laughing. i can't believe he realizes that wear the same. we >> joseph, also born with a little difference, is now four. and following in her athletic footsteps. >> i would just say, follow your dreams. i say it all the time, my dad has told me 1 million times, never turn your sky into ceilings. we're used to live by, as she helped the u.s. team to a two nothing win over columbia, while showing fans around the world wet defying limits can look like. christian dahlgren, nbc news. >> never let anyone turn your sky into a ceiling. wise words for us all tonight. and on that beautiful note, i wish you all a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with us, i'll see you at the end of tomorrow. te wit us, i'll see

and thanks to you at home for joining us tonight. really happy to have you here. so, his son was 18. his daughter was 16. and on christmas eve 2020, so that's like a month and a half after the 2020 election was called for joe biden, on christmas eve 2020, this 18 year old son went online to the fbi website, to tips.fbi.gov, and he submitted a tip to the fbi about his dad. he told them that his dad was planning to do something violent, that is, that was not only calling for there to be violence against government officials. the son told the fbi, when he submitted that online tip, that he believed his dad was actually planning to do something violent himself. he told the fbi, his father was planning to, quote, do some serious damage. that was christmas eve 2020, when that young man submitted that tip to the fbi. he didn't hear back, initially, took a couple of weeks.

it took until after the january 6th, 2021 attack on the u.s. capitol building. then, the fbi decided that the that tip deserved some follow-up. by the time the fbi got in touch with the son, the son's father had not only traveled from texas to washington, d. c., to take part in the january 6th attack on the capitol. he had come back home to texas afterwards, and showed his teenage kids video that he taken of his part in the attack. he told his kids back home in texas that, yes, he had participated in the attack, and, yes, he definitely had a loaded gun with him during the entire thing. he also then threatened to kill his kids, if they told anyone. he told his 18-year-old son and his 16-year-old daughter, quote, if you turn me in, you are a traitor, and traitors get shot! it was that same day, the day the father threatened to kill the son and his sister, if they

told anyone, that same day, the son said yes, when an fbi agent called and asked if he would meet with him, to tell him what caused him to send him that tip down to the fbi. the son, that same day -- the day that his dad threaten to kill him, met with an fbi agent, told him what he knew about his father's activities on january 6th, and gave him something. when the dad had told the son and daughter about having his loaded gun with him at the capitol during the attack, it turns out the son had been recording that conversation. and that day, when he met with the fbi agent, he gave the recording to the fbi. and so, that guy's dad, that was the first man who was put on trial for his role in the january 6th attack. he is a man from wiley, texas. his name is guy reffitt. the attack on the capitol building was january 2021. and he was the first one put on trial. he was put on trial in march 2021. he was charged with five felonies, armed trespassing, found guilty. obstruction of an official

proceeding, found guilty. interfering with police in a riot, guilty. transporting a firearm for the purposes of interfering with police in a riot, also guilty. and the fifth felony, he was charged with was witness tampering. he was also found guilty of that witness tampering of courts for threatening to kill his own teenage son and daughter, if they told anyone what he had done. it emerged during guy reffitt's trial, that he was doubly on it in d. c. that day. he had an ar-15 assault rifle with him when he went to washington. he apparently left that in the garage of his d. c. hotel on the day of the actual capitol attack. but his loaded semiautomatic smith and wesson pistol, that one, he had holstered on his hip for the whole time while he led the pro trump mob and attacking police officers at the wing doors of the u.s. senate. he also had flex cuffs with him, police style heavy duty zip ties because he planned on tying people up. he recorded video of himself,

talking about how he was looking forward to dragging members of congress out of the capitol building, quote, kicking and screaming. he said he specifically wanted to drag house speaker nancy pelosi out of the capitol building by her ankles, because he wanted to see her head hit every stair on the capitol steps, as he physically dragged her out. guy reffitt is part of a pro trump paramilitary group called the three percenters. that's a group that was reportedly well represented in washington during the attack. it's also group that has surfaced in other instances of physical intimidation against people trump has targeted, people like arizona house speaker, rusty bowers. but guy reffitt was the first man put on trial for january 6th alleged crimes, and he was convicted on all counts, five felonies. it is now time for the court to hand him down his sentence.

