hi everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. we have brand new reporting to tell you about on this upcoming primetime hearing by the january 6th select committee as well as brand new breaking developments on the future of the congressional investigation itself into the deadly insurrection. nbc news has learned that two former trump officials will testify at thursday's primetime hearing. they are former deputy national security adviser matthew

pottinger and former deputy press secretary sarah matthews t. two were inside the white house on january 6th 20, 21, were among the most high-profile officials to resign in protest in the aftermath of that attack. "the new york times" is reporting this about their role. mr. pottinger and ms. matthews are expected to help narrate what was unfolding in the west wing during those 187 minutes in a hearing that the committee sees as a capstone to a series of public sessions in which it laid out in detail trump's efforts to remain in office despite his defeat and how they led to the storming of the capitol. ms. matthews is expected to, among other things, speak to the efforts to get mr. trump to issue a statement. people familiar with the planning said by having them testify, the committee is sticking to what is now a tried and true practice of having trump insiders tell us the story

of january 6th and explain the ex-president's push to overturn the 2020 election. with help from all of the evidence they have compiled, the hours of testimony from other trump officials and insiders and allies, the tens of thousands of documents from inside the trump administration as well as the trump campaign and hundreds of tips they are still receiving. it is a veritable mountain of evidence that is still growing as the committee pursues all angles into january 6th. as we've reported here before, the january 6th select committee is expecting to receive a tranche of text messages from secret service agents sent and received from january 5th to january 6th today. now "the washington post" is reporting, quote, the u.s. secret service has determined it has no new texts to provide congress relative to its january 6th investigation and that any other texts its agents exchanged around the time of the 2021 attack on the capitol were

purged. all of this has news that the committee has dramatically altered its plans for its own existence over the next few months. committee chairman bennie thompson telling nbc news that the panel is planning a, quote, scaled-back report in september with a final report to come after tha. looming over all the committee's work is the ex-president himself, the possibility that he might decide to announce another run for the white house. ali vitali asked chairman thompson about whether trump's plans would have any impact on the committee's work. here is what he said. >> we are a nation of laws, and if the person breaks the law or is accused of breaking the law, he's not one who the just do what he chooses because he's running for president. so donnell is just like every other american citizen in this situation.

>> and nothing less of that is what's on the line. joining us now congressman stephanie murphy of florida, member of the january 6th select committee who, of course, led the last public hearing of the hearing. thank you for spending time with us today. >> it's good to be with you. >> i wonder if we can start with the secret service. it feels like they are inviting skepticism and scrutiny in terms of what they're providing. can you tell us what was provided to the committee, just categories of what you received? >> sure. we received a letter in response to our subpoena on -- we received a letter today that did provide us with a lot of documents and some data. however, we did not receive the additional text messages that we were looking for. the explanation that the secret service has given is that they were in the middle of -- they

were planning a migration of sorts. what happened though is they received four requests from congressional committees in -- on january 16th to preserve records, and they had this planned migration for the 25th, i believe, of january. and nobody along the way stopped and thought, well, maybe we shouldn't do the migration of data and of the devices until we're able to fulfill these four requests from congress. they moved ahead with their efforts to migrate the devices and data. the process as explained to us was simply to leave it to the agent to determine whether or not there was anything on their phones worth saving that was necessary to save for federal records. as a result today they have -- they did not receive any texts from their agents when they made that transition that was flagged

for preservation. but what they have, also, said is they're going to continue to see if there are other ways in which they can secure the required and subpoenaed text messages that we have asked for. my hope certainly is that they do find a way to find those texts and respond to the subpoena. >> at the risk of sounding like one of trump's cronies, is it not suspicious that text messages were deleted from the day of the deadliest attack on the united states capitol from any government entity that was literally on the scene protecting the second-most powerful human in the country, the vice president? >> i think it underscores why our investigation has sought to understand what the law enforcement agencies and the u.s. military, other folks who were responding to the january 6th riot, the january 6th attack

on the capitol. we have done a lot to seek to understand what these agencies did, what they knew when, how they responded because part of our report has to be to identify areas of improvement around communication, around response, around intelligence. so it's critically important to us that the secret service, charged with protecting not just the president but also the vice president, provides us full information about their role on this critically important day so we can prevent them from ever happening again and so we can ensure that the agencies coordinate one with the other well enough to ensure that we protect the president, the vice president and the capitol. >> congresswoman, when i worked in the white house i traveled all over the world with the secret service. they have an honorable mission, but this response to the subpoena saying we proceeded with a regularly scheduled transfer of devices does not cast them in a particularly

transparent or noble manner. are they cognizant of that, and are they trying to repair that by offering you something else, more testimony from any agent that was on duty that day? >> i can't tell you what it is that they are thinking or what their motivations are. i won't stand here and pretend to guess, but what i will say is that when the inspector general raised this issue with us, the secret service adamantly denied that they were either stonewalling the inspector general or that the text messages were lost. when we subpoenaed those text message, we have now received additional information. it basically leaves us with a lot more questions and the need to continue to work with the agency to see if we can't get to the bottom of this. >> can you tell us -- it's been reported that the regular text messages are not on an encrypted messaging system like signal or

whatsapp. is that the case? >> i can't get into the detail of that. they communicate not just through text messages, they also communicate through radio and email. there are other forms of communication they have among the agents as well as with other agencies. in some cases we have been able to secure some of those communications, reported what was on those channels. i'm not going to get too much into the details of that. i think as the committee has done in due time, as we put together a fuller picture, we will share the most pertinent information that we receive with the american people. >> it feels central in terms of the public case the committee has made so far that the president had knowledge of the specific threat environment on the mall and at the capitol that day, that radio traffic that was played at cassidy hutchinson's live hearing remains one of the

most haunting things i've ever heard in my career in politics or covering politics where they're talking about the types of weapons, and there was video of trump supporters in trees with long guns and talking about spears and had knives attached to flagpoles and the guns that they had. are you able to or are you hearing a focus just on what the president's awareness and the secret service was communicating amongst themselves and to him about the threat that day? >> we've seen a little preview of it, as you've just reviewed, about what the president knew as well as what the secret service knew about the weapons that were in the crowd, but i think in the next hearing, in the 187 minutes here on thursday, you will see more information about who knew what and when. and we will really try to take you into the white house as well as into some of the other

actors' departments and agencies to help lay out what happened in the 187 minutes, what the president and others attempted to -- how they responded and what they didn't do. i think that's going to be critically important for the narrative of what happened in the run-up to and on january 6th itself. >> ahead of the public hearings, committee member -- i think congressman jamie raskin said the committee will blow the roof off. there was a question about whether that expectation could be met. ahead of each hearing, expectations have been set high. i think in the view of most people that have watched them, which is a lot of people, they have been exceeded. what is your sort of expectation setting for thursday. >> i come from a dod background -- >> show, don't tell.

