tonight on the reidout. >> i was in the vicinity of a conversation where i overheard the president say something to the effect of, i don't f'ing care they have weapons. they're not here to hurt me. take the f'ing mags away. let my people in. they can march to the capitol from here. >> stunning testimony that donald trump not only knew that january 6th was likely to turn violent and did nothing to stop it, he fully intended to lead his armed maga mob into the capitol. to paraphrase our esteemed nbc presidential historian michael beschloss, never before have we heard testimony this shocking about a president of the united states. and we begin tonight with donald trump's determination to personally lead the insurrection at the capitol on january 6th.

to hang on to power, no matter the cost. this is what was revealed in bombshell tome by cassidy hutchinson, a former top aide to mark meadows. it was made clear that trump knew the dangers that existed on the day of the insurrection. hutchinson testified she heard the names of the extremist groups the oath keepers and the proud boys brought up during planning meetings for the january 6th rally. quote, when mr. giuliani would be around. and she said the justice department's national security division warned that some maga supporters were going to try to, quote, occupy federal buildings and invade the capitol building. most alarming, trump was made aware the very morning of january 6th that many of those at his rally were carrying an array of dangerous weapons. >> i remember tony mentioning knives, guns, in the form of pistols and rifles, bear spray,

body armor, spears, and flag poles. >> despite having all that information, trump took to the stage on the ellipse and directed his armed, enraged, and dangerous supporters to join him at the capitol to fight for him. >> we're going to have to fight much harder. and after this, we're going to walk down and i'll be there with you. we're going to walk down to the capitol. and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. and we'll probably not be cheering so much for some of them. because you'll never take back our country with weakness. >> that wasn't completely clear until today that he meant it, not as hyperbole or at a rhetorical flourish but as the plan. he was planning to go with them to the capitol that day, and possibly make some grand

dramatic presentation either outside the capitol or even inside the house chamber. mussolini style. even though he was told by practically everyone in the white house that it was a dangerous idea. hutchinson testified about the repeated warnings from white house counsel pat cipollone including on the morning of january 6th not to join the maga mob. >> mr. sip alony said something to the effect of, please make sure we don't go up to the capitol, cassidy. keep in touch with me. we're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> the potential legal jeopardy would not deter trump in what he thought was going to be his moment of glory. after he finished his speech and was brought back to his motorcade, he was informed he was head today the white house and not the capital. that's when trump literally tried to take the matter into his own hands. >> the president said something to the effect of, i'm the f'ing president, take me up to the

capitol now. to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the west wing. the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. mr. engle grabbed his arm, said sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. we're going back to the west wing. we're not going to the capitol. mr. trump then used his free renato recounted the story to me, he motioned towards his clavicles. >> i confess i can never recall ever having heard an example of a president trying to physically hijack his own motorcade. have you? has anyone if you have to remember this day was long in the making and trump wanted to savor every moment. it was trump himself who invited everyone to washington the previous december saying it was going to be wild. we have already heard from trump's former white house

adviser steve bannon making clear that what was to come on the day before january 6th. >> all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. just understand this. all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it's going to be moving. it's going to be quick. >> all hell is going to break loose. and today, we learned that trump's intention to be at the capitol was not some spur of the moment decision. hutchinson described a conversation she had with rudy giuliani on january 2. >> as mr. giuliani and i were walking to his vehicles that evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of, cass, are you excited for the 6th? it's going to be a great day. we're going to the capitol. it's going to be great. the president is going to be there. he's going to look powerful. he's going to be with the members. he's going to be with the senators. talk to the chief about it, talk to the chief about it. he knows about it. >> and when she relaid that

conversation to her now former boss, mark meadows seemed to know what lay ahead on january 6th. >> he didn't look up from his phone and said something to the effect of, there's lot going on, cass. but i don't know, things might get real, real bad on january 6th. >> joining me now, a member of the january 6th select committee, congressman jamie raskin of maryland. thank you for being here. i think this hearing was as promised, it was as dramatic as promised. but i want to walk through a couple things. one of the things that this made me want to -- one of the people, this hearing made me want to hear from and liz cheney has said it over and over, is pat cipollone. he is someone who seemed to be at the center of much of this, seemed to be in the room along with ms. hutchinson for much of this. and also on the right side of history here in saying do not do any of this. what is the progress of the committee of getting pat cipollone to testify?

