can say that the emperor is wearing clothes, but these new revelations by clark we missed this by an eyelash. we had no idea, it wasn't just donohue who stood up, donohue and dozens of doj officials were ready resign if trump did this and that and that alone made him back down. but imagine if this letter had gone out under the e just of the new acting attorney general instead of the m.o. i've heard, he would have had the department of justice to say there's something fishy here, mr. raffensperger, you better go figure this out, et cetera. everything could have changed on a dime. we're looking at, i think, the

closest scrape we have so far, and clark, who has to date said in his public statements, oh, i was just giving options. clearly has been lying to the public. he twice, not once, but twice this dramatic meeting is the second, went around the back of the attorney general. i can't tell you what a cardinal offense that is for someone who's like eighth or tenth on the flowchart to meet with trump and do this plot, stunning and almost worked. >> and nick, i want to read more from "the washington post" reporting. it also shows how trump assembled the coup team, almost adjacent to folks that really weren't celebrated as particularly effective at pulling the levers of the government to serve the people, but clark was his man at doj. >> look, i think what we see here is the way that trump ran this is not that he was pulling every string charting the course, and he never was as president. all right? it wasn't his thing. keep me in office. i don't want to leave. i think i won, and then he

watched as people came out of the wood work from the lower rungs of his bureaucracy from outside the white house, sidney powell, and offered him the means, and he sat there in a meeting with the head of his own doj and debated with that person and their deputy for three hours if he would fire them in front of them and what -- >> it's like his tv show, what was it called? like -- what was it? the apprentice. >> and what held him back in the end, according to this report was not that he thought it was wrong or it would be wrong or the reports of fraud were wrong, it wouldn't be effective. it wouldn't work. >> everyone stick around, there are more stunning details in this meeting nick's talking about, that we're all talking about on this january 3rd oval office meeting between trump and his top team, which became like lord of the flies at that point. it's a moment that could be pivotal to the whole trump coup attempt as well as the january 6th hearings. we'll have more from that report, plus 31 members of a white supremacist group came

from all over our country this weekend. they were armed with shields and riot gear, and they all went to a small town in idaho, an onlooker describes them as a small army. their target, an lgbtq pride parade. how the rise in hate and hate speech targeting that community is feeding far right extremists nationwide. later in the program, everyone from bill barr to ivanka trump knew that the big lie was barr's favorite word bs, but there are still more than 100 current republican candidates who are pushing ahead with the lie that the election was stolen and prevailing. we'll dive into that and more when "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. stay with us, please. s after a . stay with us, please inspired byl stories of bipolar depression. i just couldn't find my way out of it. the lows of bipolar depression can take you to a dark place. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight.

this is where i want to be. call your doctor about sudden behavior changes or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor if latuda is right for you. pay as little as zero dollars for your first prescription. (driver) conventional thinking would say verizon ask your doctor if latuda has the largest and fastest 5g network. but, they don't. they only cover select cities with 5g. and with coverage of over 96% of interstate highway miles, they've got us covered.

when it comes to cybersecurity, the biggest threats don't always strike the biggest targets. so help safeguard your small business with comcast business securityedge™ it's advanced security that continuously scans for threats and helps protect every connected device. the choice is clear. get unbeatable business solutions from the most innovative company. so you can be ready for what's next. get started with a great deal on internet and voice for just $49.99 a month for 24 months with a 2 -year price guarantee. call today.

so many people are overweight now and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now, there's golo. golo helps with insulin resistance, getting rid of sugar cravings, helps control stress and emotional eating, and losing weight. go to golo.com and see how golo can change your life. that's g-o-l-o.com. ♪ ♪ [ maniacal laugh ] [ laughs ] [ laughs ] [ clucks ]

we are all back, harry, betsy, and nick. let me read some more from this great reporting. "the washington post" reports inside the explosive oval office confrontation three days before january 6th, quote, suppose i do this trump says to donohue. suppose i replace rosen with clark, what would you do? sir, i would resign immediately he responded. there is no way i'm serving under this guy. that would be clark. we're not the only ones, donohue said he told trump. you should understand that your entire department leadership will resign. every assistant attorney general will resign. mr. president, there aren't bureaucratic leftovers from another administration. you picked them. this is your leadership team. you sent every one of them to the senate. you got them confirmed. what's it going to say about you when we all walk out at the same time? donohue then tells trump that clark has no qualifications to

be attorney general. quote, he's never even been a criminal attorney. he's never conducted a criminal investigation in his life. he's never been in front of a grand jury, much less a trial jury. clark objects, quote, i've done a lot of very complicated appeals in civil litigation, environmental litigation and things like that clark says according to donohue's deposition. that's right, donohue says. you're an environmental lawyer. how about you go back to your office and we'll call you when there's an oil spill. maybe trolls would call that a solid burn. betsy, what's so amazing is the lord of the flies element to these clashes taking place in front of donald trump, and i'm guessing that's his jam. he loves that. >> yeah, no question one of the more distinctive components of shall we say trump's leadership style was that he loved watching his aides fight with each other.

it was basically an mma approach to oval office meetings. he just personally really enjoyed seeing people have these big dramatic fights, and it's hard to think what oval office fight could have been more dramatic and more large than this one between the leaders, both of his white house counsel's office and all the top doj people versus this one guy who trump thought was going to make all his election overturning dreams come true. the only other meeting that would perhaps compare in terms of mortal combat style vibe, would have been the meeting on december 18th where sidney powell, rudy giuliani, and the overstock.com guy met with trump and tried to persuade him to take all sorts of steps including using the military to seize voting machines, and it was only because a host of additional white house lawyers showed up and said, no, no, no, no, this is totally insane, that it didn't happen, and it's just

extraordinary the extent to which shouting matches in the oval office essentially dunk fests determined -- i don't want to sound hyperbolic here, but kind of determined the course of the end of donald trump's presidency. >> it absolutely determined the course of the last days of donald trump's presidency. we know that from evidence already introduced, harry litman. we know that from incredible reporting from chief among them betsy woodruff swan. we know that the decisions of a handful of individuals are the only reason that we didn't sit around and wait for some even graver constitutional crisis than what we witnessed. that is clear in the evidence presented to date. i want to come at this the other way, though. we're scrutinizing donohue and rosen on one side and clark on the other. i mean, what is -- what would the investigation look like into whether clark was just acting at

trump's direction or eastman's direction? >> yeah, so first of all, you're absolutely right. i mean, barr's comment about a whac-a-mole game is very apt, except this mole turns out to have needed quite big whacking. clark is -- everyone saw him if they had ever even heard of him as this obscure sort of figure, and it turns out that he's this ruthless ambitious machine, and that's what trump was able to try to exploit. is he looking at criminal liability? you bet, and that's why he and his lawyer have insisted on taking the 5th because this was a scheme he was attempting to do to make -- that is its bottomed on a lie to make georgia officials essentially overturn the lawful results of the election. there are two crimes that he could be on the hook for, but just generally the way trump's sort of management style married

with the ambition of, you know, this guy's up on the 7th floor and he doesn't even come to the 8:00 meetings, and now he's swaggering and he's going to be the attorney general and he tells rosen maybe i'll let you stay if you sign the letter, too. it's a kind of pathetic exercise, an exploited ambition by trump, and yet it came closer than anything i'm aware of to date of actually succeeding, and it would have, if nothing else, engendered chaos in the states and given an opening for trump to try to drive home different electors and, you know, complete electoral bedlam. >> and i think this is the point in the program, nick, where we should stop and say this isn't just about looking back at what jeffrey clark did. this is about looking forward and asking the question of what jeffrey clark as attorney general would do. >> that's right, and look, it's key here, ambition is a keyword