>> underpromise and overperform. that's my typical approach to this. what i will say is our hearings today have been full of surprises. they have unveiled information that wasn't previously out there, and i expect nothing less out of our 187-minute hearing here. i hope you and your viewers tune in. i think this conversation and this information is critically important to defending the democracy and defending this country. >> let me ask you a personal -- not personal opinion but just an informed assessment of what you think is going on based on what your knowledge or intimate knowledge of the investigation and the evidence. what do you think the secret service is hiding? >> i don't want to say that they are hiding something, but it's clear that there are a lot of questions that have to be answered about their process and procedures, not just on the day of an incident as large as january 6th, but also as it

relates to the requirement for federal recordkeeping. as you and others have reported, the national archives is also reaching out to find out what exactly happened here. this information is too important to have been mishandled and misplaced. it comes down to the effectiveness of our government to protect our highest leaders. what we saw on january 6th was an attack on the u.s. capitol that revealed to all of our enemies, foreign and domestic, that the capitol can be a soft target. we as a committee have a responsibility not only to tell the story of what happened, but also to provide recommendations so we can harden the vulnerabilities that exist. there's work that has been done already by the house admin committee and senate committees, but i think there's more work to be done. in order to provide the full set

of recommendations, we have to have the full set of data and information, and i certainly hope that the secret service will cooperate with us, especially since, as an agency, they have been for so long an independent agency, apolitical, willing to take a bullet for anybody, no matter what their political stripes are. it's critically important that they are able to retain that. but i imagine that the country is watching what their response in this situation is. my sense is that their mission is too important to let politics get in the way. >> i know you have to go, my last quick question is, if you don't get -- if the committee does not receive what it's asked for in terms of documents and transparency, would you rule out subpoenaing the is secret service agents who were on duty that day and the day before? >> what i will say is we follow the facts to wherever they lead

and use whatever tools that are within the committee's jurisdiction in order to secure that information. as has been previously reported, we have spoken to people who were a part of that motorcade. we have spoken to folks with knowledge in parallel to what the secret service may have. so we're going to follow the facts wherever they lead. we hope that patriots, americans who love this country, will cooperate with us and provide the committee with the information we need to protect our country and our democracy. >> congresswoman stephanie murphy, you've been so generous with your time. thank you for spending time with us today. we are grateful. >> always great to be with you. joining us, "new york times" political correspondent michael bennett. miles taylor joins us, co-founder and executive director of the renew america movement and harry litman joins us former u.s. attorney, former deputy assistant attorney

general. michael bender, they did not rule out a subpoena if they are not satisfied with the document production from the secret service. the piece i find inexplicable is why they're not sort of getting to the right of this committee in terms of disclosure. if it has nothing to hide, why is it acting like this? >> those are good questions. the thing that stuck out to me from congressman murphy there was the -- following the facts to where they lead. these do raise more questions about the secret service, that the secret service needs to answer. in addition to the questions that remain unanswered following cassidy hutchinson's bombshell testimony from a couple weeks ago. as she was pointing out, these are people who put their lives on the line, put their credibility on the line now when it comes to this hearing. adam kinzinger talk about trying

to secure testimony from pence and possibly trump. now with these unanswered questions from the secret service you wonder how long this committee will keep working past the thursday hearing. >> miles, i worked in the government and deletion isn't really a thing. i think we all know from the way donald trump weaponized the texts from a couple fbi officials doesn't happen in law enforcement agencies casually. the idea that the secret service's public message is some routine, i wash my hair every friday kind of excuse, regular old device migration, it's ludicrous. what is your insight as a former government official about what their public response is? >> i think it's been very bad, nicole. i'll just do the bottom line up front here. i think after all this is over, we're going to see calls for a much more full-scale review of the secret service. i've been dealing with the agency for more than a decade. they are patriots.

they're patriots but the culture is broken, the agency is broken. the first people who will tell you that are front line secret servic agencies, in an agency where misconduct is easier to engage in because there's less oversight. the secret service has always been on an island of its own and prided itself on the independence of its mission. normally that's a good thing, but when it comes to bad conduct, it makes it a lot harder to hold them accountable. that's the concern here. i watch secret service agents regularly use communication channels outside the officials ones. yes, they did use signal and whatsapp, that's where i first found out about encrypted messaging apps, from secret service agents. my message to any agent involved in this right now would be, you've been trained to take a bullet for a president but not

take the fall for one. what we're talking about is a criminal investigation. they should be pushing their superiors to give them the authorization to go talk to the committee, talk to the justice department. as you said, nicolle, it is imperative for this agency, for the united states, that these individuals get ahead of the story, get whatever they have out there and do it proactively. it's starting to have a much greater debt tremtal mission on the secret service than just these individuals and the case involved. >> harry, i did not come to my skepticism of the secret service' public position easily. when you travel with the president as i did, you benefit from their protection. but i have a pretty strong sense that the perception is not in line with how they see themselves as individuals or an agency. even the perception of a person who is now at the heart of the most devastating moments of

testimony, seven public hearings so far, is a secret service who became a political staffer for donald trump, mr. ornato. what's your legal sanitizing and disinfecting disclosure, what would you like to see from the secret service handed over to this committee? >> in every way, as you say, it's a mess six ways, nicolle. as the representative said, first they said nothing was erased. then they said, god knows how they knew this, whatever was erased, it had nothing to do with january 6th. now they say, oops, it was erased. they did receive warnings not to do it. also, the agents are instructed before going through the migration to make their own copy. really? not a single one complied there? there's nothing at all on there? understand, we're talking about texts which we know are sort of the means of kind of informal communication. there will be emails, but the

sort of holy s, he just grabbed for the steering wheel, that is exactly the sort of stuff we're talking about. now finally, on the substance we have all kinds of evidence that could really matter about trump's state of mind, his eagerness to get to the capitol, frustration in not getting there, and even a remote scenario in which they are kind of in on the plans. you mentioned ornato, remember the vice president said i'm not coming with you that day. in a lot of ways, they look horrible. of course you're right, i agree with you in general, but they have had controversies now, the leadership in particular, over the last several years. it's a mess. it's not going away. however, it's going to be very hard i think under current forensics for the committee to get anything really fruitful in the next couple months, but that doesn't mean it will just die on the vine after that.

>> harry, you're of course right. it was a very long time that i was around anyone in the secret service. michael bennett, a quick question for you. it seems central that the president wanted to go to the capitol in an otr movement. we've had two hearings, first with cassidy hutchinson explaining the difference between a movement on the schedule alerted to the press corps and that known only by an agent, the whole staff doesn't even know. do you think there is an active line of the ongoing investigation by the january 6th committee into that movement, the secret service? the congresswoman didn't rule that out? >> i think it's a really good question. those are some of the details that i've learned from this hearing. i will say i was a little skeptical, full disclosure, of these hearings having reported so much on this time period between november 3rd and january 6th and basically reading

everything else. i learned something new -- several things new from each of these hearings including what trump was planning to do before that speech. this gets also to the -- this is the heart of the secret service question here. as you point out, they lent an officer -- lent an agent to staff a high-ranking spot in the trump white house, tony ornato was in a position of authority inside the trump white house. he was looked up to by a lot of young staffers in the trump white house, including cassidy hutchinson. the secrete was quick to cast down on her testimony, most of which still holds up very strongly a couple weeks later. in the meantime, only more questions have arisen. >> exactly. and questions about why they sought to distance themselves from her accounts which, as you said, have held up. everyone sticks around.

when we come back, we'll have more on the two live witnesses we expect to hear from in primetime thursday, how they traveled, if they have traveled, from trump insiders to crucial storytellers about what happened in the west wing on january 6th. plus, after pretty strong signals from the likes of justice clarence thomas and senator ted cruz that they'd be willing to reexamine americans' right to marry whomever they wish, democrats are putting a vote to the test this hour, same-sex marriage under threat from both the conservative court and extreme state legislatures. later in the program, a closer look at what we do know donald trump was and was not doing during those 187 fateful minutes on january 6th as the committee prayers to present even more brand new evidence about the day. all those stories and more when deadline white house continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. r a quick bre. don't go anywhere.