now, his defense lawyers have asked the judge to give guy reffitt less than five years in prison. who knows? federal sentencing guidelines say that just the term of more or like, 9 to 11 years in prison. but this is interesting. and this provides us some new insight. the federal prosecutors in the guy reffitt case have now asked the judge for something called an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. again, sentencing guidelines are again from like 9 to 11 years. they're asking for the court to consider a longer sentence than that. they're asking them to consider adding a sentencing enhancement in his case, on the grounds of terrorism, on the grounds that what he did fits the statutory definition of terrorism. quote, reffitt engaged in acts of violence that were intended to influence the government through intimidation or coercion, acts that have been defined by statute, as domestic terrorism. now, it is up to the courts, up to the judge, whether or not to actually do that, to accept this terrorism enhancement on guy reffitt's sentence.

but if the judge does agree to prosecute his request on that, the practical consequence is deep. the practical consequences that prosecutors are saying, this guy should get 15 years in prison. for context, that would be roughly triple the sentence that anybody else has received so far for their role in the capitol attack. and that incident, that handling of that one case tells us a couple of things. first, it tells us that the u.s. justice department has concluded that it's okay to treat the january 6th attack as terrorism, as domestic terrorism. they have concluded that the justice department, that in some cases, the perpetrators of that attack should be prosecuted as terrorists. and that should go off like the rockets red glare to the 300 plus other defendants who are still waiting to go on trial on charges related to january six. i mean, the justice department's like big, picture right? they want people to cooperate with prosecutors. they want defendants to help prosecutors investigate the overall crime, and helped put

other criminals away. and of course, you're under no obligation to cooperate. you are under no obligation to agree to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors in their efforts. if you are innocent, there's no way that you should plead guilty. you go to trial. you fight the charges. you get acquitted because you didn't do it. but if you are guilty, and you decide that you're not gonna plead guilty and cooperate, you are instead gonna go to trial, and you get yourself convicted. well, this new decision to seek a terrorism enhancement, this new decision by justice department prosecutors shows in that instance, could be something very much like what this guy reffitt is now up against, with a terrorism enhancement they're asking for 15 years in prison, which is no joke. that could change everything for, you know, every other defendant who, right now is weighing their options, weighing the risks of going to trial, versus pleading guilty, asking for mercy and agreeing to tell the truth about what

they know. if you know you can be facing sentences, that stuff, again, the previous's toughest sentence was five years. they're asking for 15. and we can see how that operates strategically in terms of the justice department, trying to get people to plead guilty and cooperate with them in their own ongoing investigation of the people who physically attacked the capitol. this is also just a quick reminder about how much leeway prosecutors have, how much of their own discretion, the justice department and prosecutors, can bring to bear in pursuing and punishing crimes like this through the courts, right? this is not just math. it's not just an automatic process. it's not like, you know, ex crime happens, that produces why prosecution, and that produces the sentence. these are human processes. these are humans making strategic decisions for good and for bad. and sometimes, you know, they'll get it right, sometimes they won't. but right now, we are in an inflection point, we are in this crucial moment in american history, wondering if this justice department will use its

discretion wisely, whether they will make good strategic decisions, are they gonna get it right or are they not? some of the most crucial decisions toward those ends are being made right now. wall street journal reported over the weekend, for example, that part of the justice department investigation that's looking at people higher up, looking at people other than those who physically attacked the capitol, that part of the investigation is getting larger, and getting more resources. quote, justice department been focusing on elements of the investigation beyond the violence at the capitol on january 6th, as in recent weeks been given more personnel, more office space, and an expanded mandate. okay, more resources, as part of the justice department strategic thinking here. now, whether that part of the justice department investigation actually does

result in any prosecutions remains to be seen. so far, it hasn't. i mean, as yet, the only prosecutions the justice department has moved forward with, beyond people who took part in the capital riot itself, the only prosecutions that are actually acting on, or to contempt of congress prosecutions against former trump advisers who refused to respond to subpoenas for them testifying over documents to the generals investigation congress. prosecutors said in court on friday that trump advisor, peter navarro had refused their offer of a plea deal. they said he could have pled guilty, they are offering him the deal which he could've pled guilty to just one charge of contempt, and agreed to respond to the subpoena, as he is legally required to do. and in return, they would have made sure he did no no more than 30 days in jail. peter navarro, the prosecutor said no to that, and so he will go to trial. he, of course, will be trying for an acquittal, but the passing victim, he'll be facing up to two years in jail. on the other contempt charges, the jury selection was today for the other trump advisor