here. his plan called for him to be attorney general. his yearn for power, desire for that promotion, right? if he stays in office, if trump stays in office, this guy clark can be a.g. >> or comes back to office in two years. >> comes back. so again, i think understanding that opportunism was a core phenomenon in the trump presidency. throughout people who would not have gotten a third look for any other gop white house had important jobs in trump's white house. >> especially in the final week. >> because they were willing to do anything for him. it's funny, in every presidential administration there are people who come in at the very end just to serve out some time, punch a hole in their resume and be there and have the credential, and who knew that one of these guys tried to lead a coup within a coup at the most important office in the government in some ways, and what stopped him was the president, again, saying, well, it won't work. it won't pan out so i'm not going to do it. >> right. and two people who are in the

same category you just described, barr walks out late december, and so these are the two getting that last credential, turning the lights out at the end. they've got four weeks left in their tenure, and they face a hostile takeover plot from the environmental guy. >> that's right, now what stops it is a thin gray line. lawyers in flannel suits who swore an oath and took it seriously and said i'll quit. i'll give up power before i do this. that's the only reason this didn't happen. >> and i'll make you look bad in the process, donald trump. harry litman, betsy woodruff swan. nick sticks around, 31 arrests over the weekend stopping what could have been an awful, awful scene at a pride event. the new alarming focus for far right extremists targeting the lgbtq community, what's fueling it? what can we do about it? that's next. t? that's next. especially when you have metastatic breast cancer. when your time is threatened, it's hard to invest in your future. until now.

kisqali is helping women live longer than ever before when taken with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant... in hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali is a pill that's proven to delay disease progression. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain... a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills, or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. your future is ahead of you, so it's time to make the most of it with kisqali. because when you invest in yourself, everyone gets the best of you. riders! let your queries be known. uh, how come we don't call ourselves bikers anymore?

i mean, "riders" is cool, but "bikers"...is really cool. -seriously? -denied. can we go back to meeting at the rec center? the commute here is brutal. denied. how do we feel about getting a quote to see if we can save with america's number one motorcycle insurer? should flo stop asking the same question every time? -approved! -[ altered voice ] denied! [ normal voice ] whoa.

there's a monster problem and our hero needs solutions. so she starts a miro to brainstorm. “shoot it?” suggests the scientists. so they shoot it.

hmm... back to the miro board. dave says “feed it?” and dave feeds it. just then our hero has a breakthrough. "shoot it, camera, shoot a movie!" and so our humble team saves the day by working together. on miro. dozens of people with ties to the white nationalist group patriot front were arrested in idaho on saturday as they were on their way to disrupt a nearby pride event. that's according to law enforcement. as you can see here, the suspects were all wearing matching outfits, masks and shields. they were piled inside a u-haul and reportedly had riot gear and smoke grenades. these high profile arrests during pride month no less come as anti-lgbtq hate speech has been on the rise around our

country. in a new report, the a.p. talks to several experts who warn this increase in hateful rhetoric online and by far right influencers may be seen as a call to action by extremist groups to mobilize. joining our conversation msnbc national security analyst frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counterintelligence. my friend and colleague jonathan capehart is here, "washington post" associate msnbc's the sunday show, nick is still with me at the table. i feel like indirectly you've been pointing us towards this -- i don't think it's yellow anymore, flashing red light, about domestic violence extremists, attaching their hate and threat of violence to causes. even though you had issued those warnings, this arrest was so shocking and startling and really seems to usher in a very scary public phase, and i know you've also pointed to an imminent decision by the supreme court on abortion rights in america. just talk about the threat of environment in the country right

now. >> yeah, well, dhs has told us that we are in for increased more dynamic threat environment for the next few months, and they certainly pointed at things like this, like the expected abortion decision. i want to say this, it's important to understand that violent extremism doesn't spout out of nowhere. it's not a form of spontaneous combustion. it's not happening in a vacuum. it's cultivated and nurtured, and so if you look at things like the buffalo shooting, for example. in fact, look at the walmart el paso shooting, look at the charleston, south carolina, church shooting. what do you see cultivating and nurturing those shooters? you see legitimate or quasi legitimate people, some cable news hosts, even a former president legitimizing the notion that white replacement theory is happening. it's true, something needs to be done about it. similarly, this move, this surge

towards anti-trans, gender nonconforming violence against those individuals is being cultivated and nurtured by legitimate officeholders. who am i talking about? people like governors in florida, in texas, in other states who legitimize intolerance by passing bills that say these people are bad. this is wrong. don't say this word or don't teach any of this, and so, you know, while they may never expect violence to come from that, that's what happens when you breed intolerance. intolerance leads to extremism. extremism can lead to violence. that's what we saw over the weekend in core delane. if the police are accurate saying this takedown came just from a concerned citizen, thank goodness for that concerned citizen, if that's what brought down this pullover of the u-haul, and it wasn't

intelligence gathering, security measures, undercover agents or informants, then that's bad because more of this is coming and it shows the challenges law enforcement agencies are facing trying to take down these folks that are everywhere and engaged in so-called free speech. we have to rely on a citizen picking up the phone and calling 911. >> it's such an alarming picture you paint. i want to read some more from the a.p. reporting on your point, frank, about cultivation and cultivating hate and the intersection between hate and elected officials. a.p. writes this, last month a fundamentalist idaho pastor told his small boise congregation that gay, lesbian and transgender people should be executed by the government. another fundamentalist pastor in texas gave similar sermons. representative heather scott, an idaho republican lawmaker recently told an audience that drag queens and other lgbtq supporters are waging, quote, a

war of perversion against our children, end quote. and last week, florida governor ron desantis said he would consider sending child protective services to investigate parents who take their kids to drag shows. jonathan capehart, this isn't just one-off. this is an alternative reality. what was kellyanne conway's thing? alternate facts? >> alternative facts. >> this is an alternate universe of hate, of intolerance, of violence, asking the government to execute them. i mean, this is beyond flashing red. what do we do? >> well, one, we have to keep talking about this. we have to do what frank did and call out those elected officials, those public officials who are engaging in the rhetoric, engaging in pushing and signing the legislation that targets the lgbtq community, and on top of

the ap report, you know, i want to go back to the southern poverty law center poll that was released last week or two weeks ago that i wrote about, and part of that report, which was focused on the, quote, great replacement conspiracy in the wake of blacks being targeted by a white nationalist in buffalo, it also makes the point that the attacks on gender identity and the lgbtq community are also having an impact. and let me read you this because they polled people. it said when asked respondents if they believe transgender people are a threat to children, 30% overall agreed including 23% of democrats, 39% of republicans and 27% of independents. the number of people who agreed that transgender people, quote, are trying to indoctrinate children into their lifestyle, end quote, was far higher, but only among republicans and independents. 63% and 39% respectively who

agreed. that's what we're dealing with here, that it is the way that the community is being talked about, the way that it is being targeted. the way that it's being -- its own existence is being legislated is not just having an impact on the republican party base, it's having an impact on the country and on the way not only that we talk about these issues but the way we look at our fellow americans who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. >> how do we decide this is the bottom, this is as bad as it gets and go another direction, jonathan? >> i don't know. usually when we decide as a nation that we have to go in another direction, it's unfortunately usually after a traumatic event. pulse nightclub six years ago yesterday. six years ago yesterday. at the time the largest mass shooting in the country, but it

remains the largest murder of lgbtq americans in our history. i pray that we don't get to a situation where coeur de lane isn't thwarted but actually happens, actually takes place. it's a shame that it takes tragedy to get this country to zero in and focus in on the hate either actions or rhetoric that's being waged, but sometimes that's what's needed in order to make the country wake up. my god, i hope we don't have to go that far. >> i want to -- i want to come back to all of you about where this exists because it exists out in the open online for everyone to see. we'll talk about that next. don't go anywhere.