[whistling] when you have technology that's easier to control... that can scale across all your clouds... we got that right? yeah, we got that. it's easier to be an innovator. so you can do more incredible things. [whistling]

wanna help kids get their homework done? so you can do more incredible things. 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. kids don't always take the best care of school supplies. so save money shopping back to school on amazon. while they... 0oh... uh... figure their stuff out. i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. (sighs) here, i'll take that. ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar. enter powered by protein challenge for a chance to win big. ♪♪

i think it's important to just step back and talk about how we got here. on november 9, 2020, "the washington post" ran a story with the headline "top republicans back trump's efforts to challenge election results." the story continued to detail an anonymous quote that will live in infamy, and it read, quote, what is the downside for humoring him, donald trump, for this little bit of time? no one seriously thinks the results will change, said one senior republican official. he went golfing this weekend.

it's not like he's plotting how to prevent joe biden from taking power on january 20th. he's tweeting about filing lawsuits, then he'll tweet some more about how the election was stolen. then he'll lead. how many people followed the guidance of that letter, humoring him every step of the way. we'll continue to detail specifically this hearing that failed leadership, how donald trump failed to take that oath seriously. that was democratic congressman, member of the january 6th select committee pete aguilar on the republican party enabling donald trump and how it led to the deadly insurrection. we're back with our panel. miles, i remember that quote, too. i remember coming on the air and saying trump is no longer the story, it's the person handing the addict the substance he's

addicted to, delusions, lies, tantrums. they should be packing up the west wing, briefing the incoming administration on their failures to contain the coronavirus pandemic which was raging during the transition. they did none of that. they incited a coup against the united states government. >> i remember, nicolle, in that time period talking to someone who had been a mentor of mine inside government and who served at a very senior level in the executive branch and who knew donald trump very, very well and said, i'm really worried about where this earned up. i hope they end up putting him in a straight jacket after they chin him to the oval office desk and drag him out on national television. if a moment like that, something like the january 6th insurrection would happen. if people didn't see how crazed the president was in private.

people who give quotes are ones that led us to that moment. people said let's humor him a little more, a little more, a little more. look where we got. i am encouraged by something in the last segment, you noted how impactful cassidy hutchinson's testimony was on you. it looks like it's achieved the effect that committee staff wanted to achieve. committee staff said privately they were hoping this would lead to more people coming forward. the two people testifying this week are people who are vastly more senior than cassidy was. i know both matt and sarah. i served with them. they're honest people who have come forward to give us greater insight. this is the type of thing trump really fears, because these aren't people where he can say i've never seen them in my life, which is always his excuse for a junior staffer. these are people ever present in

his white house and two key people who would have been responsible for trying to get the president to put a stop to the insurrection. their testimony itself is damning. >> such an interesting and important point. this, harry litman, is a west wing version of the doj hearing we saw. we saw senior people in the doj trying to stand up to richard clark. we'll now hear from two senior white house officials trying to stand up against the coup plotter in the oval office, donald trump. >> just as the drama there, nicolle, you had the entire leadership of the doj saying we're going to resign, here you have two people -- it's going to be riveting it seems to me, they're lifelong republicans, they have careers they want to think about, just two weeks left in the administration and they both say i can't stay here another hour. they don't go home to talk it over with their spouses. what they see so repulses them that they are packing up and out of there immediately. it strikes me that that's going

to be an eyeness account of some really damning behavior. >> michael bender, i should have looked in your book for reporting on pottinger. let me read you what i found in jon carl's book. when pottinger heard an unconfirmed report that there was a delay in sending the national card, he rushed over to the oval office to find out what is going on. pottinger saw several junior aides milling around and trump wasn't there. he was in his private dining room watching tv while the capitol was being ransacked. as he stood in disbelief, others came out including cipollone and his deputy and senior adviser to vice president pence. they all looked anguished, but no one could tell him what was

going on. after several minutes mark meadows rushed by, pottinger asked if it was true that the white house was blocking the deployment of the national guard. meadows said the report was false. add to that your understanding of the role potting jer says for what his supporters were doing as insurrectionists this day including chanting "hang mike pence." >> let me try to set the scene a little bit for you, nicolle. mat pottinger is the deputy national security adviser. first, anyone with a deputy title in any administration, as you know -- pay attention to what they say. these are people that are in the room advising on major decisions and then tasked with implementing those decisions. in short, the deputies are the people who get stuff done. deputy national security adviser, they may not be and more important role in the white house. this is a 24/7 job.

you're dealing with an array of issues, domestically and around the globe. these are people who are operating on a very high level. matt pottinger is an interesting character in all this saga. he's a former mainstream reporter, mainstream journalist, so points already for credibility, but seriously, he had a foreign post in asia for the "wall street journal," didn't like what he saw on the ground out there, enlisted in the military and rose through the ranks, eventually became a policy analyst and then joined the trump white house with the recommendation from mike flynn. mike flynn lasted a few days. matt pottinger lasted four years and rose up to this position as deputy national security adviser under robert o'brien. he was one of the voices, for what it's worth, one of the few people sounding the alarm early on in the covid pandemic that this was something to be taken seriously. he had seen sars firsthand while he was out there. now, what happened on january

6th with matt pottinger? we know some of what he'll say. we've heard some of it already. he did not see trump that day, but he did see -- he was around the outer oval. he did see mark meadows. he tried to get mark meadows' attention, like a lot of aides were that day. one of matt's predecessors in that role, deputy nsa role, had gotten ahold of him and said the mayor of washington, muriel bowser was trying to get ahold of the white house, trying to get their attention to send national guard reinforcements. we know bowser called kellyanne conway several times. i think at least part of what we'll hear from pottinger on thursday will be this chaotic scene and trying to understand why the white house wasn't responding more quickly to what was happening on capitol hill. >> that's fascinating. michael bender, thank you for setting that scene for us. miles and harry, stick around. the fulton county, georgia,

investigation into possible 020 election interference by the twice-impeached ex-president continues to gain steam. another sitting republican lawmaker fighting a subpoena to testify. those developments are next. o testify. testify. those developments are next. with clearer skin and less itch. hide my skin? not me. serious allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines without talking to your doctor. ask your doctor about dupixent. my little family is me, aria, and jade.

just the three of us girls. i never thought twice about feeding her kibble. but about two years ago, i realized she was overweight. she was always out of breath. that's when i decided to introduce the farmer's dog to her diet. it's just so fresh that she literally gets bubbles in her mouth. now she's a lot more active she's able to join us on our adventures. and we're all able to do things as a family. ♪♪ get started at longlivedogs.com only two things are forever: love and liberty mutual customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. if anyone objects to this marriage... (emu squawks) kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ we got the house! only pay for what you need. you did! pods handles the driving. pack at your pace. store your things until you're ready. then we deliver to your new home - across town or across the country. pods, your personal moving and storage team.

new developments out of georgia today are shedding light on how deep the fulton county das investigation into election interference actually gets into

disgraced ex-president's inner most circle. georgia congressman, jody hice revealed he had been subpoenaed to testify in front of a grand jury as part of the investigation. he is vowing to fight that subpoena in federal court. hice was one of several republican lawmakers who attended the now infamous meeting in december 2020 at the white house with chief of staff mark meadows in which various ways were discussed to overturn joe biden's presidential victory. while willis evasion has subpoenaed high-profile trump allies like lindsey graham and rudy giuliani, she's also turned her focus to georgia's politicians giving us a view at the range of potential criminal acts she could be seeking. the atlanta journal constitution is reporting in the last few hours that at least 12 republicans, including two high ranking officials in the state have been informed that they are also targets of her investigation. that group consists of

republicans who agreed to gather as alternate electors to cast fake electoral ballots for trump at georgia's state capitol in december 2020. that obviously a flashpoint in doj's criminal investigation as well. we're back with miles and harry. harry, i guess it would be funny if it wasn't such a flashing red threat to our democracy. how front are trump's republicans allies in congress willing to go to carry on a fraud? what sort of exposure is someone like hice facing criminally? >> the other irony, the states rights guys all of a sudden love federal power and federal court when something like this happens. he's not facing anything yet. this target, non-target distinction matter. the people today and before have been told you're in my crosshairs, i'm intending to indict you. come in and talk or take the