>> well, the committee's obviously very interested in hearing from mr. cipollone, and i can't make any report about the details of any negotiations that may or may not be taking place. but i will say that today was indeed a huge breakthrough in terms of our understanding of events because cassidy hutchinson, who displayed a lot of courage, a lot of character coming before the committee today, demolished any pretense that the savage mob violence that came out of that crowd and that eventuated in the storming of the capitol somehow took donald trump by surprise. i mean, he was perfectly aware that there were weapons out in that crowd, and according to her testimony, wanted to take down the mags, in other words, remove the metal detectors so the armed people could mix in with everybody else in preparation

for the march up to the capitol. >> and let me play, this is cassidy hutchinson talking about a conversation between her then boss mark meadows and pat cipollone about trump literally not wanting to stop the violence. >> i remember pat saying to him, something to the effect of, the rioters have gotten to the capitol, mark. we need to go down and see the president now. and mark looked up at him and said he doesn't want to do anything, pat. and pat said something to the effect of, and very clearly, said this to mark, something to the effect of mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your f'ing hands. this is getting out of control. i'm going down there. >> when you combine this testimony that trump did not want the violence to stop, what you just said, that trump heard that people were going through the magnetometers and people

were catching knives and guns and other weapons, and that he insists that the mags be taken away, that armed people be let in, and then his determination to number one allow those armed people to march to the capitol, his seeming presupposition they were going to go to the capitol, and then his decision, his determination to also go to the capitol and maybe do some dramatic presentation, maybe inside of the house chamber. is the contention at this point, i feel like you guys have gotten a lot further to connecting donald trump to the seditious conspiracy charges that we have seen against those armed people. at least the leaders of those two armed groups, the 3 percenters and the oath keepers. the 3 percenters and the proud boys. and that the contention, that donald trump knew 3 percenters and oath keepers and proud boys specifically were going to try to occupy the house and that that was his plan? >> well, nothing was advanced

like that in the evidence today about those specific -- about his knowledge of those specific groups. but hutchinson testified that for donald trump, it made no difference that these individuals were armed. he said they're not going to harm me. they're not there to hurt him. so that was the key consideration, they were on his side, and he had no problem with them blending in to the rally and then being part of the march that he so desperately wanted to go on himself. and of course, his speech was all about, like, we're going to fight like hell, otherwise you're not going to have a country anymore. and there are very different rules when there's fraud involved and so on. so there's a series of admanations to the ground to go and fight, and that was, you know, what was on his mind, and we, of course, have known that he didn't do anything to try to

stop the crowd, but here we see him actively trying to cheer it on, and according to hutchinson, you know, being disappointed that armed individuals are being kept out of the crowd, at least momentarily, by the metal detectors. >> really quick question, what is the progress, i mean, we know mark meadows has also refused to testimony. his testimony would seem to be important here, but are there other people in theory who could corroborate some of what we heard today. there are nbc reporting that sources maze be close to the secret service, are disputing some of the really dramatic story about donald trump trying to lunge forward and take control of the beast, the presidential vehicle. are there any plans from the committee to call corroborating witnesses? for instance, the secret service, the leader of the secret service, bobby engle. is he on the witness list? is there other testimony that we're going to hear that might corroborate some of those very

specific details that at this point are heresy? >> well, i don't have any further details on that right now. i'll just say that i found her testimony 100% credible. she would have no reason to make any of that up. and the committee remains determined to get all of the evidence we can from all of the material witnesses that are out there. so we'll continue to pursue all of the facts and all of the leads. >> one last question, we're out of time. liz cheney at the end of this hearing pointed out what sure did sound like witness tampering, saying people were -- there was outreach to some witnesses saying hey, as long as i continue to be a team player, they know i'm on the right team, doing the right thing, trump reads transcripts, he knows your loyal. it sounds like mob talk. in your view, is there witness tampering or obstruction? criminal obstruction going on from team trump or maybe from the former president?