the lows of bipolar depression can leave you down and in the dark. but what if you could begin to see the signs of hope all around you? what if you could let in the lyte? discover caplyta. caplyta is a once-daily pill, proven to deliver significant relief from bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and bipolar ii depression. and, in clinical trials, feelings of inner restlessness and weight gain were not common. caplyta can cause serious side effects. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts right away. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion,

which may be life-threatening, or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. in the darkness of bipolar i and ii depression, caplyta can help you let in the lyte. ask your doctor about caplyta, from intra-cellular therapies. it's time to get outdoorsy. ask your doctor about caplyta, it's hot! and wayfair has got just what you need. we need a rug. that's the one. yeah. yeah we're getting outdoorsy. save on outdoorsy furniture, decor, and more. you're so outdoorsy honey. what are you... spend less on everything outdoorsy at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ (sha bop sha bop) ♪ ♪ are the stars out tonight? (sha bop sha bop) ♪ ♪ ♪ alexa, play our favorite song again. ok. ♪ i only have eyes for you ♪ ♪ i want to rock and roll all night ♪ ♪ and party every day. ♪ ♪ i want to rock and roll all night ♪ applebee's late night. because half off is just more fun. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire we're back with frank, jonathan, and nick. nick, i want to read you this also from the associated press. more attacks in coming months. white nationalists and supremacists on accounts often run by young men are building thriving, macho communities across social media platforms like instagram, telegram, and tiktok, evading detection with coded hashtags and innuendo. their snarky memes and trendy videos are riling up thousands of followers on divisive issues, including abortion, guns, immigration, and lgbtq rights. the department of homeland security warned tuesday that such skewed framing of the subjects could drive extremists

to violently attack public places across the u.s. in coming months. so, we know who they are. we know where they're convening, and we know what they're targeting and when it's going to happen, and we do nothing? >> look, social media is the id of american politics and culture right now and i think what was so striking in that report was the fbi saying, there's so much of this on so many platforms that it's hard for them to distinguish between the insane ramblings of some random person and a person who actually intends to harm other people. but there's no question that the reactionary forces in american life have found a haven online for all that you read about censorship on these platforms, and blocking and shadow banning, it thrives. there are many places to go if this is what you're into. if you want to feel that and feel that hate and see it, and see it memed and turned into videos, and there isn't much anyone can do to stop it. the question, the challenge for law enforcement, for everybody,

is, again, that question, how do you decide when somebody is -- is on the verge of going from just a fan, so to speak, to somebody who might be a perp? >> well, i mean, frank, there has to be a solution that exists. there's just not the will to do anything about it. >> so, i'm with nick on this. social media is a driver here. there's no question about it. the ability to seek affirmation and belong to a group that just never existed 30 years ago. some crazy talk in the neighborhood that some kid was spouting would be shut down quickly by peers and by parents, and now you just can find the craziness just like you and associate with it. they are telling us who they are. the founder of the proud boys, a guy named mcginnis, gavin mcginnis, actually wrote, "we are all transphobic." that's who they are. that's the founder of the proud boys. the problem about doing something about it now gets deep into things we've talked about before.

free speech. freedom of assembly. the nature of social media being so pervasive that the fbi can't possibly monitor it all, even if they were allowed to do so. getting in after the fact, cleaning up the carnage after the wreck has occurred and relying on a citizen to call in 9 11 in coeur d'alene, idaho. you know, human nature tends to default to its lowest common denominator. you asked about where the bottom is, where we declare this is enough, we're here. we're not driving this train. social media at our lowest, depraved capabilities as humans is driving this and the legislative solutions like being able to declare a group a domestic terrorism organization just like we do for international terrorism, is highly problematic. could easily be abused by a former president like trump. yeah, i'll declare that group. i'll declare antifa via twitter, domestic terrorism organization, whether it exists or not.

so, really complicated stuff. it certainly isn't any time soon by our lawmakers. >> and so this is what it looks like without a solution. law enforcement, who picks up the phone when we call 911, this is what happens to them. this is about the death threats. coeur d'alene police chief lee white spoke to reporters monday saying his department has fielded 149 calls in the aftermath of the arrests. 50% of the calls have been praise from the community, and the other 50% who are completely anonymous who want nothing more than to scream and yell at us and use some really choice words offer death threats against myself and other members of the police department merely for doing our jobs, white said. i don't like to say this, but the bad guys are winning, jonathan capeheart. their speech can't be hindered or tracked or reined in. it's leading to violence. this was a thwarted attack. as you said, the next one may not be thwarted.

we may be covering something different and even though law enforcement officials who go based on the tip from a community member, they're human beings. half the calls have been threatening their lives. >> yeah. and this is where we are. and you know, i'm glad frank and nick brought up the point that social media is making it easier for these folks to be community without having to actually be together. the scary part is they go from exercising their free speech on social media platforms or maybe secretly meeting and then gathering in places in order to disrupt community. think about this. coeur d'alene, idaho, i had no idea that they had a gay pride anything in idaho, let alone coeur d'alene, and yet these guys that we're looking at in the back of a u-haul, getting set to disrupt a peaceful

gathering of people, and when i heard about this story and about what they were possibly going to do in idaho, it brought me back to the black lives matter protests that erupted in minnesota after the murder of george floyd. and they're all these, you know, conversations that were happening, including from the minnesota attorney general at the time who said, hey, wait a minute, stop blaming the violence on the peaceful protesters and let's talk about what seems to be white supremacist agitators coming into the community and wreaking havoc and then blaming it on the community. remember umbrella guy who was seen smashing an auto zone window and the peaceful protesters confronted him. so, now it looks like these white nationalists, these white supremacists, are turning their attention away from blaming blm and pinning the blame on antifa and now turning their attention

to the lgbtq community, and why does it always seem like white supremacists are always trying to wreak havoc among who they view as the other and then using that as an opportunity to blame them for the violence that they suffer? >> it's a sick, sick cycle. we'll stay on it. frank figliuzzi, jonathan capehart, nick confessore, thank you so much for spending time with us today. up next for us, a look at the january 6th hearing on thursday, the one coming up, and the pressure that was placed upon former vice president mike pence. that's next. don't go anywhere. me pence. that's next. don't go anywhere.

daddy, is that where we're from? well, actually, we're from a lot of places. see, we're from here, and there... give dad a gift worth sharing, at ancestry.com we need to reduce plastic waste in the environment. that's why at america's beverage companies, our bottles are made to be re-made. not all plastic is the same. we're carefully designing our bottles to be 100% recyclable, including the caps. they're collected and separated from other plastics, so they can be turned back into material that we use to make new bottles. that completes the circle and reduces plastic waste. please help us get every bottle back. (woman vo) sailing a great river past extraordinary landscapes into the heart of iconic cities is a journey for the curious traveler, one that many have yet to discover.