who's facing criminal contempt charges in the steve bannon trial in washington, which started today, we're expected opening statements, tomorrow. and then, you know, blink and you might miss it, we expected to be fairly quickly after opening statements. prosecutors have said in the statement just thinking they're only gonna need one day to lay out their whole case against him. we don't know how long bannon's defense will take, but the judge has already told bannon's defense lawyers and pre trial hearings that he doesn't have much of defense to mount. but he is going to trial, and he will be trying for an acquittal, if he is convicted, he will be facing a year in jail, like in opening statements tomorrow and what is expected to be a fast trial of steve bannon in washington. so, we are seeing prosecution of individual defendants who took part in physically attacking the capitol. we are seeing this a couple of prosecutions for contempt of congress, people not participating, not following legal summons that they needed to follow, related to the january six investigation in congress. we're also seeing some action

around the fake electors part of the scheme. that's resulted in a bunch of interesting activity by prosecutors in various places. in the state of georgia, three republican officials from the state of georgia, including the state republican party chairman, and the republican nominee for lieutenant governor in georgia, three republican officials in that state have all now been advised by the fulton county georgia district attorney that they might get indicted over their part in the fake electors scheme, indicted under georgia state law. we know that federal prosecutors are also looking at the fake electors scheme, because a federal grand jury subpoenas have been served two people who allegedly participated in that scheme, not only in georgia, but in multiple states. we also know federal prosecutors are interested in the fake elector scheme, because the chairman of the genesis investigation, benny thompson, has now told reporters that the committee is engaging with the justice department on fake electors, specifically. we think that means that the january six investigators in

congress are giving federal prosecutors some of what they have turned up on the fake electors issue. that issue, specifically, not anything else. so, we see bits and pieces of this, being moved on at sort of different bases, right? and two different degrees, and with different amounts of resources being devoted to these various parts of the investigation. the justice department has a lot of latitude. they have a lot of discretion in terms of how they go after this stuff. how many prosecutors and investigators they put to work on any part of that? how quickly the move to get investigations started, and then, to get the moved to search warrants, and subpoenas, and testimony? and two indictments, also, ultimately, how aggressively they ultimately charge what they believe to be probable crimes in court? what kinds of sentences they ask for, when they do get convictions in court? given that, given the way they have, that is the discretion they have, is it worth worrying that they may be moving too slowly to have a real chance to bring charges against the

people who were at the top of the conspiracy? we'll, to that end, we have something new. this is a document that we have just obtained, that is not been published elsewhere. it is from attorney general merrick garland. it is addressed to all justice department employees. it is dated to may 25th, 2022. so, that's about eight weeks ago. and, again we believe the first time this document has been shown to the public, as you can see, it is titled, election year sensitivities. but department of justice employees are interested with the authority to enforce the laws of the united states, and with a responsibility to do so in a neutral and impartial manner. this is particularly important in an election year. now the 2020 election season is upon us, and as in prior election cycles, i am issuing this memorandum to remind you of the departments existing policies with respect to political activities. and again, this is a memo this from attorney general merrick garland. it has his signature on the top

of it in blue ink. and then it says this, on the behalf of statements, investigations, and charging or an election, quote, the department of justice has a strong interest in the prosecution of election related crimes, such as those involving federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage laws, corruption of the election process, as department employees, however, we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the departments reputation for fairness, neutrality, and not partisanship. simply put, partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators are prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements, attributed or not, criminal background or not. investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action, in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage any candidate or political party. such a purpose, or the appearance of such a purpose is inconsistent with the departments mission, and with a principles of federal