fifth. it could develop into something for him. right now he's been asked to testify about that meeting, which is one of two reasons why his argument doesn't fly. the first is that. he's just been asked to testify. the second reason is the speech and debate clause which lindsey graham is also trying to hide behind. that's about actual hot debate on the floor. it's not as he has it in his papers, sort of any kind of legislative duty he does at all. so right now she wants to hear about the december 20th meeting, and it's a very good and fair point, inquiry. his argument that i don't even have to show up, it really doesn't wash. of course, it's so typical of trump world whenever anything comes up, well, i don't have to talk, i don't have to testify, that's for other citizens. >> i can't remember if he's on the list that cassidy hutchinson testified to as seeking a

pardon. >> he's not one of the seven i don't think. >> there is a consciousness of guilt in terms of the republican members' participation. it manifests itself on their attacks on the bipartisan january 6th select committee. it manifests itself in these arbitrary defiance. i wonder if this will corporate to be a feature, not a bug, this sub serveians to trump by republican officials as his crimes are broadcast through the world through the public hearings of the 1/6 committee. >> nicolle, the first thing you pointed out has to be underscored, the massive conflicts of interest here that we didn't necessarily know about when congress was trying to create diversion of the committee and trying to get republicans to agree to the select committee. at that time a lot of folks thought it was just partisan politics, but we're starting to

find out that there's a whole array of targets of potential criminal investigations, sitting members of congress who were very involved in this saying no, no, no, we don't want this scrutiny. that's what's really very terrifying about this. they're trying to use their official power to put their thumb on the scales to prevent themselves from getting in trouble. we're not talking about arcane, obscure laws here that were broken. we're talking about the u.s. constitution and procedures that happen every few cycles. these members of congress aren't people who can say, well, i didn't know the law and didn't know how it worked. not that that's a good defense as the lawyers will tell me, but these are people who lived that cycle, they lived that process. they go through the electoral process. they absolutely knew better are. nicole, if we were making jokes about this, somewhere in here it would be a public service announcement for people who are around donald trump. the psa would be you need to get

yourself a good criminal defense attorney because they're starting to go into the network, they're going around the people around donald trump and it will have big implications. allies like jody hice, they're getting dragged into courtrooms and in front of prosecutors. it's an indicator not that they potentially were involved in bad things, but that the ex-president is going to be dealing with a much diminished set of loyalists if he decides to make a comeback in this political system. >> i want to say it hasn't happened -- i don't think the january 6th committee is going to successfully plumb the depths here. it's going to fall to the doj and it will be a serious investigation like abscam. sorry. >> that's okay. at least for his house allies, every single one of their names are on the same ballots they're now calling fraudulent and using

as a pretext to pass voter suppression laws in 48 states. miles taylor, harry litman, never enough time with either of you. democrats are getting ahead of what some fear is a very real possibility, maybe probability in our country right now that an extreme conservative party will repeal the right to same-sex marriage. that vote in congress is set to start any minute. congressman sean patrick maloney withl be our guest. stay with us. withl be our guest stay with us is

my husband, randy, and i have been together for 30 years. during all those years, during all that time together, we've only been legally married since 2014. we had a 22-year engagement before an 8-year marriage. when i was elected as a member of congress in 2012, my husband, randy, couldn't have health insurance through this body. his spouse i.d. said "companion" on it. on the day the supreme court decided we had equality rights for marriage in this country, a bunch of us stood in front of the court and sang the national anthem. because it's a beautiful thing when your country catches up to you. and every member of congress will get to stand and be counted today, and you can choose between equality or discrimination. >> congressman sean patrick maloney making his case

beautifully today before the house vote on a bill that would protect same-sex marriage, enshrining it into federal law. the house will be voting, it is expected to pass. the vote comes after the supreme court stripped away the constitutional right to abortion and raised the specter, publicly, that other rights, unpopular only with the ultra-conservative, extreme members of the court and country, could be taken away as well. this bill also includes federal protections for interracial marriages. it is unclear whether the bill can gain the 60 votes it needs to clear the senate, which is, in and of itself, a shocking thing to say out loud. joining us now, congressman sean patrick maloney of new york, co-chair of the lgbtq+ caucus. i have two questions for you. how did we get here, and how did we get as far away as we can from this moment where what you said, discrimination, seems to be sort of having an equal hold against equality, at least in the building in which you work? >> right, well, i think some of

us could be accused of being overconfident, that we had put this debate in the rear view mirror, because we know our culture has changed so dramatically, we know that attitudes in the population have changed. i believe a majority of conservatives now support marriage equality. and remember, this bill also protects interracial marriage, so we're really going back even to loving v. virginia, and issues we thought were long settled. and we're here because part of the roe v. wade decision, where the supreme court threw out 50 years of constitutional protection for american women, also included very dangerous language in clarence thomas's concurrence about all substantive due process cases. now, for nonlawyers, that means all this other stuff, like marriage equality and birth control and even interracial marriage. the rights that have been rooted in a 50-year interpretation of the due process clause, and that is radical. and so it's necessary that the

federal government protect things like contraception, believe it or not, and we're doing that as well this week. but marriage equality, which now enjoys a super majority of support, is going to be put to a vote on the house floor, and i for one am very interested to see which republicans will still stand in that doorway and prevent us from coming together around a basic issue like equality of our love and of our marriages. >> it's an incredible reveal, if you will, what the right stands for right now and how far out of the mainstream they are with the majority of americans. republicans have run on the court for years. how do democrats run against it in the midterms in the next presidential and beyond? >> well, you know, i think it's probably -- we should probably look at where we've been successful, and we were very successful in the coalition that we built for marriage equality in the first place. what do we talk about? we talked about love. we talked about love winning. we talked about the equality of our love.

and ultimately, that debate is still the one we're having today, are we going to discriminate against people who want to be with the person they love and be treated equally and fairly? whether it's the person of a different race or of the same sex and whether politicians in washington will decide things like whether women get to have an abortion or politicians in some state government get to make a decision. we think women should be making those decisions. we think americans who love each other can get married and be treated equally, and we know it's a better country because of it, and a majority of the country certainly believes that people of different races should be free to marry one another, and the idea that we're even talking about it is just a measure of the radical difference between the dark -- the dark vision, the maga republican movement has for our country, and the country so many of us have been trying to build for so long, even if imperfectly, even if in fits and starts. we believe we can all go forward together to a better country where everybody counts, everybody matters. >> what do you say to kids who

are seeing grown-ups relitigate something that had been settled, that had be accepted, that had represented progress? >> well, i'm going to say to anybody younger than me, what john lewis said to me, when he said, after they overturned a key provision of the voting rights act, john lewis said to me, right down there in the cloak room, he said, i would not have imagined when i was standing next to lbj in the oval office in august of 1965 that 48 years later we'd still be talking about voting rights. and he said, but we are. and it's going to be up to you and people younger than me to keep this fight going, so what i say to young people is, we need you. get engaged. by the way, the kids are engaged. if you look at all the social justice movements, the kids are all right. we just had a thousand kids come through something we called democracy summer that we put together with jamie raskin to get hundreds of kids involved in these races all around the country. the kids get it. it's the adults that need to

listen to them. >> it's interesting. it's true. all the concerns about screen time for kids might need to be directed to the over 60 set. congressman sean patrick maloney, thank you very much for spending time with us today. it's very nice to see you on such an important day. >> you bet. up next for us, what we know about the 187 minutes the president of the united states did nothing to stop the deadly insurrection at the united states capitol. that's after a quick break. stay with us. insurrection at thune ited insurrection at thune ited states wrap their arms around us, could we put little handles on our jackets? -denied. -can you imagine? that's after a quick break that's after a quick break stay with us number one motorcycle insurer? approved. cool! hey, if bryan's not gonna be snake, can i be snake? -all: no.

i gotta say moving in together has been awesome. no regrets. for you and emily. these are... amazing. thank you wayfair. how's the puppy? puppy's perfect. yeah great decision! ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪

[ ominous music playing ] it's here. are you ready? let's go baby! [ screaming ] what happens next? you'll know soon enough. right now, i am sheltered in place in my office because we

have protesters who have stormed the capitol. this is banana republic crap that we're watching happen. mr. president, you have got to stop this. you are the only person who can call this off. call it off. the election is over. call it off. >> hi again, everyone, it's 5:00 in the east. you are the only person who can call this off. that was a republican congressman, his name's mike gallagher, he's from wisconsin, and that was from january 6th, 2021, in a tweet he put out while the capitol insurrection was well under way. and we recently heard from a rioter himself in his own words who confirmed exactly what gallagher says there. the 1/6 select committee's hearing last week, rioter stephen aere said, once trump asked them to leave, he left,

went home. we know that tweet from the president was hours and hours in the making, three-plus hours to be exact. it is those 187 minutes that will be the focus of this week's public hearing by the select committee thursday in primetime. it will detail how trump did nothing at all to call off the angry mob of his supporters as they breached the capitol, injured, in some instances maimed more than 140 police officers, sought to overturn an official proceeding and threatened the lives of elected officials, including his own vice president. here's what liz cheney, the vice chair, told us to expect. >> you will hear that donald trump never picked up the phone that day to order his administration to help. this is not ambiguous. he did not call the military. his secretary of defense received no order. he did not call his attorney general. he did not talk to the department of homeland security. mike pence did all of those things. donald trump did not. we will walk through the events

of january 6th next week, minute by minute. >> as we wait to see exactly what new evidence and testimony and information the committee will reveal to the public, let's take a look at what we already know about what the ex-president did during those critical 187 minutes. just days after the insurrection, "the washington post" did reporting that reveals that the man who was, in the words of other republicans, the one and only person who could call it all off, was instead sitting in front of the boob tube, transfixed by what he was seeing. "as they begged for immediate help, they struggled to get through to the president, who safely ensconced in the west wing, was too busy watching fiery tv images of the crisis unfolding around them to act or even bother to hear their pleas. it took him a while to appreciate the gravity of the situation, lindsey graham said. the president saw these people in allies in his journey and sympathetic to the idea that the

election was stolen." meanwhile, congressmen and women in the capitol that day were traumatized, hiing under their desks, putting on their gas masks, taking off their congressional pins in order to not be recognized as members, fearing for their lives. yet, the ex-president sat there watching it on tv, watching it all take place, according to former white house press secretary stephanie grisham, gleefully. we heard it from former aide cassidy hutchinson, that the ex-president did not want to do anything to stop or quell what he was watching, because he liked it. take a look at what was on tv that day, what he was watching. and picture the ex-president, the only one who can stop it, doing nothing. >> we just saw protesters walking through statuary hall. >> when you breach that, you haven't gone through security. you got to imagine that that is making a lot of the capitol police and other folks inside the capitol right now very, very

uncomfortable. and very nervous. >> the rioters are getting really close, have you talked to the president? he said, no, he wants to be alone right now, still looking at his phone. >> fake news. fake news. >> open up a fire extinguisher on the capitol police. >> fake news. >> and then you saw some sort of -- you can see, obviously, it's pretty contentious right now. >> 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. >> here's an email from our producer, haley talbot, inside the house chamber, we are told to sit and stay calm and wait for capitol police to come, be prepared to get under chairs if necessary. verify every door is locked, someone yelled. there was tear gas in the rotunda and grabbing masks under seats and be prepared to put it on, so the members have masks available to them. everyone is freaking out. >> i remember pat saying

something to the effect of, mark, we need to do something more. they're literally calling for the vice president to be f'ing hung. and mark had responded something to the effect of, you heard him, pat. he thinks mike deserves it. >> what a tremendously sad day across our country. we should make no mistake, these are rioters. these are insurrectionists. the whole world is watching this. the whole world is now able to see what has happened to the u.s. capitol. >> it's where we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. ashley parker is here, we're thrilled she has just been named senior -- wait, senior national political correspondent. the first time she's here, and i screwed it up, "the washington post." also joining us, hugo lowell,

congressional report at "the guardian." also jason johnson is here. congrats on your new role. you had the byline, i think, on the first piece of reporting about trump sitting and watching tv, transfixed, i think, was your reporting, shortly after the insurrection. that feels as though it's a fact that has only been corroborated with every insider that has testified to this committee and will feature prominently thursday night. >> that's right. i mean, immediately after the insurrection, we knew, as reporters, that that was the story we wanted to try to get to the bottom of. what was then president trump, this sort of singular feature, doing or, in many ways, as the case turned out, not doing during that period between when the capitol was first breached and when he finally sent out a tweet calling off his supporters, and as we've seen, initially, with our reporting and then with some of these

tell-all books and people who have become disillusioned and now of course with the committee, which has something that we wish we had, but we don't, which is subpoena power, we're getting a much clearer and more granular look at the fact that trump understood what was going on, that he was being urged by a number of people in his orbit who were there physically in front of him, who were calling in, trying to get him to basically do anything to end the violence at the u.s. capitol, and that he was really resistant for a very long period. >> you know, hugo, i remember pestering people like ashley and jonathan swan and other reporters from the earliest days after 1/6 with this question that maybe you have an answer to. who was america's commander in chief on january 6th? it's clear the committee is going to try to answer that thursday night. >> well, i think, as it turned out, the person who managed to get the national guard to come in or to have some sort of law

enforcement response ended up being the vice president, stuck in that loading dock down in the basement on the senate side. he was calling in, trying to figure out some sort of response, because the actual commander in chief was, you know, derelict in his duty, and i think that's what the select committee really wants to stress to the american people at that hearing thursday. i mean, i think they're trying to show that he was in the dining room, watching tv, that the first lady was also nowhere to be found, you know, stephanie grisham talking about how she was trying to text the first lady to issue some sort of statement, and while she was busy photographing rugs in the residence, she just texted back, no. and i think the committee really wants to show that the former president was nowhere to be found in the most critical moments during the insurrection. >> jason, i started asking on that day, other members, what they thought was going to happen, and i was shocked by the kinds of things they said. it was a secret to absolutely no one that there was a very high likelihood of violence. let me show you some of those

conversations starting on january 6th. >> as a member, i called my husband last night and i told him that i was coming in to work today, but that should anything happen, i let him know where my will and last testament was located in the event that we needed it. >> i knew that something was going to go down. i didn't know what. but i wore my tennis shoes on wednesday, because i knew, just based on what i know as a layperson, reading and knowing nothing about security, really, although i've been in many dangerous situations, i knew something was going to happen. >> fortunately, we took the decision to keep them out of the capitol that day, and so thank god, in the midst of worrying about so many things, i wasn't worried about my poor staff, as so many were, hiding under desks or in closets as the mob broke down doors. >> you know, in some ways, this

was the earliest evidence of intent, that all these members knew before they walked in that trump intended to bring violence, and it isn't even the obstructing of the official piece of us, which is not counting the votes, the vice president's role is purely ceremonial. it was the violence. they all knew that there would be violence. >> nicole, they all knew there was going to be violence. we heard reports from members of congress saying, we saw weird tours with republican members of congress beforehand. every single element of this shows intent and shows that it's exactly what donald trump wanted. if this was -- if this was a high school basketball game where, like, the one coach was saying, we're going to kill the other team because they lost on a last-second shot and there's a bunch of kids fighting in the playground afterwards, we would know it's the coach. it's not complicated. it's the guy in the red uniform with the whistle, right? so we've always known that this is what donald trump wanted. what's been sort of disturbing to me, and what i know is going to leave me even more enraged after thursday, is this idea of,