exploring with viking brings you closer to the world, to the history, the culture, the flavors, a serene river voyage on an elegant viking longship. learn more at viking.com panera chefs have crafted a masterpiece... a serene river voyage on an elegant viking longship. succulent, seared chicken... a secret aioli... clean ingredients... in a buttery brioche roll. made fresh, to leave you... speechless. panera's new chef's chicken sandwiches. $0 delivery fee for a limited time.

there are those in our party who believe that, in my position as presiding officer over the joint session, that i possess the authority to reject or return electoral votes certified by the states. but the constitution provides

the vice president with no such authority. before the joint session of congress. and the truth is, there's almost no idea more un-american than the notion that any one person could choose the american president. >> hi again, everyone, it's 5:00 in new york. in the face of a brutal and unrelenting pressure campaign waged by donald trump and his end game allies in the face of hundreds of angry insurrectionists, literally chanting "hang mike pence" and a gallows that was erected outside the capitol building, the former vice president on the night of january 6th ended up honoring his oath to the constitution, and he certified the electoral college vote count, formalizing president joe biden's victory. but it is that failed attempt by the ex-president to have pence stop the counting of electoral votes, something he didn't have the authority to do, that will be the focus of the january 6th

select committee's only remaining hearing this week. it's on thursday. the hearing will feature testimony from mike pence's former chief of staff or chief counsel, that's greg jacob, who we know spoke with the committee back in february for nearly nine hours. he has a unique window into exactly what trump and his inner circle were saying to pence, what they wanted him to do in the lead-up to january 6th, and according to reporting in the "washington post," jacob was among the very few in a meeting two days before the insurrection where trump demanded pence follow the advice of attorney john eastman, who pushed the theory that the vice president had the authority to refuse to certify the election. jacob strongly disagreed with eastman's proposals saying it went against the electoral count act and it was greg jacob who emailed this to john eastman. "thanks to your b.s., we are now under siege. pence's chief of staff, a man named marc short, who was also

in attendance during that meeting on january 4th, felt so strongly that pence would be in physical danger, he contacted pence's lead secret service agent the day before the riot. "new york times" reported earlier this month this, "mr. short did not know what form such a security risk might take, according to people familiar with the events, but after days of intensifying pressure from mr. trump on mr. pence to take the extraordinary step of intervening in the certification of the electoral college count to forestall mr. trump's defeat, mr. short seemed to have good reason for concern. the vice president's refusal to go along was exploding into an open and bitter breach between the two men at a time when the president was stoking the fury of his supporters. short's concerns were justified as we all know now. rioters got within 400 feet of where the former vice president and his family had just been. nbc confirms this afternoon that

expected witness, judge michael luttig, will be another live witness on thursday. judge luttig, renowned conservative judge, advised mike pence and his team in the days before january 6th not to take john eastman's advice and follow the eastman plan. this is where we begin the hour today. jonathan carl is here, the chief washington correspondent for abc news and the author of "betrayal: the final act of the trump show." mike schmidt is here, "new york times" washington correspondent, and with us at the table, joyce vance, former u.s. attorney, now law professor at the university of alabama. mike and joyce are both msnbc contributors. john carl, we start with you. i flipped through "betrayal" again. you write about a lot of what the focus will be on thursday. just remind us sort of, it is perhaps the most dramatic standoff between trump and eastman on one side and pence and those who advised him and worked for him on the other. >> it was incredible intense and

had been building up, nicole, for weeks before january 6th. donald trump getting this idea from eastman and others that pence, as he presided over that counting of the electoral votes, could actually throw out electoral votes and pence characterizes it correctly. the idea was that one man, one person, could overturn a presidential election. could throw out, effectively, tens of millions of actual votes and throw the election to donald trump. and this took place in a series of meetings, and including a phone call on the morning of january 6th as pence was preparing to head up to the capitol to do this duty, and as you remember, it had been reported by "the new york times" that trump had told pence you could either be a patriot or you could be a -- and i won't use the word. and i asked trump about that in the writing of "betrayal," and i assumed he would deny it and he

confirmed it. he said, no, i wouldn't deny that at all. the pressure was intense, and if you listen to that speech on january 6th, which was the culminating moment, the speech was still going on as trump -- as pence took to the dais in the house chamber. trump mentions pence's name over and over and over again, getting that crowd riled up to the point that ultimately, they not only invaded the capitol, but they were calling for mike pence's head. >> and john carl, i think there's a tweet. i think trump attacks pence as the evacuation of the pence family is under way. how central is pence's decision going into that day, the advice he got from judge luttig, and his own small group of counselors, and donald trump's indifference and enthusiasm for violence being carried out

against mike pence? i know he said to you, for your book, oh, he had secret service, but there's reporting by mike's colleagues that he thought mike pence deserved to be hung. >> well, not only that, trump told me directly, and it's on tape, it was on the record, i asked him if he was concerned for trump -- for pence. he said he wasn't. and then, i said, but those chants were terrible. you know, "hang mike pence." and what trump said to me, i mean, it shocks me to this day, shocks me that anybody that could hear that could still support him, he said, well, they were angry. it's common sense. these are the words he said to me after i said they were saying, "hang mike pence. "and trump's response is, it's common sense. how can you pass on a fraudulent vote? and that tweet, when he tweets the mob is inside the capitol, you saw in the presentation from the january 6th committee, in its first hearing, one of the rioters reading into a bullhorn,

trump's tweet, and you see the reaction of that crowd, you know, going after -- going into the building, chanting, "hang mike pence." they wanted to get him and trump was doing -- even to this day, only defending the actions of those calling for the murder of his vice president. i mean, it sounds crazy to say it, but this is exactly what was going on. >> well, and some of them are convicted felons at this point. i have that. let me play that, him saying all this in his own words. >> were you worried about him during that siege? were you worried about his safety? >> no, i thought he was well protected and i had heard that he was in good shape. no. because i had heard he was in very good shape. but, no, i think -- >> you heard those chants. that was terrible. >> he could have -- well, the people were very angry. >> they were saying, "hang mike pence." >> it's common sense, john. it's common sense that you're supposed to protect -- how can you -- if you know a vote is

fraudulent, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to congress? >> it takes on this dark comedy with you going, you know, you heard those chants. it was terrible. well, hanging isn't terrible. they're angry, jon. it is insane. >> i mean, not even a moment of pause. well, that's nuts, they shouldn't -- he was going on. one other really important point about judge luttig, who you point out had advised pence that he didn't have the constitutional authority to overturn an election, the other thing that luttig told me, and i expect we will hear from him at the hearing on thursday is, while it is clear that pence did not have the authority to do that, it's entirely unclear who would have had the authority to stop him if he had tried. and in luttig's view, if pence had gone through and done what trump wanted to do, we would have been thrust into a constitutional crisis unlike any the country has ever seen, and it's unclear if the supreme

court would have had authority to weigh in, and even if they did, how they would enforce a decision with the executive branch going in the other direction. it really was the pivotal moment. if pence had gone along, as he had done with everything else that trump had done to that point, it's unclear how the country could have gotten out of it. >> so, mike, let me -- jon brought us to judge luttig. let me show some of his recent interview with pbs to you. >> the stakes could not -- could not have been any higher under our form of republican democracy. the attack and assault from within by our public officials who were acting themselves not