prosecution. if you face an issue, or the appearance of an issue, regarding the timing of statements, investigative, charges or other actions near the time of a primary or general election contact the public integrity section of the criminal division for further guidance. such consultation is also required at various stages of all criminal matters, and focus on violations of federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage crimes, and corruption of the election process. and now get this, finally. department employees must adhere to the additional requirements, issued by the ag on february 5th 2020. governing the opening of criminal and counter intelligence investigations by the depârtment, including its law enforcement entities related to politically sensitive individuals and entities, memorandum of how william barr february 5th 2020, any questions regarding the scope of requirements in 2020, former random should be directed to the public

integrity section. again, this memo from merrick garland to the justice department, was sent out about eight weeks ago, and we have just obtained it. we believe it's the first time it's been made public. and in large part, this memo from the attorney general follows both the letter and the spirit of previous letters from other attorneys general around election time. it basically says, look, we can't look like we are acting to effectuate some particular partisan outcome. around election time, that means we may delay certain steps we might otherwise take, in order to avoid even the perception that we are trying to influence election outcomes. we've seen that kind of guidance before from attorneys general of all stripes. that's fine, that's at least non controversial. but this last part? about bill barr's instructions from 2020? that's kind of a surprise.

for every 2020, trump attorney general bill barr put in new guidance over and above what all previous ag said. whqat he said in 2020 was specifically said -- nobody's allowed to investigate anyone connected to a presidential candidate, without his permission, personally, as attorney general. bill barr's memo from 2020, said that no investigation, including any preliminary investigation, may be opened or initiated by the department, or any of its law enforcement agencies for a declared candidate for president or vice president, a presidential campaign, or a senior presidential -- or campaign staffer, absent prior written approval of the attorney general, through the deputy attorney general. trump attorney general bill barr established that new rule, in february 2020, no investigating any declared candidate for president, or anybody working for that candidate, unless i personally

give my permission. that new rule was established by bill barr, when he was working for donald trump. merrick garland has formally formally at extended that guidance, and told every employee and the justice department it that it is still in effect. notice went out in late may, we are reporting the memo here, making it publicly available for the first time. what has happened in the meantime, since that guidance went out from merrick garland to every justice department employee, telling them that they bill barr advice is still in effect, and any investigation, including the opening of any investigation which applies to a candidate for president, or anyone working for a candidate for president, that has to get his personal sign off? what's happened since late may when this happened? >> well, former president donald trump has had the delightful experience of the january 6th investigation. essentially rolling out a real criminal referral of him to the justice department.

justice department, which is poking alone in its own case, maybe more interested in the fake electors part specifically, maybe just spending a lot of time watching the january 6th investigators, marveling at all the neat stuff they turned up. the justice department is apparently learning about at the same time we all are while watching the hearings. that has happened with cynicism went out. also since this memo went out, trump has responded to all these revelations about him and january 6th, by reportedly moving to speed up his own declaration that he's going to be a candidate for president again. and that, of course, is despite the interest of the republican party, which will likely not be helped at all, by him telling the country formally that he intends to lead the republican party again, right before they have to decide this fall whether to put republicans in power in congress -- it wouldnt be good for the republican party, if you now sees a candidate for president again for the midterm elections happen. it wouldn't be good for his party, but it would be very much in keeping with his own

interest, in putting as many roadblocks as possible in the way of any prosecution of himself. >> jennifer reuben, writing at the washington post today says that the january 6th committee 's remarkable success in finding evidence against trump, leaves the justice department on the defense, and scrambling to staff up. -- now announce his presidential run in the fall, which a former president will use to cast any subsequent charges to as political efforts to keep him from office. fair enough. january six investigation chairman bennie thompson is just asked about this tonight. >> what do you think the implication will be of -- presidential run. he's clearly totally method at some point in early fall? what impact does that have on your investigation, if he's an active candidate? >> two years before the election. i would think man. it's an orthodox to announce

but -- >> look, we are a nation of laws, and if a person breaks the law, or is accused of breaking the law. he is not one who can just do what he chooses because he's running for president. >> if a person break the law, or is accused of breaking a, lot he is not just one who could do it he chooses because he's running for president. so donald trump is just like every other american citizen in this situation. yes, it will be unorthodox to announce two years in advance that he's a candidate for president, why would he do that? well, now we know, now that we've obtained this justice department memo from a few weeks ago, now we know for sure that it does kick something into action, if he and in fact announces himself as declared candidate for president, that means any investigation that relates to him or anyone working for him, how to be personally cleared in writing through the very highest