with it being so ridiculously obvious to everyone and also, nicole, now we're finding out that additional information about that day, and collusion, perhaps, by the secret service has magically disappeared, that no one has yet been held accountable. like, the idea that trump was behind the violence has always been the most obvious element of this, above and beyond even the collusion with then members of congress. >> and all of it sort of comes to its, i guess we're calling it, season finale or mid-season finale thursday night for the 1/6 committee, which has taken the burden of what a lot of people in america feel, that jason's articulating, ashley. let me go through the timeline, because they're going to be reliving the 187 minutes. we tried to put some of this together. the joint session starts at 1:05. trump gets back from that rally on the ellipse. we know he wanted to be there, but the secret service prevails and he goes back to the white house by 1:19. at 1:50, a riot is declared,

officially, by the d.c. police commander. right before 2:00, 1:59, that was the image we showed you at the top, rioters have reached the capitol windows and doors to try to get inside. 2:05, the first fatality in the capitol insurrection of january 6th, 2021, happens. it's kevin greeson, a trump supporter from alabama. he has a heart attack. at 2:15, they rush pence out. that's when everyone realized there was a real security risk, threat to the vice president of the united states, and yet, 11 minutes later, trump tweeted, "mike pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution." i'm going to stop here for now, but that chunk of time, one hour and about 20 minutes, ashley, is perhaps the most incriminating part of the timeline. >> it's all pretty incriminating, nicole. in part, because we know -- we know because we and others have

reported it, but we also just know about trump, which is that he is someone who is glued to the television. so, as soon as anything started being shown on tv, he was watching. he was taking it in, and he was, we were told, maybe not quite pleased, but he liked the fact, again, if you're being charitable, people around him will claim not the violence, but he certainly liked the fact that his supporters were fighting on his behalf. he did not have the reaction that much of the rest of the country did, which was watching in shock and horror and being appalled. i mean, i remember having covered congress, you can't go into the speaker's lobby as a woman if your shoulders aren't covered, if you're wearing the wrong outfit. and so to see that area being overrun, and you know the security procedures, everyone was absolutely stunned and aghast, and he was taking it in, and at least initially, kind of

enjoying it. >> there's been no evidence entered into the public arena that he ever stopped enjoying it, has there, ashley? >> not in the public arena. i will say, there are people around him who said he did not enjoy the violence, but no, there's been nothing that we have seen from this committee or that people have really come out and said, that goes against this idea that at every turn, initially, he liked the fervor of his supporters, and even when he realized he potentially had a problem on his hands, which, again, was a deadly insurrection at the u.s. capitol, that he had to be browbeaten and nudged and urged and almost forced to do the absolute bare minimum, which was to begrudgingly call off his supporters. >> and hugo, he did that with this tweet. after attacking mike pence, who

earlier, he asks his supporters to support capitol police and law enforcement, who they were maiming with spears and bear spray. and he tells his supporters to stay peaceful at 2:38, over an hour and a half in. ashli babbitt dies at 2:44. his supporter, rioter paul hodgkin's, enters the senate chamber at 3:00, and then at 4:17, he tweets a video, and he says to his supporters, "we love you. you are very special." what do you make of what the committee has to work with thursday night? >> well, you know, through our reporting and others' reporting, we know that tweet that was sent wasn't the initial draft. it was a very watered downdraft and officially, he wanted his -- his aides wanted for trump to tweet for them to leave the capitol much sooner and more forceful language, but ultimately, the message that went out in the afternoon round

at 4:00 p.m. was a kind of distilled down version of that directive, and i think that's really important, right? i mean, if you try and think of this from trump's point of view, he knew, by the evening of january 5, according to our reporting, that january 6th was his final opportunity to try and return himself to that white house. he knew that if the congressional certification went ahead and biden was kind of certified as president, there would be no way back for him, and so he had communicated to steve bannon and other people at the willard war room, that that was what needed to happen. he needed to stop that certification, so i think investigators on the select committee are viewing that as, trump really didn't want that insurrection to stop so it was a begrudging and reluctant tweet that he sent to try to stop, at everyone else's insistence. >> hugo, hasn't the 1/6 committee really shown it wasn't an opportunity to do what you just said? it wasn't an opportunity to stop anything, and trump knew it. he was told by his white house counsel, pat cipollone, and eric herschmann, that it was illegal.

>> right, and so i think trump -- in trump's mind, he thought this was, like, maybe the final opportunity he had. i mean, obviously, all of his advisors around him, all of his sane advisors, the white house counsel, his various top advisors in the white house, all telling him that there was no way he could get around this congressional certification, while of course, as we now know, he was listening to rudy giuliani and john eastman, and these people were telling him all the way through january 5, all the way through january 6th, that it was still possible, and he wanted to cling to that belief. >> you know, jason, and i guess i follow up because what the committee has proven is that donald trump, unless -- and liz cheney made this point pretty artfully, leaving out the word "fat" but calling him a 76-year-old guy that had the access to all the best information in the world and not a child, said he sat on his rear end and willfully ignored the counsel from everyone around him, that what he sought to do on january 6th was illegal, ill

advised, what he sought to do at doj would lead to a saturday night massacre, the likes of which would make the actual saturday night massacre look small. what the committee has succeeded in doing is showing that the president knew that january 6th was not an opportunity to overturn the election, that that was illegal. >> right. nicole, that's the thing. he already knew, hey, dude, it's not working. every piece of documentation, every corrupt crony that he had put in office, even they said, this is a bridge -- this is a chris christie bridge too far, right? just blocked. you can't do it. there's no way you can do this. he knew it already, and so january 6th can be seen as nothing but an attempt at a violent overthrow of the united states government. right? and i think what's important, nicole, and this is what i'm really fascinated to see on thursday, it's like, what on earth else could he have been doing at the time? what was he doing? what else could be more important? we're mad about uvalde cops for

waiting too long to go in to stop a mass shooter. their lives were in danger, but that's what we expect them to do. this man's job was to protect the country. all he had to do was make a phone call or a tweet, and he wouldn't do it. in fact, he darn near encouraged people to kill his vice president. that's what i'm fascinated -- i'm curious as to what republicans have to tell themselves at night before they go to bed, having survived last year, to tell themselves that made it okay that for hundreds of minutes, this man did nothing to protect the country as he attempted to slaughter every member of congress. >> i guess, ashley, what they have to tell themselves is, i hope i don't run into kevin mccarthy of january 6th from all those recorded phone calls with steve scalise and liz cheney, where he thought impeachment would take too long, as with the 25th amendment, what are we going to do with this guy. i want to ask you what we should expect to hear from the two live witnesses, mr. pottinger and sarah matthews. >> sure. so, sarah matthews was a young

press assistant -- first, i should say they both had full visibility in the sense that they were at the white house and in the west wing in the run-up and on that day. sarah matthews, young press assistant, who could certainly speak to the efforts to get then president trump to send out a tweet and would potentially have visibility into what the initial draft that he did not want to send out, why he didn't want to send out the tweet, why it took so long, who was urging him to do what, and what he was saying in response, and so that would be her visibility. and then matt pottinger, i think important to note that he was better known for being one of the first people in the trump white house to sound the alarms on coronavirus and to actually take it seriously. he was in the west wing, wearing masks, before anyone else in the country really knew that this was coming from china. so, he's someone who has credibility as a truth teller, just to set the stage. and he, i believe, is someone

who was specifically there around 3:00 p.m. in that timeline you just laid out, going in and speaking to mark meadows and saying, the national guard isn't there. they're desperately trying to get the national guard there. we need to send the national guard. what can we do to send it? and that was another dynamic that was happening. there were people -- the d.c. mayor's office went through kelleyanne con way to try to get to trump so send in the national guard so that would be one fascinating area where matt pottinger has a lot of visibility. >> ashley parker and hugo lowell, thank you for your reporting on this incredible chapter and thank you for starting us off this hour. jason sticks around. ahead for us, why democrats continue to boost far-right extremist big-lie supporting contests in gop primaries. it's happening all over the country, including today, and not everyone in the party is on board with the strategy. we'll explain next. plus, new reporting on how president joe biden's plans for

2024 are increasingly tied to the twice-impeached disgraced ex-president. we'll explain that too. and first lady, dr. jill biden, is today hosting ukraine's first lady at the white house as the russian war on her home country looks more and more -- to more and more people like a campaign of terrorism. we'll check back in with igor nobikov live from kyiv. ii ii igor over rotini. inside a panini. egging, maining, siding, plain-ing. debunk the inglorious. one shape's victorious. kraft singles. square it.