in the interest of the country but out of their own personal political interests. that is something that -- that's -- that's the war that -- the one war that america can never win. >> mike, his testimony thursday as one of the live witnesses promises to be dramatic if that's any preview. but this is a -- something that you have reported on, and this was sort of the view inside pence world. as january 6th approached, there was a real scramble to figure out what to do, including consulting judge luttig and former vice president quayle. talk about what we know about that chapter. >> well, the chapter is so significant. i've actually thought a fair amount about this. why is it that the stuff about eastman resonates so much, and

why are people so concerned about it? and i think what it is, is that in a dictatorship, there are laws on the books. the problem is that the people running the government have bastardized them and do not follow them. and in this case, what you had was someone who was trump, who in many ways was hapless in his inability to get the government to do what he wanted. but in the case of eastman, he had someone who knew enough about the law to be dangerous. and to bastardize the law in a way that he needed. and because of that, it pushed the country to this point where, you know, as jon karl was just laying out, it all comes down to pence and pence could have plunged it over the line into a constitutional crisis. so, i think what it is, it's the idea that trump, who, look, trump was able to get his way on

a lot of things, but on a lot of things, he couldn't figure out how to get the government to do exactly what he wanted, but he had someone that knew how to pull the levers and knew enough about the law to make up the arguments to push it to him to make it very, very dangerous. and it was that addition at that really critical point in the aftermath of the election where trump is armed with someone who knows something about the law, and i think that's why it scares people so much. >> well, and you've got -- i think when you look at how the committee is pressing on this open door, as you describe, mike, this is what judge david carter, who ruled on a case regarding eastman's emails and records for the committee, and his opinion says this. "every american and certainly the president of the united states knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed. with a plan this bold, president trump knowingly tried to subvert this fundamental principle. based on the evidence, the court

finds it is more likely than not that president trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6th." it gets us right to the end of what's been a rather tortured debate of whether or not the committee will make a criminal referral to doj. you've got a federal judge really outlining there a likelihood that trump commit at least that crime. >> yeah, look, that ruling in the arc of the committee's investigation was a very, very important one, because it wasn't just them saying that there was criminality. it was the judicial branch saying that there was criminality, certainly enough that they had a right to the information that the committee was seeking, and it sort of proved what the committee, you know, look, by someone else saying it, it came with an additional amount of power. and it led some people on the committee to say, we don't need to make that referral anymore. the justice department has --

can see more than enough in the ruling, in what's on the public record, in what the work the committee has done to figure this out. and if we go ahead and make that referral, what we'll be doing is we will be putting another political layer on an already gnarly political question. so, why is it that we need to go forward and do that when a federal judge has already done that for us? >> joyce, i want to show you, if it's any sort of curtain raiser to how liz cheney views this chapter that mike and jon are reported on extensively, here she is talking about the twice impeached ex-president's reaction to the chants to hang mike pence. >> aware of the rioters' chants to hang mike pence, the president responded with this sentiment. "maybe our supporters have the right idea." mike pence "deserves it."

>> the delivery there can distract from the boom that she lowers on donald trump, but they clearly have nine and a half hours of testimony from the former vice president's chief of staff under subpoenas, his former -- i'm sorry, former chief counsel, his former chief of staff also testified and judge luttig, a source close to him promises that he will be giving his final opinion in his live testimony thursday. >> this is a real exclamation point in the testimony because here we are talking about a plot that doesn't involve violence, to use new electors. we're debating constitutionality. we're talking about whether the courts might intervene or whether we could have a constitutional crisis. and all of a sudden, we're talking about violence. and that's insurrection, a charge we haven't really talked about. we've been talking about interference with congress. >> that's so interesting. >> but you know, that raises this whole notion of seditious conspiracy, and something that has been lacking or at least that we haven't seen in these

hearings is evidence that the former president intended to use violent means or force to overthrow the government. suddenly, you have talk of hanging mike pence. you thought trump's comments, and i suspect at the end of these hearings, we'll hear the evidence about trump staying, you know, in the white house, doing nothing, issuing no orders to end the violence, and that's circumstantial evidence. it's not direct evidence. it's not trump himself saying, i'd like to use force to overthrow the government, but it's circumstantial evidence of his intent because if he had wanted to end the violence, he could have, and he didn't. and that could raise the specter of these additional charges being considered at doj. >> does that make trump part of the conspiracy? >> it's hard to say, because to prove a conspiracy, i mean, i'm just going to be nitty-gritty here. people always want to see trump inside of the conspiracy. prosecutors, when they evaluate the evidence, have to prove the actual agreement itself to achieve the illegal objective. it's never a written agreement,

right? it's not a contract. but there has to be a meeting. there has to be an agreement. there are some opportunities here. we have heard evidence throughout these proceedings. there's the late-night meeting at the white house that takes place that involves rudy giuliani, sidney powell, and trump and others that you'll recall is the meeting where trump manages to get into the room with them alone, and the meeting is only terminated when people on his side -- >> when he finds out. that's not the burden of proof for the slekt committee. is that where it's heading? >> i think the question of a criminal referral is in some degree beside the point for the committee. the committee is trying to convince, in the court of public opinion, to make the case that donald trump was directly responsible for what happened on january 6th and his actions not just on that day but in the months and weeks leading up to it was a high crime and a

misdemeanor. it was -- whether it's something that will be prosecuted, that's up to the justice department. but they're making the case that he bears responsibility and that he tried to undermine american democracy. you know, nicole, there's one very interesting thing that i have learned, though, about, at the end of the hearing, one of the white house counsel office lawyers there in those final days is talking about getting a call from john eastman on january 7th and eastman is still trying to push this effort to contest the election, to overturn the election. and eastman tells him, the only thing i want to talk to you about is an orderly transition of power. but what i'm told is that conversation went on, and that herschman, again, white house counsel appointed by trump working in the trump white house counsel's office, tells eastman, and i also advise you that you should get a criminal defense lawyer. so, clearly, the view of the lawyers -- the lawyers who were not trying to overturn the election, that were close to

trump, thought that what they were watching was criminal. was more than -- this was more than a political act. this was a criminal act. but again, the committee doesn't have to make that case, and the committee can't make that case. the committee can't prosecute. the committee's not a grand jury. that's up to the justice department. >> as if on cue, select committee vice chairwoman liz cheney has just tweeted out that click. mike schmidt, let me play this for you. >> it was the day after. eastman -- i don't remember why. he called me, or he texted me or called me, wanted to talk with me, and he said he couldn't reach others, and he started to ask me about something dealing with georgia and preserving something. potentially for appeal. and i said to him, are you out of your f'ing mind?

i said, i only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on. orderly transition. i said, i don't want to hear any other f'ing words coming out of your mouth, no matter what, other than orderly transition. repeat those words to me. and i -- >> what did he say? >> eventually, he said, orderly transition. i said, good, john. now i'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life. get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer. you're going to need it. then i hung up on him. >> get a great criminal defense lawyer. a few f-bombs in there for good measure. mike schmidt, this does broaden the picture in the window into john eastman's strife within the west wing. we know about him being in there physically. we don't know as much about the conversations. talk about john eastman not just as a character in the case being

made against donald trump, but as a figure who continues to believe and spread and insert himself inside state legislative bodies to further the big lie. >> well, the -- just on that clip, the question that i would really like to ask herschman in the follow-up there is that if he thought eastman broke the law, did he think trump broke the law? because you know, trump and eastman were working on this together. eastman knew more about the law than trump did, and he gave him sort of a blueprint and a path and a way forward, but trump encouraged it and pressured pence in the process. so, did the president's lawyer at the time, herschmann, who thought eastman broke the law, did he think trump did? again, that's just an opinion. but it would be pretty insightful to know about what a white house counsel lawyer thought at the time about that. look, eastman was someone who was able to worm his way into trump's inner circle.