echelons of the justice department. the justice department has a lot of discretion in how it pursues criminal prosecution, how many resources to apply to a particular problem, how aggressively to begin charging in sentencing decisions. and honestly, how fast it moves. are they been outflanked? joining us now is andrew weizmann, he previously served of the fbi's general counsel, here is a senior counselor on robert mueller's team. -- negative mr. weizmann, it's nice to see you, thanks for being here. >> nice to be here. >> so we've obtained this relatively recent memo from attorney general garland, and in some ways of re-up sweat we've seen from previous attorneys general, saying that there are sensitivities around election years. but he also extends bill barr policy, requiring a special higher level of written approval for any investigations of publicly declared presidential candidates. i just wanted to ask your reaction to that for the

attorney general. >> so, i'm sort of two minds about this memo. on the one hand, i think that it is understandable for a reputable, honest attorney general, to try to make sure that there is no improper political interference by anyone, at the department of justice, whether it's prosecutors or agents. on the other hand, the bill barr justice department was anything but the justice department. the rule of law was so flouted, that the idea of reopening in something that he put in place is one that i'm not sure if i was at the department that i would look at as anything other than saying, i am not bring in a case against anyone at the white house until such time as i personally approved it no

matter how much evidence seems to be accumulated in the january 6th committee hearings. so i think it's sort of a plus/minus and it probably could have been phrase a lot, better and clear to people of the justice department. >> you've been critical of what's seems to be publicly evident about the way justice department prosecutors have pursued january 6th you've described how, in lots of criminal prosecutions, it makes sense to sort of approaches from the bottom up, to bring people the lowest levels on board as quickly as you can, and then pressure them to flip but they know before you move to bigger fish. you've said that that might be the place to approach bigger investigations, but in this case that might be too slow, and prosecutors might be missing some of what's obvious. i wonder if you still feel that, way and if recent events have

borne out of for you. >> well, the thing i was really interested in, rachel, that you quoted in the wall street journal reporting was this idea of an expanded mandate. not just more personnel and more office space, and expanded a mandate. and the question is, what does that mean? is expanded to include all of the evidence of criminality that was laid out at the january six committee. in other words, not just who attacked the capitol on january 6th, and not just fake electors, but what was going on at the department of justice in terms of the heading jeffrey rosen, -- what was going on in georgia to a georgia, other states. the pressuring and the vice president of the united states. all of that seems to me to be appropriate for a criminal investigation and i think to make people understand the

concern here we concern here is raised when cassidy hutchinson testified, and there is wide reporting that prosecutors at the department of justice who are listening to what she had to say, we're just as surprised by what she had to report, as all of us who are just citizens that's really surprising to me -- it should be surprising for people as to where was the department, why were they so surprised in the investigation and they were learning along with us what she had to say. obviously, what's she had to say i think for most people who were looking at this and objectively, it was quite disturbing about what was happening and not happening at the white house. >> andrew weizmann, former fbi general counsel, former -- robert mueller's investigative team, and a veteran lots of consequential investigations of the justice department.

andrew, thank you for making time tonight, it's good to see you. all right, we have much more to get to tonight, stay with us.

new astepro allergy. now available without a prescription. astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free spray. while other allergy sprays take hours astepro starts working in 30 minutes. so you can... astepro and go. wealth is breaking ground on your biggest project yet. worth is giving the people who build it a solid foundation. wealth is shutting down the office for mike's retirement party. worth is giving the employee who spent half his life with you, the party of a lifetime. ♪ ♪ wealth is watching your business grow. worth is watching your employees grow with it.