>> well, i don't know enough about the facts of any individual case, but i will tell you that the committee is well aware that witness tampering is a federal offense. it is an offense in the district of columbia, an offense in all of the states, and it's a very serious matter because it means someone is trying to interfere with the collection of the truth. and the collection of facts, and the committee will not stand by and allow that to happen, and we will be acting in a very strong way to oppose any kind of witness tampering or other forms of obstruction of justice that we encounter. >> would that include referrals to the justice department? >> well, undoubtedly, if there is substantial factual predicate for obstruction of justice or witness tampering, we'll take appropriate legal measures at that point. >> congressman jamie raskin, thank you. really appreciate your time. >> up next, the very serious legal jeopardy now facing trump and company after today's

testimony, which some are calling the smoking gun. the reidout continues after this. s after is

researchers believe the first person to live to 150 has already been born. it could be you! wow. really? of course, you'll have to eat your greens, watch your stress, wear sunscreen... but to live to 150, we're developing solutions that help doctors listen to your heartbeat while they're miles away, or ai that knows what your body will do before you do. cool. introducing elevance health. where health can go.

wanna help kids get their homework done? introducing elevance health. well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities.

there are many discussions the morning of the 6th about the rhetoric of the speech that day. in my conversations with mr. hirshman, he had relaid that we would be foolish to include language that had been included at the president's request, which had lines along to the effect of fight for trump, we're going to march to the capitol. i'll be there with you. fight for me, fight for what we're doing. fight for the movement. >> for more on today's bombshell testimony and what it means for trump's potential legal peril, i'm joined by charles coleman jr., betsy woodruff swan, and glenn kirschner. glenn, there are a lot of

potential crimes spelled out to cassidy hutchinson, people telling her if we do x, we're looking at crimes. she was told that about the speech on the ellipse, saying in thes like fight for me, knowing violence was taking place, and even donald trump's actions and trying to go to the capitol and physically be there. what crimes might those be? >> this re-enforces the earlier ruling that we all heard from the federal judge in california, david carter, who decided by a preponderance of the evidence that donald trump together with john eastman committed at least two federal felonies. one, obstructing the official proceeding, the certification of joe biden's win, and the other, a conspiracy to defraud or commit offenses against the united states. i happen to think that there's now a third conspirator who would fit comfortably between donald trump and john eastman in that finding, and that would be mark meadows based on some of what we learned. i tell you, joy, there was a marquee line, one of the most

incriminated things we have heard yet that was disclosed in today's hearing. i would make it the centerpiece of a prosecution of donald trump. that was after trump was advised that the crowd was armed with rifles and handguns and knives and brass knuckles, he said, i don't care. take down the f'ing metal detectors because they're not here to hurt me. in courtrooms around the country every day, joy, jurors are told that they can infer what that means. it obviously means donald trump believed they weren't there to hurt him, but what can we infer from that? that he believed they were there to hurt the people at the capitol who were certifying the win of his opponent. and he wanted to lead the armed insurrection. he went so far as to assault his own limo driver to try to force him down to the capitol so he could lead the armed insurrection. that is some marquee

incriminating evidence. >> and charles, you have his chief of staff, who look, if you want to know anything about a president, the person who knows the most is the chief of staff. he seems to be the marquee person that would know all the crimes that were committed because he was the one who was detached, staring at his phone, not responding to cassidy hutchinson when she would try to wake him up and see what was happening. this is cut four for my producers. this is one of the scenes as described by cassidy hutchinson. >> mark was sitting on his couch on his phone, which is something typical. i remember distinctly mark not looking up from his phone. the riters are getting close, have you talked to the president? he said no, he wants to be alone right now. still looking at his phone. mark still sitting on his phone. he's still sitting on his phone. >> are you in agreement if you put together donald trump demanding the mags be taken away, demanding armed people be allowed to not only march to the capitol, knowing they were

armed, but also wanting to go with them and make some sort of presentation and the guy who would know the most about him being completely detached and maybe in the background telling him we're going to make it otr, find a way it get you to the capitol, it does seem to me if there was going to be criminal liability, mark meadows would be the chief witness, maybe a hostile witness. >> well, certainly, joy. everything about what we learned today from this witness tells us that mark meadows was not surprised by any of the events on january 6th, that they had talked about it, they had planned it, and this was what they were anticipating. i think one of the reasons why ms. hutchinson's testimony was so valuable beyond how explosive it was, because it gave the committee a way to pierce the executive privilege they have been dancing around with respect to mark meadows. a large part of why they didn't go after meadows more aggressively is there was this murky line around executive privilege, so now you have a witness who doesn't have that privilege attached to her who still is able to provide some