the, you know, the guardrails were completely gone. trump was not listening to anyone who had kept him on track before. bill barr was gone. pat cippoloni was not being listened to. what happens is there's a vacuum around the president and it's in that vacuum where he's only listening to what he wants to hear that the eastmans and the flynns and the sidney powells have a direct line to him. this comes back to the incidents in december where flynn and powell are in the oval office pitching the president on the ideas of using the military to seize the voting machines and rerun the election. herschmann is in that meeting, trying to stop them and trying to push back there. so what was going on inside of the trump administration was that those who had enabled trump for much of his administration but had basically stopped in the final weeks, and that being the

herschman, cippilone and barr. this was the president of the united states taking legal advice on how he could use his power at the most critical moment of his presidency from a college professor who was not part of the administration. >> i mean, joyce, you listen to that clip and you listen to mike's analysis of the role he played inside the west wing, and you got at least one federal judge on the record saying that it is more likely than not that trump and eastman committed felonies. how is it that mr. eastman is not under criminal investigation? >> it would be surprising if he wasn't under investigation. it's entirely possible that's happening and we haven't seen signs of it. back in january, attorney general merrick garland promised that he would follow the evidence, go wherever it led, no matter who was involved, whether they were there on january 6th or not, and here we have the

architect or at least one of the architects of the fraudulent scheme. hard to imagine how he doesn't get tied up in some sort of criminal investigation at a minimum. >> do you think he is? i mean, from what you see, is there any evidence you've seen that he's under criminal investigation? >> i will confess to you that i have had this misgiving throughout, that we haven't seen the signs of a grand jury investigation being conducted that you would have expected in the first year that merrick garland was on board, but since january, really since december, we've seen more signs of a grand jury investigation under way. one of the points here, though, is that the evidence is very much evident in front of us. >> right. >> eastman has spoken extensively. there are now these investigative materials from congress. if you're doj, you need to follow up on that and do your own investigation. there's no reason to believe they can't. >> why would garland say, we're watching, like we're popping -- does that make doj look less than congress? to say, my prosecutors are watching tv? doesn't it make them look lame? >> i think that's been -- i

wonder if he wasn't speaking a little bit off the cuff there. look, if i'm a prosecutor, and if i'm running an investigation, of course i'm going to have someone watching the january 6th -- >> but why are you watching? why haven't you already reached those witnesses? >> one would hope that you already have in many places. we know that for whatever reason, they didn't seem to get off the mark as quickly as one might have expected that they would have. i think we'll learn a lot about that in the coming months. it is hard to imagine that we live in a world where doj could see evidence of this level of criminality by a number of people, some who took an oath to uphold the constitution, others who are lawyers, who take similar oaths when they become members of the bar, and that doj would not make every effort to hold those people accountable. >> i guess it's a consolation that they're watching on tv. jon karl, it's a treat when you get to come and visit with us. thank you for being here. joyce vance, thank you for starting us off. mike sticks around. when we come back, we'll be joined by one of the key

witnesses so far during the january 6th committee hearings, one of the first live witnesses, filmmaker nick quested. he was embed with the proud boys. we're going to ask him where he thinks this investigation might be heading next. plus, even as members of the disgraced ex-president's inner circle knew the big lie was just that, a lie, it has become the price of admission for republican office holders all across our country. brand-new reporting on that is ahead. and later in the show, shifting gears to ukraine, where the biden administration is ready to send more military aid as the eastern part of that country is increasingly in danger. we'll have a live report from kyiv. danger we'll have a live report from kyiv a monster was attacking but the team remained calm. because with miro, they could problem solve together, and find the answer that was right under their nose. or... his nose. we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair

enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. insights illuminate better choices. allowing us to see differently and do more. with kpmg you have the people and technologies, to uncover insights and turn them into action. when we act on insight, with the right people by our side, opportunity is everywhere. let insights reveal new opportunities.

a monster was attacking but the team remained calm. because with miro, they could problem solve together, and find the answer that was right under their nose. or... his nose.

as we look ahead to the next of those january 6th public hearings, we were joined today by documentarian nick quested, whose shocking and never-before-viewed video of the capitol the day the insurrection played a huge part. it was the opening act in the select committee's opening argument on thursday night in primetime. the footage dealt with the violence and the coordinated multistep efforts to overturn the 2020 election. quested, who filmed these dramatic scenes, was embedded with the proud boys after election day and invited by them to film them up close as they went about their day on january 6th. beyond the visual storytelling and that priceless evidence, which he's turned over to the fbi, quested testified on thursday about what he saw after meeting with the committee privately. he's our guest. thank you so much for being here. was this a -- i mean, i imagine

your stock and trade in being embedded is predicated on not having to go and testify in primetime about what you saw. i mean, how has this been for you? >> it's been pretty surreal experience, but it's fine because we really stick to the facts about what we saw, so for us, it's not that much of an issue, but it's -- it is -- it does present something i've never faced before. >> this detail that you offered in your testimony about how they went for tacos before the violence that played out on all of our tv screens, it just sounded -- made them sound so sociopathic, you know? the killers had to eat. what was the point of that detail? what did that signal to you? >> i mean, it's true, we stopped, we walked down the mile, we had gone around the reflecting pool, we'd been round the whole of the capitol building and then they went for lunch and we had tacos, and it was just a little bizarre. i mean, it's a little detail, and it was sort of said in a, you know, i didn't mean it to be glib or flippant because it's

what happened, but it's, you know, it sort of changed the tone of some of the testimony. but for me, they're just -- it is a little bit of a bizarre organization, like, but they had to eat. it's lunchtime. >> what do you think the evidence that you possessed and testified to, what role do you think it plays in the story that -- i mean, have you been able to, since last thursday, sort of sit back and catch any of the hearings and try to digest what piece of the puzzle you're filling in? >> well, yeah. i mean, obviously, to set the time that they were walking away from the monument is important, because it indicates that they weren't -- the ambition wasn't to watch the speech of president trump. they had another agenda. >> they weren't even there. >> they weren't even there. >> and their agenda was what? >> well, i only followed them. i don't know what their agenda was. i mean, there's other people who can have a better idea. >> what you filmed was the

stacks and the intrusion and you've seen the public testimony of the law enforcement officials that engaged in, quote, medieval hand-to-hand combat. was any of that foreshadowed in your time with them? >> there was -- when i was with them beforehand, we marched up and down the mall, which is what i thought we were going to be doing that day. i thought there was a potential for violence in the evening, that they would engage with antifa or blm, but i didn't see, you know, what transpired happening. i had no idea it was going to happen. and i was very underprepared. most of my ppe, i'd left in the car because walking around with a vest, ballistic vest is heavy. they weigh 30 pounds. i didn't want to do that again all day. i had done that a few times and it's hard work. >> did they want you to continue to film them once they were engaged in violence? >> i lost -- so, once -- so, basically, once the barriers come down, it's sort of every man for themselves.

and so i can see all sorts of people in my footage, whether it's proud boys or oath keepers or just trumpers or just rioters generally, so i wasn't really aware of them, per se, around me. and sometimes, i would bump into them. i interviewed one of them who had ski goggles on, and you know, very brief sort of stand-up -- not even a stand-up. i asked him a question. but i basically lost them, and you can find them in the footage subsequently, but i wasn't there following them at that point. i'm just trying to get to the point of contention and film the two sides of the argument at that point. >> the time stamp that you talk about and the importance to the committee's broader story, just remind us what that is. what time is it that they arrive? >> we arrived on the mall at 10:30 a.m. and we met the -- yeah. it's a little beyond that. they gathered at the mall at