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 i had been giving koli kibble. it never looked like real food. with the farmer's dog you can see the pieces of turkey.

it smells like actual food. as he's aged, he's still quite energetic and youthful. i really attribute that to diet. get started at longlivedogs.com

a really interesting, risky dynamic at play today, something to keep an eye on as voters in maryland choose their party's

nominees for governor. the background on the republican contest. it's mostly straightforward. kelly schultz is seen as the moderate, while trump-endorsed dan cox, who organized buses to take people to the capitol on january 6th, is clearly the maga choice. so, why has the democratic governors association spent more than a million dollars in ads to elevate cox, the maga guy, trump's choice? the answer is, they would say they're playing the long game. they see cox as an easier general election opponent in maryland and appear eager to help him get there. politico playbook notes, this isn't the first time a party has worked to choose its own opponent and maryland isn't the only state where democrats have done it this year. they succeeded in boosting doug mastriano in pennsylvania. they are attempting it in arizona with kerry lake. they tried to do it in colorado but giving an assist to two 2020 election deniers. it is also, i don't have to tell you, a strategy that carries

significant risk. think about it. if dan cox wins the nomination and then, say he happens to pull off a win in the general, democrats will have helped fund and elect a maga conservative to a governorship. joining our conversation, matt dowd, political strategist, founder of country over party, also an msnbc political contributor. jason's still here. matt dowd, you flagged this, and this troubles you. this seems like another example of why it's a dangerous strategy. >> well, it does trouble me, and i have two reasons for it. first is just practical politics. i mean, i think any time you take resources that could be used in a general election and orchestrate some kind of, you know, bank shot deal where you're going to elect somebody that you think is the possible weakest candidate, doesn't always turn out well. one, you lose resources, you've expended resources. two, that candidate is -- has a potential to win the race a la

2016 when most everybody said trump was the weakest republican that could get nominated and it would make hillary's path to the white house easier. he became president of the united states. that's one reason, practical politics. the second is a broader, i think, that if everyone is in agreement that our democracy is at stake and that we all want a vibrant, sane republican party that believes in democracy and believes in the constitution, why on earth -- why on earth would we elevate candidates and try to diminish other candidates who are the sane ones and elevate the crazy ones in the midst of this environment that we're in today? and as you led into this, yeah, it does carry great risk, but we should actually be hopeful and supporting sane republican candidates who believe in elections, who support the constitution, and not the crazies. and so, one, it's just practical politics. i think it's a mistake. but just in a broader, you know,

unity around democracy, we should be giving support and help to republicans who can emerge from this, who believe in elections. >> it's such a compelling argument, i'm dying to know, jason johnson, if you see it the same way or if you think there's some wisdom to having democrats able -- having their candidates able to make this stark contrast to maga candidates on the other side? >> nicole, this was a cute idea, maybe, 10, 12 years ago. both parties did it. if you could find a nut case on the other side, you put energy behind and you put money behind and you put endorsements behind them. that's when you didn't have to worry about a violent insurrection, right? i'm sorry. i don't really think there's good republicans anymore, because even the ones who say they're in favor of democracy are perfectly happy with working with the maga ones, who are perfectly happy being a cover for terrorists. so the democratic party should

never be funding a terrorist front. if you give money to somebody who does not believe in the legitimacy of our elections, you are funding terrorists. you are funding insurrectionists. it's a bad idea. if those people get in, it costs us the '22 and possibly '24 presidential election. how many times have we talked about candidates, minority candidates, women candidates, candidates who are struggling around the country, senate and governor, who are begging for money, who could use additional money and resources, and it's being wasted on this three-dimensional chess nonsense game that some democrat cooked up in the middle of a consulting meeting because they think they're going to outsmart everybody. so, yeah, i'm in agreement on this. i don't think it's good strategy for our current political environment, and one of these is going to end up biting the democratic party on the nose. i don't know which of these candidates, maybe it's carrie lake, cox, one of these people is going to end up winning and everybody's going to be like, how did this happen? the blood's on your hands. >> the moving of money. money is a finite amount of

money that you can raise and the idea that the democratic party, which is on the right side of all the questions about democracy and freedom right now, would be funding anyone who doesn't believe in those ideals is ominous. i'm going to ask both of you to stick around. up next, there's brand-new reporting on what president joe biden is thinking these days about 2024 and how it is related to what the twice-impeached ex-president does. we'll explain. ated to what the twice-impeached ex-president does. when you have technology that's easier to control... that can scale across all your clouds... we'll explain. we got that right? yeah, we got that. it's easier to be an innovator. so you can do more incredible things. [whistling]

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.

my tribe has lived on this land for 12,000 years. we call it oleyumi. you call it california. our land, our culture, our people once expansive, now whittled down to a small community. only one proposition supports california tribes like ours. while providing hundreds of millions in yearly funding to finally address homelessness in california. vote yes on 27. tax online sports betting and protect tribal sovereignty and help californians that are hurting the most.

i don't blame -- i don't criticize anybody for asking that question. but the next election, i would be very fortunate if i had that same man running against me. thank you. >> fortunate. we'll hand it to president biden. he is never shy about talking about his chances for a repeat and projecting confidence every time he's asked about running again against donald trump in 2024. just last week, he told an israeli interview he would not be disappointed if it came to that. the caveats, always. president biden hasn't finished half of his first term. a lot can happen between now and 2024. but "the washington post" citing people close to the president is reporting this, that if biden -- as biden weighs his options, trump does loom large. they've got this quote. "biden may seek re-election in any case, people in his inner circle say, but if trump runs, biden is far more likely to do so, and if trump holds off, it

will be far easier for other democrats to approach biden about letting someone else take on a younger republican nominee. the dynamic creates an odd codependency, if you will, between the two men." for trump, a rematch would give him an opportunity to underline his false claims that he actually won in 2020. for president joe biden, it would be a chance to put an exclamation point on his unseating of trump and show that his win was no fluke. we're back with matt and jason. matt, what do you think? >> here's what i think. everybody can speculate whatever on -- i have no idea what's going to happen in 2024. i have my theories, and i think -- but listen, the house is on fire. why are we arguing about what color we're going to paint the walls when we rebuild the house and put the fire out? i have no understanding why democrats or anyone and the media -- we're approaching the hundred-day out from a midterm. if things don't go well in the

midterm, meaning if these election deniers win secretary of state, win the -- win governorships, win attorney general, take back the senate, take over the house, it doesn't matter who's on the ballot in 2024. it doesn't matter if it's joe biden, it doesn't matter if it's kamala harris, it doesn't matter if it's pete buttigieg. it does not matter. so, my thing -- and we have mutual friends, probably both of -- all of us have mutual friends that want to speculate and want to go off and think joe biden should say that he's not running and all that. concentrate on what's right in front of us. the house is on fire. right now, we're almost a hundred days out from a midterm election that if it goes badly for the democrats, it doesn't matter who's on the ballot in 2024. >> you know, jason, around trump's two impeachments, i used to ask national security folks what they thought the decision-making process should be, and they answered it similarly. they said, if this, then that.