context and information about what took place on that day, and what we learned today was simply astonishing. we have a very different view about how much president trump knew about the fact that these people were armed and that they were armored in terms of the body armor they were wearing, and yet and still, he made every effort possible through his rage, through his tyrannical attitude of wanting to make sure they had unfettered access to do exactly what it was he knew they would do on january 6th. >> there's also some evidence, and betsy, i'm going to go to you on what the reaction is to this out in trump world if you know, and if you have reporting on that. donald trump also seemed to have cognizance that what these people were doing was criminal. this is cassidy hutchinson talking about what trump wanted to add to his speech. this is cut six for my producers of what he wanted to add to the speech he was reluctantly going finally give on january 7th. >> there were several lines that didn't make it in there about prosecuting the rioters or

calling them violent. he didn't want that in there. he wanted to put it in that he wanted to potentially pardon them. and just with the increased emphasis of his mind set at the time, which was he didn't think they did anything wrong. >> so he thought about wanting to pardon the people who were attacking the capitol. then he got people asking him for pardons. and according to cassidy hutchinson, mo brooks, matt gaetz, andy biggs, louie gohmert, scott perry, marjorie taylor greene, mark meadows, and rudy giuliani were seeking pardons. there's broad knowledge that criminality had taken place. you know, the republican sort of twitter official twitterdom has tried to dismiss this testimony today as no biggy, but it seems like they all thought it was a biggy at the time. >> without question, there were a host of senior white house officials and powerful congressional republicans who worried that they would or in

fact did at least face the prospect of criminal prosecution because of what happened on january 6th. and remember, cassidy hutchinson worked in the white house as office of legislative affairs before she became mark meadows' top deputy. she knew all these people. part of her job was getting to know every single house republican really closely. what do they want, what do they need? what makes them tick? that's what staffers in any administration do. it's part of the gig. and because of that, she would have been very much aware, even in these final days, even after she was in the office of legislative affairs role, of the way that these members were trying to exert pressure on the white house. and these members all would have known her too. she's somebody who, as i believe cheney highlighted at the beginning of the hearing, was a familiar face on the hill. trump himself, of course, is distancing himself from her, saying he doesn't really know who she is. frankly, that's not really germane because she never claims

to have a close or intimate relationship with the former president, but there's no question these republican members of congress are people who she got to know quite well. now, some of the biggest pushback we're seeing currently from trump world is highlighting the reporting about potential pushback from members of the secret service, which you asked congressman raskin about. that's important because it's very much gettable information from the committee. i reported previously the secret service has said they're making all their personnel available to the committee without subpoenas. they're laying all the cards on the table. everybody who the committee wants to talk to, according to the secret service, they can talk to. so it should be pretty quick and easy for the panel to get engle or the unnamed driver of the beast that day all under oath discussing the actions as hutchinson described them and discussing what happened. we also know the committee has already spoken to engle and arnotto, but it's not clear when they spoke to those two men they

were aware of what hutchinson said about the conversation she had with two of them. the short answer is republicans are pushing back and there's a lot more. >> i would love to hear what arnotto had to say and if that's one of the depositions on video. glenn, ms. hutchinson spoke to the committee after switching attorneys. she had a very trump friendly attorney, then she switched to a very jeff sessions world attorney. and so, you know, that seemed to -- i don't know if that made a difference, but she definitely is not being -- her lawyers don't come from trump's inner circle and their world. the people who are still deeply involved in maga are doing things like mike flynn. let me play this for you. this also to me was stunning. this is mike flynn, who used to head a key intelligence agency inside of the department of defense. pleading the fifth on some very basic questions about civics. >> do you believe the violence on january 6th was justified

morally? >> i take the fifth. >> you believe the violence on january 6th was justified legally? >> fifth. >> general flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the united states of america? >> the fifth. >> can you imagine a member of the united states military not being able to answer whether or not they -- having to take the fifth on whether or not they believe in the peaceful transfer of power? >> i can't, joy. and i took the same oath as general flynn when i was an army jag back in the '80s prosecuting court-martial cases. and let me say one thing about general flynn. he should be restored to active duty and he should be court-martialed for his crimes. there's a lawful mechanism by which you can restore a retired officer to active duty so he can be held accountable. because this is beyond the pale. something has to be done about

general flynn. >> indeed. our panel is sticking around. there's still a lot to unpack from today's explosive testimony. we'll be right back. explosive testimony. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪♪ voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪♪ the unknown is not empty. it's a storm that crashes, and consumes, replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation.