10:00 and i picked them up at 10:30 as they're walking towards the capitol. and the president doesn't start speaking until close to noon. so, they were well away from the capitol at that point -- well away from the monument at that point. >> did they ever talk about their role in being there early? >> no, but they're -- in eddie -- eddie block's livestream footage, eddie brock is a proud boy and livestreams their event. there's a proud boy called milkshake who says, we're going to go and storm the capitol, and dean reminds him to -- that that's probably inappropriate language. >> inappropriate language but not behavior? i want to just try to understand whether or not this time that they're marching, being different from the time of donald trump's supporters convening and witnessing the speech, and then trump says, after being told by the secret service that he can't go, that he'll march with them.

are they aware of trump's movements or his supporters' movements as they're prepositioned at the capitol? do they know when the speech starts and ends? do they say, his supporters are coming now? >> i don't know if they're aware of trump's movement, but everyone was aware that the joint session would start at 1:00 p.m., so we arrived at the peace circle at around 12:50, and ryan puts his arms around biggs at around 12:52, and the barriers went down at 12:54. >> did they speak of having any maps or descriptions of the building or how to get into it? >> no, i didn't hear any of that. >> were they holding any pictures or maps of the building? >> i didn't see that. i don't have that in my footage. i didn't notice it if they did. >> did they reference any lawmakers as sort of waiting for them or looking for them? >> when you get close to the barriers, they're like -- there's some -- there was some

shouting about the speaker, and mike pence. and i mean, the language changed enormously from that before. there was a lot of talk of 1776 and whose streets, our streets, and where's antifa and they'd have riffs on that, but once we got to the barriers, it was challenging the police and the, you know, it was becoming much more confrontational. >> do you think, as this -- the violence carried out by the proud boys and the oath keepers, who have both been charged with seditious conspiracy, do you think this comes up again? have you been told to sort of stand by in case the committee wants to hear from you again? >> yeah. i don't know if they'll be using my footage again, but we've all been told to stand by. so, will it come again? i'm sure i'm going to be called for many of the proud boy trials. >> oh, right, for the criminal prosecutions.

>> yeah. >> does that make you uncomfortable or anxious or that just, you know, what you have is the footage and they carry out their crimes? >> yeah, i didn't -- i just filmed their actions, so you know, people are saying, well, you could be responsible for their incarceration, and i'm like, but their actions -- >> they invited you. >> their actions are incarcerating them, not my footage. >> does this have any impact on sort of your choices? i mean, was this sort of the front row seat that is the whole animating purpose behind being a filmmaker, or was this like a, whoa, too close for my comfort kind of experience for you? >> no, i have a habit of doing this. >> okay. all right. >> i find myself in the wrong place at the right time or the right place at the wrong time, depending on your perspective a few times. like i was one of the last planes that landed in turkey when the coup happened. i have, you know, we've worked

all over the world, and we seem to, you know, if you're sort of -- if you're good at your job, you end up in these places. >> well, your footage and what you documented and as you said the time that it happened was important enough that it is the opening statement, the opening piece of evidence introduced to the country, so we're really grateful to you for coming and talking to us about that. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you for testifying and sharing with all of us this really harrowing footage. thank you so much. >> thank you. ahead for us, the big lie has metastasized all across republican party politics. then, now, and in the future, even though we know donald trump's inner circle knew it was all b.s. it's on the ballot again today as voters head to the polls in key primary races. s in key primary races. bipolar depression. it made me feel trapped in a fog. this is art inspired by real stories of bipolar depression. i just couldn't find my way out of it. the lows of bipolar depression can take you to a dark place. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms and in clinical studies,

had no substantial impact on weight. this is where i want to be. call your doctor about sudden behavior changes or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor if latuda is right for you. pay as little as zero dollars for your first prescription.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ introducing the all-new infiniti qx60. take on your wild world in style. ♪ only at vanguard you're more than just an investor

you're an owner. that means that your priorities are ours too. our interactive tools and advice can help you build a future for the ones you love. that's the value of ownership.

so, just how far has the stinky, corrupted rot of the big lie actually spread in the 588 days since the 2020 election? it's knowable. "washington post" reports, district by district, state by state, voters in places that cast ballots through the end of may have chosen at least 108 candidates for statewide office or congress who have repeated trump's lies. the number jumps to at least 149 winning candidates out of more than 170 races when it includes those who have campaigned on a platform of tightening voting

rules or more stringently enforcing those already on the books. despite the lack of evidence of widespread fraud. joining our conversation, david plouffe, former obama campaign manager and former republican congressman david jolly, national chairman of the serve america movement. both are msnbc contributors. david plouffe, how does a democratic party position itself as the protecters of truth and the slayers of lies at the same time? >> well, nicole, i think the most important place where that question's getting answered is not in washington or amongst national democrats. it's going to be in individual states and individual districts where republicans have nominated people who refuse to acknowledge joe biden won or embraced the big lie, because in those places, probably at least two-thirds, maybe 80% of people would like us to remain a democracy, think joe biden won the election. so that's the question. i think you sew a lot of people who have embraced trump's big

lie in a republican party are able to win primaries. most of those are probably in safe districts or states. some of them are in swing states so i think that's where you need to punish them and make them pay a price for embracing the destruction of our democracy. but i think it's most important on the ground. i think this is less about what national democrats say or do. obviously, the commission is doing, i think, really important work to try and protect the republic but i think it's going to be in those races where candidates and campaigns have to skillfully make these republicans pay a steeper price as possible. >> yeah, i mean, i guess i'm constantly on the search for the democratic playbook that punishes republicans the way republicans punish democrats for far less. and what i'm thinking is that if the shoe were on the other foot, republicans would make it a disqualifying factor to peddle a lie that a republican person like bill barr calls b.s. over and over and over again. he's yukking it up at this point on camera for the 1/6 committee

and that is the same b.s. that republicans are spoon feeding voters that they must think are too stupid to learn the truth. who is the democratic candidate that plays hardball and makes the choice, one, about treating your voters that they're too stupid to figure out the truth? >> well, nicole, i think you'll see josh shapiro, i think ron johnson's opponent in wisconsin, you'll certain see this in other house races. so i think that's what we have to pay attention to. now, listen, i'll put my old practitioner's hat on. you have a pretty good sense if you're running a race what different segments of the electorate care about. i think a lot of people care about us remaining a democracy. lot of people really care about the economy and inflation. so the challenge here, i think, is to find those voters where you can make these republicans pay a price. so i think the lack of -- i would agree with you. i don't think republicans have paid a big enough price yet, and we have 2024 looming, which is going to be even a bigger test than 2022.

but i think in those places where you have republican candidates embracing the big lie, good, smart democratic candidates in their ads, in debates, so i think the fall is really going to tell the tale here. can democratic candidates, where they have that opportunity, properly execute? >> you've tickled my campaign operative and now i'm like a dog with a bone. i'm not going to let it go. david plouffe, you're talking about issues. republicans would disqualify an opponent on character. they wouldn't let them get out the door to come to a debate about issues like inflation or the economy. they would disqualify them on character. do democrats have the skillset and the constitution to make it about a character disqualifying belief system to believe in the big lie, which is behind the deadly insurrection, which is behind 486 voter suppression laws zooming through 48 states, all predicated on what bill barr describes as bull. >> i would hope so, nicole. now, again, i think it really does depend on the individual republican you're prosecuting the case against, but where you

have republicans who basically don't want to do anything about school shootings that are okay with a democracy withering and dying, that don't want to do anything to help the middle class, yeah, i think it's less about policy. it's more about, listen, my opponent, if they get to washington, they're going to preside over the destruction of our democracy. they're okay with school kids continuing to get shot. they don't want history taught in our schools. yeah, i think this is less about policy, it's more about character, and again, i think in swing districts and in swing states, that can be prosecuted effectively. but i agree with you, it's not about ten-point plans. it's basically very effective, strong, plain-speaking language about the stakes here. >> david jolly, david plouffe is the best that there is, and the only party that stands for democracy in the year 2022 in the united states of america, and what i think he's saying, carefully and artfully, is that not everyone can make this argument, and i guess my question for you, david jolly, is, what happens next?