♪ ♪ - common percy! - yeah let's go! on a trip. book with priceline. you save more, so you can “woooo” more. - wooo. - wooo. wooooo!!!!!

woohooooo!!!! w-o-o-o-o-o... yeah, feel the savings. priceline. every trip is a big deal. as a business owner, ye your bottom line is. always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. dad! a dinosaur! it's just a movie. no dad, a real dinosaur! show doorbell camera. the new xfinity video doorbell works with your xfinity home system for real time alerts no matter what's at the door. get off the car... it's a lease!

jurassic world dominion, available now on xfinity. thursday night this week is the rule your home security with xfinity home. next january 6th hearing and, perhaps the last one for a while. the united states secret services facing a deadline of tomorrow to respond to a new subpoena from the committee. and of course, this is all happening now, alongside the ongoing criminal trial in washington d. c., of steve bannon. he's been charged with the fine his own subpoena funny vegetation joining us now is democratic congressman adam schiff, he's a member of the january six investigation, he's also chair of the house intelligence committee. mister chairman, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> good to be with you. >> let me start first with what's going on with this subpoena to the secret service. a lot of this drama unfolded late last week, including the inspector general of the part that oversees the secret service, coming in it and i

understand briefing you and all your colleagues on the committee about what may have happened in the secret service, when they faced a request for information from their department related to january 5th and sixth. what can you tell us about the status of this conflict with the secret service, and what you are expecting to get in response to that subpoena. >> -- this is still very much on going investigation, but some of these text messages were either lost or destroyed. and whether they were lost or destroyed due to negligence or willfully we have yet to determine, but there's a very strong conflict with what we're hearing from the inspector general, the department of homeland security, and what's the secret service is telling the public. i have to say, that statement that we saw from the secret service, that basically that there were messages lost, but nothing pertain to what we're investigating i don't know how, if there, lost you can draw that conclusion with such confidence. so something doesn't seem quite right. and we hope to find out, as

soon as tomorrow, what has been preserved, what was lost, and again to find out some of the circumstances in which those messages may have been discarded. >> we're getting a little bit more information tonight about what to expect on thursday. obviously, it's a decision of some consequence, that the hearing will be in primetime you can expect a larger audience for that, and i think have larger expectations to go along with that. we also have been told to expect a couple of, at least it's been supported, a couple of live witnesses who were both inside the white house, in fairly high-level positions, leading up to and including the days around january 6th. what should we understand, in terms of how close to the end we are. we keep hearing from you and other members of the committee, that there is still more to find out, there's still more to get to the bottom of, that the investigation has

turned up a lot of stuff in the recent days since the hearing is been in public. at the same time, it does seem like this is going to be the last public hearing for quite some time. >> i think at the beginning of this process, we are scheduling the hearings, we did conceive of this is probably the end of this first set of hearings, even after we were considering another set of hearings in the fall that were focused on recommendations for protecting the democracy going forward as we've gone along, and new witnesses have come forward, and we added hearings like cassidy hutchinson. we realize that witnesses continue to come forward, and we may well be adding other hearings to accommodate new evidence, testimony. we haven't made firm conclusions about that -- we're trying to keep the flexibility to present to the public whatever the public needs to know. in the next hearing, you will hear a combination of live testimony, you will hear a part of video testimony we haven't

seen before. most importantly, we will try to weave it together, so that people understand just what happened during that lengthy period of time, when donald trump sat in the white house, and watched the capital being attacked. >> in terms of that timeline one of the reasons that i'm thinking a new of the overall timeline of your investigation, is this memo that we just obtained from attorney general merrick garland. it's an all employees memo from the general to everyone in the justice department, reminding them of election year sensitivities, reiterating the kind of advice we've seen from previous agencies, by the department not taking any steps in election season, that might look like they were designed to effectuate some particular outcome, or advantage, or disadvantage some candidate or political party. he also, though, goes a step further, and says that attorney general bill barr's advice on february 2020, is still effect, and is still justice department policy.

and that new guidance from bill barr, as of february 2020, so that any investigation involving a declared candidate for president, had to be personally cleared to the attorney general in writing -- for somebody in that position. with donald trump now openly, mulling the prospect of declaring himself once again to be a candidate for president. i wonder if you and your colleagues on the committee, feel pressure at all. in terms of the time taking the justice department, by a policy, is a little bit more reticent and puts more hurdles in the way of bringing any sort of federal prosecution, or even opening federal investigations into people who are the candidates we're getting closer and closer to that each day with people who are trump does not affect how you're thinking about the time here? >> we are moving on as expeditiously as we can, so i don't know how much will affect