an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic. you know where to go.

today's hearing brought up two familiar names. long time trump adviser roger stone and trump lawyer john eastman. as cassidy hutchinson testified, her former boss mark meadows

planned to attend that january 5th war room meeting with eastman, rudy giuliani, and others. hutchinson said she told meadow going was not a smart idea, so he opted to dial in instead. now, this blockbuster hearing seems like a wild tale using fake electors and even violence to hand a presidential election to the loser. maybe that's because you don't fully remember the 2000 election. during last week's hearing, the committee played this clip of eastman addressing georgia republicans a month after the 2020 election. >> you can also do what the florida legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. i don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, i think you have a duty to do that. inserting florida into the mix in the most recent presidential election seemed odd and kind of like a throwaway. trump won that state, right? but it is a reminder of how some of the same characters from the 2000 election aftermath are back big time. mainly eastman and stone, who

effectively laid the groundwork for an almost identical scheme in florida back in 2000. including the false claims of voter fraud. stone used those claims to amass hundreds of operatives who descended on miami-dade county, demanding an end to the state-wide recount on george w. bush's behalf. stone orchestrated that as a distraction to the legitimate state-wide recount. a few days after that, florida lawmakers held a hearing to discuss maybe appointing their own bush electors no matter how the count went, with testimony from none other than john eastman. >> here, the power delegated to you by article 2 section 1 is a planary power. it knows no other appeal. it's important to keep that in mind as we go through these very technical statutory provisions. we cannot view those as altering your power you have directly by the constitution of the united

states. >> that plenary power stuff, that should sound familiar given what former vice president mike pence's counsel and arizona house speaker rusty bowers testified that eastman said to them about two key aspects of his scheme. >> you and i will mutually understand that the underlying legal theory of plenary vice presidential authorities is what you have to have to get there. >> we would decertify the electors and that because we had plenary authority to do so. >> back with me are charles coleman jr., betsy woodruff swan and glen kirshner. charles, when i heard that snippet saying what the florida electors were prepared to do, it kind of stuck in my head because i still have trauma over the 2000 election and remember this whole argument that there was a case being made to the florida legislature, which is republican controlled, that they should just put in their own electors. i did not remember until someone i think put it out on social

media that it was john eastman who was making that exact same argument. what do you make of just the idea, the theoretical idea that eastman updated his plan for trump? >> well, joy, we have seen this movie before. we know how it ends. this is straight out of the eastman playbook. he did it in florida and was prepared to do it again. the only thing that stopped it from takes place in florida in 2000 was the fact the supreme court got involved and they made a decision which stopped the process. otherwise, we would have been looking at the florida legislature doing exactly what we saw the delegates attempt to do in this particular situation around january 6th, which would have been a nightmare. there's a bigger takeaway i need viewers to understand. that bigger takeaway is when we dismiss these sort of fringe theories of people being cooks and being whackoes and having absurd takes on what our government should be and what it's designed to do, it's not like they go away. they stay there and they grow

and fester. we have not eliminated them by delegitimizing them. we don't have to just delegitimize them, we have to call them out. ignoring them does not make them disappear. i think eastman and what we're seeing here is a classic example of that. he did not go away. he just went back to his hole until it was a time that was profitable for him to come out, and now we have to deal with that on a bigger scale. when we get into these conversations about these fringe theories, what seems to be adsiren, they'll never wurx, never be a good deal, they become false equivalencies, theories people latch on to that become problems that january 6th exemplifies. >> and betsy, i think about the people, this infamous willard hotel meeting. it's steve bannon, the guy who said all hell is going to break loose on january 6th. it is john eastman, rudy giuliani, and his buddy bernard kerik, who got pardoned for crimes. boris epshteyn, trump's sort of acolyte, it's this group, but

roger stone and michael flynn were also involved in these efforts. these same characters kind of coming back to what does feel like trying to rerun that old playbook. >> certainly. and the cast of characters that materialized at the willard is a really interesting mix, both of people who certainly had notable roles in historic episodes in the past as this video of eastman i had not seen before highlights, but also people who very much are still part of trump's inner circle. boris epshteyn, one of the folks who was at the willard hotel, works closely with former president trump. he's not somebody who has been, you know, marginalized or diminished whatsoever in the wake of january 6th. rather, he plays an important role in president trump's current -- former president trump's current circle of advisers. we would expect if trump does run again in 2024, boris epshteyn would very much be in