>> one. freedom. we talk about the pro-democracy movement and protecting democracy. that's hard to translate, but what democrats today are doing and what the january 6th committee is trying to represent in the country is freedom. if you live in a country in which in a country in which your vote doesn't count, you fundamentally have lost all freedom. if you live in a country where your governor is not going to let you talk about your own faith or sexuality, or own political position without fear of reprisal. i think this needs to individualize it to the vote inter se, we are trying to protect your freedom. democrats can be the party of freedom. look what ron desantis has done in florida by mistakenly labelling the republican position as one of freedom. it's a powerful drug and it resonates. the truth is, the candidates you're seeing on the republican side are taking away the most fundamental freedom we have as americans, which is our

individual franchise, our individual suffrage, and our ability to self-express our political preferences. if republicans continue to win, and particularly if they elevate donald trump and he returns to the white house, we will experience the greatest loss of freedom that we have seen in this current generation. >> i mean, and i guess -- it chose you where my head goes on campaigns. freedom is what you gain. what you lose is security. the last time a midterm election was waged over security, homeland security, economic security, was 2002, the one in recent his where a president's party actually picked up seats. >> i don't know that the tide can turned back towards the democrats by november. folks like david will figure out that hard problem. i can tell you what republicans are concerned about, though, and that goes two ways. it looks at the states and at the white house. i think what republicans understand right now is very

similar to the tea party era, that the big lie has been infecting the party long enough that republican elders can no longer stop it. we will be inheriting a generation of republicans just like during the tea party emergence in washington where the big lie now is gop orthodoxy. the greatest fear now is the reemergence of donald trump. in '18 and '20 it's the never trump coalition. if donald trump becomes the face of the party going into 2024, that never trump coalition, the most effective voting coalition in the country today could emerge to stop republicans in their tracks come out of what might be an inevitable victory in '22. >> it's so interesting and i think there are so many more acts to this play. thank you to both of you. wonderful to see both of you. when we come back, the biden administration is getting ready to send more military aid to

ukraine, and it comes at a time when fierce fighting is putting the eastern part of ukraine in grave danger. a live report from kyiv is next. stay with us. since i left for college, my dad has gotten back into some of his old hobbies. and now he's taking trulicity, and it looks like he's gotten into some new healthier habits, too. what changes are you making for your type 2 diabetes? maybe it's time to try trulicity. it's proven to help lower a1c. it can help you lose up to 10 pounds. and it's only taken once a week, so it can fit into your busy life. trulicity is for type 2 diabetes.

it isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. it's not approved for use in children. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, changes in vision, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration, and may worsen kidney problems. the choices you make can help control your a1c. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. once upon a time, at the magical everly estate, landscaper larry and his trusty crew... were delayed when the new kid totaled his truck. timber... fortunately, they were covered by progressive, so it was a happy ending... for almost everyone. this is koli. my foster fail (laughs). when i first started fostering koli i had been giving him kibble. it never looked or felt like real food. but with the farmer's dog you can see the pieces of turkey.

it smells like actual food. i saw a difference almost overnight. healthy poops, healthy dog, right? as he's aged, he's still quite energetic and youthful. i really attribute that to diet. you know, he's my buddy. my job is to keep my buddy safe and happy. ♪♪ get started at longlivedogs.com only at vanguard, you're more than just an investor you're an owner. that means that your goals are ours too. and vanguard retirement tools and advice

can help you get there. that's the value of ownership. and, we're back! it's time to see which chew provides the longest-lasting flea and tick protection. bravecto's the big winner. 12 weeks of powerful protection, nearly 3 times longer than any other chew. bravo, bravecto! bravo! at adp, we use data-driven insights to design hr solutions to help you engage and retain top performers today, so you can have more success tomorrow. ♪ one thing leads to another, yeah, yeah ♪ let's bring in coverage. ali live for us in kyiv. i know there have been air raid sirens. tell us what's happening right now and today. >> reporter: hi, nicole, yeah, the air raid sirens just went off here in kyiv, and they have

been going off once or twice a day for the last couple of weeks now. but there's only been, thankfully, one attack on kyiv, which didn't kill anybody, and that's because the russians are really focused on the donbas region in particular in luhansk. they're burn it to the ground. they're really hurting the ukrainians there. the military governor of the area says they're probably in control of about 70% or 80% a that city, and he says, you know, the battle for the donbas region is going to shape this entire war in the next few days, maybe the next week of fighting there is going to be pivotal to see who gets it. the russians keep pushing the ukrainians further back into smaller pockets of control. right now ukrainian troops are

holed up in the azov chemical plant, and there are a bunch of civilians in there as well, 600 civilians, many of them women and children, and the russians are using the same play book they use in the mariupol and other places, seize and starvation tactics. they said to the ukrainian troops in there, surrender by 8:00 moscow time and we'll give you a safe corridor to russian territories. but there's no sign the russians want to surrender that chemical plant or the civilians there to go into russian territory. so it's going to be a fierce and bloody battle in that area for the coming days and weeks. the russians have blown up two bridges over the weekend connecting severodonetsk, the capital, to just over the other side. they destroyed another bridge, just the last one today, so no vehicles can get over there. that area is now essentially cut off from the rest of ukraine,

just a drip feed of people that can get in and out that are willing to walk across a heavily damaged bridge. and you speak to most people here, nicole, and they don't think the russians are going to stop there, even if they take the donbas area. most people here think that putin has these imperialistic ideas. he saw him modestly compare himself to peter the great. and they think this is just the tip of the iceberg, he's just going to carry on pushing on and on till he takes this whole country. and he's got much more money and weapons to do it. i've read an incredible statistic today -- that just in the month of may, the ukrainians collected $3.4 billion in taxes, but they spent double that on defenses. but the russians got almost $100 billion in energy revenues since the beginning of this war, so they're in a much better position to fund their war machine. they've got a lot more weapons. they're still using soviet era

weapons, so the fear is this is going to go on for a listening time until putin get what is he wants. >> i know the nightmare scenario for many ukrainians was the world would look away when russia became most aggressive and brutal. that seems to have come to pass. we're lucky you're there doing your reporting for us. thank you. stay safe. >> our thanks to all of you for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary triems. we're so grateful. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. hi, ari. >> hi, nicole. welcome to "the beat." we start with the new january 6th evidence that's send out shock waves and it's out from the committee right now. trump committee lawyer eric hirschmann, he's maga, you may have seen his name pop up in the hearings, but this is new tonight talking about his dion