our own time. it does raise the question of why the justice department was so slow to pursue these other lines of effort to overturn the election. they did seem to proceed with alacrity, when it came to those breaking into the capitol. but with respect to all these other lines of effort, the pressures to legislators, finding votes that didn't exist, or the pressure campaign against the vice president. any number of other efforts like many -- believe violate the law. why it appears only now, that is given a sense of urgency. i will say this, to what andrew weissmann was saying it is a bit rich to be citing bill barr for anything of the justice department, considering how badly he disrupted the independence of that office. yes, we are glad that bill barr found a line that he wouldn't cross, but he crossed a lot of

lines before he got there. that's not the precedent i would cite, even though that's the policy that the attorney general wants to adopt. finally, rachel, i agree with the assessment, whether it's based on this memo or otherwise, the donald trump believes, among other things, that running for president is lucrative, and it may help him stay one step ahead of the jailer >> yes, and whatever the obscure and contested derivations of the justice department's decision to not bring prosecution has people who are serving as president of the united states. whatever the derivations are of that policy, former president didn't trump feels very, very aware of it, and seems to be factoring it into his political plans, in the midst of your investigation. adam schiff, chair of the house intelligence committee, sir, it's always a pleasure to have you here. thank you for making time to make. >> thank you.

>> all right, we'll be right back, stay with us. [ "back to life" by soul ii soul ]

what if you could change your surroundings with the touch of a finger? now you can. biometric id... inside the innovative, new c-class. technically when enamel is gone, you cannot get it back. but there are ways you can repair it. i'm excited about pronamel repair because it penetrates deep into the tooth to help actively repair acid-weakened enamel. i recommend pronamel repair to my patients. in wisconsin, a woman had an

incomplete miscarriage. she blood for more than ten days, after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue from the uterus. they were afraid they could be prosecuted if they did so, under a law banning abortion that is now in effect in wisconsin. doctors at a hospital in

michigan found themselves treating a woman from out of state. she had had to cross state lines to get care from a life threatening ectopic pregnancy, which is never viable doctors say it could've caused a ruptured any moment, they could've killed this woman. the doctor worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat, made the procedure to remove it illegal. and they wouldn't do, it even though it risked her life. in louisiana, a doctor describe treating a patient whose water broke and 16 weeks. . the fetus was not viable, continuing the prep pregnancy at that point would put the winds life at risk. the patient one of the doctor to perform a common 15 minute abortion procedure. the patient was told that under louisiana's new law aligning abortion, she would have to have an induced delivery itself instead -- in an affidavit filed in the report, the patient was forced to go through any painful hours long labor, to deliver a nine viable procedure. she was screaming, not from pain, but from the emotional trauma she was experiencing. then, she hemorrhaged nearly a liter of blood.

a doctor said, quote, there's absolutely no medical basis for my patient or any other patient in the states experience anything like this. it's the first time in my 15 year career, i cannot give my patient the care they needed. this is a travesty. one ob/gyn in texas described the recent patient who had started to miscarry, and developed a dangerous infection in her womb. the fetus still had sign of a heartbeat, though, so in immediate abortion, which would be the usual standard of care. that would've been illegal under texas's abortion ban. they said, quote, we physically watched or get sicker and sicker until the fetal heartbeat stop the next day, and then we could intervene. the patient developed

complications, and required surgery, lost multiple leaders of blood, and had to be put on a breathing machine. all because we were essentially 24 hours behind. those are just a handful of stories of doctors have been willing to put on the record about the practical consequences all over the country of the supreme court overturning the right to an abortion. it is not theoretical, it is happening now and we've got more on that straight ahead, stay with us. (young woman) no, grandma! grandma!! (grandmother) excuse me! (young woman vo) some relationships get better with time. that's why i got a crosstrek. (avo) love. it's what makes subaru, subaru. ♪♪ is this where your grandparents cut a rug, with a jitterbug? or returned from war, dreaming of the possibilities ahead. ♪♪ where your dad waited for his dad to come home from the factory. is this where they gathered on their front steps, with fats domino on the breeze... ancestry can guide you to family discoveries