the trenches with him, at least based on everything i know right now. bernie carrick, of course, is also somebody whose testimony has flown under the radar but who has really interesting information for the committee, particularly as i reported a while back, testifying to the committee about the origins of that draft executive order that made its way into the white house that would have had trump send the military to seize voting machines, that would have been just -- there aren't enough adjectives to describe what that would have been. absolutely astonishing. it's something bernie carrick was able to share detailed information about with the select committee. this is what the folks at the willard hotel were involved in. this is what they knew about. the fact the white house chief of staff, according to his top deputy at the time, wanted to go there and ultimately settled just for calling in, tells you that there was more of a white house connection to this particular coterie of folks than we had previously known. >> glenn, eastman himself is this interesting character that is at the center of this sort of

intellectualization of this coup. creating sort of the memo for it. he's taken, he's gotten the interest of the fbi. there's video here that was played on tucker carlson's show last night as he had his phone seized and he was very upset and asking for the waurntd, et cetera, but i want to play you, there he is saying show me the warrant. he gets his phone taken. this is what he then said on fox news about that seizure. >> there's no indication of any crime that this is connected to. that's apparently in an affidavit, but the affidavit wasn't attached to the warrant. the fourth amendment is very clear here. when they search and seize your property, they have to give a particular description of the things to be seized. i'm an attorney. it's access to all of my privileged communications with nearly 100 different clients. the very reason we have the fourth amendment is to prevent that kind of abuse. and yet that's what they're doing here.

>> if they arrested him and didn't read him to the miranda rights, thanks to the supreme court he couldn't sue. doesn't have to be a warrant? can it possibly be there's no crime attached? >> no, john eastman can huff and puff all he wants, but a federal judge reviewed an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant for john eastman's phone, and that judge concluded that there was probable cause that there was crime right now to be found in john eastman's phone. i agree with charles, we can't ignore the cooks and the whackoes who are lawyers often in positions of power, one, because they may have a more receptive audience at the supreme court now in the event they can bubble a challenge all the way up to the supreme court, and two, john eastman seems like he has been angling for a lifetime achievement award as a criminal defendant because he has been determined to ignore the will of the american voters

and just install a president of his choice. and i hope that the chickens are about to come home to roost and john eastman gets the criminal charges that he so richly deserves. >> yeah, we will see. we're watching the justice department with great interest. let's put it that way. charles, betsy, glenn, thank you all very much. >> when we come back, michael beschloss is here, and he's going to help us put all of today's bombshells into context. we'll be right back. right back.

my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? (♪ ♪) ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today.

ketchup dripping down the wall and a shattered porcelain plate on the floor. the valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the attorney general's a.p. interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. which was causing them to have to clean up. i grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off the wall to help the valet out. >> ms. hutchinson, was this the only instance you were aware of that the president threw dishes? >> it's not. >> that was one of just many shocking episodes recounted by former white house aide cassidy hutchinson who also shared how trump lunged at a secret service agent who refused to take him to the capitol. it was part of stunning historic

testimony, summed up by nbc presidential historian michael beschloss in a new viral tweet saying never in history have we ever heard credible testimony before congress this shocking against a president of the united states. michael joins me now. it was shocking from beginning to end. and it weirdly enough, trump throwing food was like the least shocking thing, right? i mean, i can see nixon throwing food, right? expound upon your tweet. what did you find the most jaw-dropping today? >> well, that this president who is such a hypocrite for five years plus even before he was president, he said on the first of june, for instance, 2020, at the time of the protests in the wake of the deplorable death of george floyd, he went into the rose garden and said, i am your law and order president. but that's only under certain circumstances like dictators in

history love to unleash violence when it is in his interest. you and i remember those rallies of his in 2016 when he encouraged people in the crowd to rough it up and said to the police, you know, don't be too easy on them. this is what dictators, so, trump's claim after the 6th of january was, i may have given a file or speech, but that was it. i watch this on television. these people went up to the capitol on their own. they were expressing their indignation, that was about it. we now see, thanks to the january 6th house committee, and we would not have seen it as clearly if it were not for that committee. so, they are unable, they deserve honor. we now see that he was in the center of this plot. >> yeah. >> he was the chief conspirator, he was the one who tried to use the force of the federal government, if necessary, to enlist this violence against