if he held military aid over an ally at war with russia because he wanted dirt on joe biden, then you impeach him, politics be damned. if -- and you paint with the biggest brush in the brightest colors -- if the choice is as stark between the two parties, matt's got a point. what difference does it make who's at the top of either ticket. it's really a choice of whether we want to continue to live in a democracy. >> right. i mean, it's hyperbolic, but it's been true for the last three or four elections, this is the most important election in your lifetime. republicans take over in fall, they will rig everything in 2024, make sure no democrat can get elected at any particular level so it doesn't matter. but what strikes me about this, which i find disturbing, is i remember a thousand years ago when obama looked weak coming out of end of 2011 and he was being outsmarted by boehner and there's a "washington post" article that said, he should step down and lit hillary clinton come in. we've got a lot of time left and

i'm the most critical guy you can think of when it comes to joe biden, but let the man have a chance to pull off something halfway decent in the midterms because that completely changes the dynamic of what's happening going forward, but i think it is a problem overall that joe biden and vice president harris are not popular enough within their own party to keep all the other wolves at bay. look, when you're the king -- when you're the king of the pack, all the other little scavengers are supposed to back off. you shouldn't see gavin newsom or pete buttigieg or anybody talking about a job two years out if you were actually handling business at home. >> some brutal truths from both of you. i'm grateful to you both. thank you so much. shifting gears for us, the first lady, dr. jill biden, welcomed ukraine's first lady to the white house today. the visit comes as russia's brutal assault on the ukrainian people grows more horrific by the day. our good friend and former advisor to president zelenskyy, igor, will be our guest. don't go anywhere. enskyy, igor, will be our guest.

igor, will be our guest. don't go anywhere. 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. i gotta say moving in together has been awesome. no regrets. for you and emily. these are... amazing. thank you wayfair.

how's the puppy? puppy's perfect. yeah great decision! ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. 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 ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ "shake your thang" by salt n pepa

>> tech: when you have auto glass damage, trust safelite. in one easy appointment... ♪♪ ♪ pop rock music ♪ >> tech: ...we can replace your windshield and recalibrate your advanced safety system. >> dad: looks great. thanks. >> tech: stay safe with safelite. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

when traders tell us how to make thinkorswim® even better, we listen. because platforms this innovative aren't just made for traders —they're made by them. thinkorswim® by td ameritrade when i came back, one of the things that i had said was, you cannot go into a war zone and come back and not feel the sorrow and the pain of the people that i met. >> first lady dr. jill biden today meeting with ukraine's first lady, olena zelenska, as

well as biden administration leaders and officials to discuss how the u.s. can help address mental health for the ukrainian people amid russia's brutal ongoing war in ukraine. president biden and dr. biden greeted zelenska before the meeting, part of her high-profile visit to washington, d.c., this week, filled with meetings that highlight ukraine's push for more aid and political support. yesterday, she met with secretary of state antony blinken, where she spoke about the human toll of the war. blinken commended her work to help the ukrainian people, and reiterated america's commitment to helping ukraine's fight and recovery. tomorrow, she will address congress at the u.s. capitol, a significant in-person appearance about four months after her husband, ukrainian president zelenskyy, delivered an emotional virtual plea for more aid and attention from washington, d.c. joining our coverage, our good friend, igor novikov.

you and i worked together on the ukraine special and i know that as important to receiving military assistance and humanitarian aid is keeping the world's attention on the terroristic nature of the russian war in ukraine. our journalists confirm that the attacks on civilian centers are nowhere near military installations. what does the new russian strategy require the world to do in response? >> well, at the moment, first of all, hi, nicole, i was thinking about wearing blue today but i don't have any blue t-shirts. >> i wore yellow for you. >> yeah. so, look, we're entering a very bad stage of this war. basically, russia has resorted to terrorism. their tactic is simple. they want to force negotiations on ukraine by terrorizing its population. so, we've been warned that there may be attacks on kyiv, on civilian population in kyiv, and for me and my family, it's back to, like, back to early march,

so we pay attention to our safety and security, and having said that, we need all the attention that we can get, and it's slipping. i mean, i've been working on this project with singularity university out of silicon valley, basically to provide prosthetic limbs to ukrainian kids, the victims of those attacks, and their fund-raising on gofundme and they set a goal of a million dollars, and so far, they've raised $15,000. that kind of -- that's a very telltale sign that the world's looking the other way. and olena, that's her mission, to kind of get that attention back to ukraine. and the second very important mission is to plea with the congress, plea with the american people to designate russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. that's incredibly important to us. i think it's long overdue, especially given the death of the little girl in vinnytsia. >> and we covered that last

week, and the -- i think what people are reminded of the horrors of what's happening, the american people are still very much with the ukrainian people, but you're absolutely right. there is -- and we've tried to combat this together, but in this country, after 9/11, and you've drawn the parallels to 9/11 multiple times, i believe it was laura bush who first addressed the country. talk about the first ladies who we're not quite as familiar with her here, dr. jill biden met her, but talk about her as an ambassador, if you will, for the president and ukraine. >> well, she's an incredible person. i've obviously met her many times. and she comes from this show business background. she's a writer, so she's incredibly creative, and she's a true ukrainian. she is a symbol for all ukrainian women who are outside of the country, who are in the country, and whilst the men are fighting, they're doing everything to keep us sane, to keep us human, to kind of carry

us through this conflict, and this conflict is incredibly terrible. one analogy i've been thinking about is what's happening in ukraine now is very similar to what happened in uvalde, texas. so, on one hand, we are here with an active shooter, with an active terrorist, and there are hundreds of those law enforcement, proverbial law enforcement, there are weapons out there. there's help out there. and yet the world is waiting for something whilst the kids are dying, and that's incredibly similar, and that's the mission to kind of try and explain that to the people, and i'm very much looking forward to her address to the congress tomorrow. >> the idea of designating russia a state sponsor of terror has the support of some of the most powerful people in the democratic party, speaker pelosi supports it. she said to me on this show, if they aren't state sponsors of terrorism, i don't know who is. congressman jim himes sees it the same way.

do you have any understanding of why that hasn't happened yet? >> well, to be honest, i think there are some people still hesitant. i'm not going to mention names here, but you know who you are. and it's a big step. it's a bold step. but you know, it needs to be made, because we are past every single red line to be made, because we are past every single red lin

when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis persists... put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable,... i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. check.

when uc held me back... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc got the upper hand... rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older... with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq... as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria.

visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. flowers are fighters. whose resumes on indeed matchthat's why theeria. alzheimer's association walk to end alzheimer's is full of them. because flowers find a way to break through. just like we will. join the fight at alz.org/walk love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning. we just wait till we get to the school. so, yeah. right now here in america, millions of kids like victoria and andre live with hunger, and the need to help them has never been greater. when you join your friends, neighbors and me to support no kid hungry, you'll help hungry kids get the food they need. if we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them.

your gift of just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month at helpnokidhungry.org right now will help provide healthy meals and hope. we want our children to grow and thrive and to just not have to worry and face themselves with the struggles that we endure. nobody wants that for their children. like if these programs didn't exist me and aj, we wouldn't probably get lunch at all. please call or go online right now with your gift of just $19 a month. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives. if you're coming in hungry, there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure they get the healthy meals they need to thrive. because when you help feed kids,

you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever. so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today. [whistling]

when you have technology that's easier to control... that can scale across all your clouds... we got that right? yeah, we got that. it's easier to be an innovator. so you can do more incredible things. [whistling]

♪ well the sun is shining and the grass is green ♪

♪ i'm way ahead of schedule with my trusty team ♪ ♪ there's heather on the hedges ♪ ♪ and kenny on the koi ♪ ♪ and your truck's been demolished by the peterson boy ♪ ♪ yes -- ♪ wait, what was that? timber... [ sighs heavily ] when owning a small business gets real, progressive helps protect what you've built with affordable coverage.