in the 1950 census. see what you can uncover at ancestry. (fisher investments) in this market, you'll find fisher investments is different than other money managers. in the 1950 census. (other money manager) different how? aren't we all just looking for the hottest stocks? (fisher investments) nope. we use diversified strategies to position our client's portfolios for their long-term goals. (other money manager) but you still sell investments that generate high commissions for you, right? (fisher investments) no, we don't sell commission products. we're a fiduciary, obligated to act in our client's best interest. (other money manager) so when do you make more money, only when your clients make more money? (fisher investments) yep. we do better when our clients do better. at fisher investments, we're clearly different. age-related macular degeneration may lead to severe vision loss. and if you're taking a multivitamin alone, you may be missing a critical piece. preservision. preservision areds 2 contains the only clinically proven nutrient formula recommended by the national eye institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. "preservision is backed by 20 years of clinical studies" "and its from the eye experts at bausch and lomb"

so, ask your doctor about adding preservision. and fill in a missing piece of your plan. like i did with preservision" we are already seeing mass

chaos among ob/gyn, years, and quite frankly, pharmacists. ob/gyn's who are sitting on patients in emergence, rooms while they bleed, and their vital signs become unsuitable, while they're waiting for hospital lawyers to decide, is this patient sick enough?

>> that is doctor colleen mick nicholas, an ob/gyn who practices medicine in illinois. that's her telling a senate hearing that states like missouri, where abortion is now illegal, the landscape for bringing women with medical emergency is, in her words, and mass chaos. joining us now is calling mac nicholas, she's cheese officer planned parenthood in -- missouri thanks so much for being here. >> thank you so much, rachel, happy to be here. >> so, in missouri, one of the places you practice, abortion is now illegal in medical emergencies that cause -- major bodily function of a pregnant woman. you said that standard in missouri, it is basically

causing mass chaos on a practical level, in terms of like care doctors can provide, and what women have to go through. is anything resolving overtime? is anything becoming more clear? >> we've heard, you opened with lots of stories from not just missouri, but across the country where physicians are really struggling, because this medical emergency question is totally on workable. folks are not practicing the best medicine, because they are afraid of going to prison. >> in terms of what remedies are available here, i was curious, when you talked about hospital lawyers, and health system lawyers. particularly big hospitals, big legal departments, big institutions that are considering cases like this. could they be taking a more proactive stance on this, is the tail telling doctors to wait for a patient to be sick enough. could they say, you know, give your best care, and if they come after you, if it comes to

it, we will defend you. is there a way to be more forward-leaning on this, particularly doctors who have more institutional support than people who are operating in small practices? >> sure. it's always great to have the support of your institution, and the lawyers there but the truth is, if you live in a state with an aggressive and rapidly antichoice attorney general, no reassurance form your hospital or from your hospital lawyers is going to make you feel comfortable enough to provide that care, when the reality is, is that it's a criminal penalty to violate this law. and so, it's just totally on workable, and has led to, as i said, total chaos among a group of health care professionals who have a mandate to heal people, and not to have to sit there and wait for people like lawyers are attorney generals to tell them it's okay. >> and you told that hearing last week, that you wanted congress to use every bit of your power to do something. what do you think they could do, given what the supreme court has undone? >> you know, we've seen a good step in the statement around

enforcement of -- the emergency medical clause that does say the hospitals and physicians when presented with a patient in an emergency situation, must be treated. but the truth is, that's only gonna affect a small minority of folks who need abortion care. we need the administration, and we need folks at the federal level and state level, in states where there is an opportunity to further protect access, to do, so to allocate funds and resources for the patients wanting to get that care, to provide patient security for patients crossing state lines to get that care we really need a whole of government, and truthfully, a whole of medicine response to this public health emergency. >> dr. calling mike nicholas, chief medical officer i know this is really difficult, and as you say chaotic time. thanks for helping us understand, thanks for what you do. >> thanks so much.

>> all right, more news ahead, stay with us tonight. ♪♪ my relationship with my credit cards wasn't good. i got into debt in college and, no matter how much i paid, it followed me everywhere. between the high interest, the fees... i felt trapped. debt, debt, debt. so i broke up with my credit card debt and consolidated it into a low-rate personal loan from sofi. i finally feel like a grown-up. break up with bad credit card debt. get a personal loan with no fees, low fixed rates, and borrow up to $100k. go to sofi.com to view your rate. sofi. get your money right. ♪♪