congress and the capitol and our democracy to try to suspend a peaceful transfer of power. >> yeah. >> i could think of all of the bad things the president can do, that is about the worst. >> absolutely, let me play you a piece of this. this was what glenn brought from the prosecutor that he found the most shocking, take a look. this is one. >> i remember pat saying something to the effect of, mark, we need to do something more. they are literally calling for the vice president to be effing hung. my mark had responded someone to the effect of, you heard of, that you think he mics deserves, it he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. >> this is not actually the one that glen found the most shocking, this is the one where, essentially, he justified that people chanting hang mike pence! nixon, no president we had threatened to kill our vice president. that's for sure. >> nixon would never have worked --

what miss hunt justin is doing, and she is a very brave woman, on or what you did today. what's she is, she has a firsthand witness who was there in the inner trump circle. she witnessed, and heard many of these things. she saw that donald trump said, for instance, one of her quotes that it was okay to get rid of the magnetometer's so that people could bring, presumably, assault weapons in. he didn't care, because he said they are not after me. >> that was the quote! >> using it for other reasons. >> yes, that's the quote. >> that is not what any president i know if he's ever done. >> that's the quote that glenn carson also said the was most damning in terms of trump's legal prospects, because he said, take down the magnetometer's, take on the mics, they are not there to hurt me. >> right. >> that implies, they are there to hurt the right people, not. him >> right, his whole point is that he was just sort of this innocent passive bystander while this righteous uprising

went on at the ellipse of these people. marching to the capitol. it's exactly the opposite. this was an elaborate blueprint, i think we are gonna see that it involved domestic terrorists like the proud boys and the oath keepers. it involved all sorts of things that probably were seen in the last couple of months. this was an elaborate plot initiated by a president of the united states. >> walk us through, i mean, what would it look like? we have never seen a president of the united states, and this is very theoretical, we don't know if donald trump is ever gonna have to pay in court or be charged with crimes. but, if you were, there are a lot of people who are concerned about with that looks. like how that plays out in a democracy. putting a president on trial. dryden convicted of crimes, but we've never seen it with a president. >> i disagree with that point of view. in the mid 1990s, i talked to gerald ford. i said, i know you pardoned nixon to heal the country. but why couldn't you at least to delay the pardon until he

was fingerprinted and required to give a statement saying, i am guilty of the following offenses. which nixon never did. nixon spent the rest of his life saying, i was railroaded. i didn't deserve to be driven out of office. later years, he spent a lot of time interestingly enough with donald trump in new york city and on trump's plane. trump once wrote him, i think you are one of the great presidents of history. that was the example that was set by the fact that nixon was able to get off really scot-free. >> it's interesting, people like roger stone who came from nixon's orbit, who said, this is a classic documentary, roger stone, all he wanted in the world was to find a better nixon. trump was the better nixon. it feels like a lot of the bad things that have happened in past presidencies played out again with donald trump. >> right, and the lesson that gerald ford, a fine man, said, was that you can be president, you can break the law. you can jeopardize the

constitution. you can come up with plans that could make you an authoritarian in this country, which nixon at least considered. but, your penalty is that you will have to go back to a luxurious villa in california. >> yeah, the idea that someone could even run again? because he would have to be convicted and have the 14th amendment used against and not be able to run again. >> absolutely. >> it's unthinkable, i think for most of us. >> right. >> unthinkable! michael, it's always a pleasure. >> what a day! >> what a day. thank you very much, really appreciate you, that's tonight's read out, we do not go anywhere though, i'll be back in a moment without my fine colleagues, rachel maddow, chris, and all of our fine feathered friends. we are gonna recap today's dramatic january 6th hearing. altogether! stay with us.

wanna help kids get their homework done? well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. ah teach a new kung fu for a smoochie smoochie? hmm? you want to learn kung fu? >> a surprise hearing from the

january 6th committee, one extraordinary witness tells the story from inside the white house. >> he got from his phone, and said something to the fact of there's a lot going on, things might get really, really bad on january six. >> the top aide to the white house chief of staff, on the violence they knew was coming, and did nothing to stop. >> i have heard the president say something to the effect of, i think, i didn't care that they didn't have weapons. they're not here to hurt me. i remember that saying to the effect of, mark needs to do something more, literally calling the vice president -- and marquette responded something to the effect of, you