talk to anyone in san francisco and they'll tell you now is not the time to make our city even more expensive by raising taxes. san francisco has one of the largest city budgets in america. yet when it comes to homelessness and public safety, we're not getting results. what we really need are better policies, more accountability, and safer neighborhoods. vote no on propositions m and o. the last thing we need are higher taxes, especially right now. now is not the time to raise taxes in san francisco. vote no on m and o.

hi, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. the january 6 select committee saved the best for last. they have just wrapped up. the first public hearing in months with an extraordinary historic moment. the panel tasked with investigating the capitol insurrection voted unanimously to subpoena the twice impeached disgraced ex-president himself. here is that moment. >> this afternoon, i am offering this resolution. the committee direct the

chairman to issue a subpoena for relevant documents and testimony under oath from donald john trump in connection with the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. the question is on the resolution. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the role. >> miss cheney. aye. miss loftgren. aye. mr. schiff. aye. mr. agular. aye. mrs. murphy. aye.

mr. raskin. aye. mrs. lurai. aye. mr. kinzinger. aye. mr. chairman. aye. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> mr. chairman on this vote, there are nine ayes and zero nos. >> the resolution is agreed to. >> that vote was the capstone to a dramatic hearing in which the committee presented a mountain of new evidence in the case it has been making for months now, that the january 6 insurrection was not at all spontaneous. instead, it was a premeditated campaign to overturn the will of the voters, a coup, directed by donald trump. in the words of bennie thompson, quote, the central cause of january 6 was one man, donald

trump. let's get to it with our panel. jackie is here. frank figliuzzi, a former fbi assistant director and with me at the table andrew weissmann. they are all msnbc contributors. i start with you, jackie. the committee built on the conversation you and i had yesterday, they accused the united states secret service individuals who had testified before them of lying. any reporting as to whether or not they will make criminal referrals for lying to congress for those individuals? >> that is a question that i literally just asked chairman bennie thompson as we chased him on our way out after the hearing. he didn't have much answers, nor could he say who it was exactly who might have instructed bobby engel and tony arenado to edit or lie or provide answers that investigators have not seen as

credible. there were multiple references to secret service witnesses throughout the hearing who did not provide answers that tracked with the evidence that the committee received. as you saw throughout the course of the hearing, particularly during congressman agular and schiff's portions, there were emails. as early as the night before january 6, the secret service and other intelligence agencies were aware that people who were attending the rally were in the possession of weapons, firearms, automatic weapons and various other items that are particularly problematic at a rally around the president in washington, d.c., along with plans to storm to the capitol. these plans were also -- had been circulating for some time, and there were multiple email threads and records the committee showed showing that these reports tracking the advanced notice and warning of

the potential for violence were circulated throughout intelligence agencies and the secret service and the people around the former president, including trump himself, were briefed on this information. >> frank figliuzzi, let me show you some of the dramatic testimony from congressman schiff that she's referencing. this is number eight. [ no audio ] >> we're still working out some of our technical gremlins. we will try that again. frank, what schiff testified to on january 5th, a secret service open source unit flagged a social media account that threatened to bring a sniper rifle to a rally on january 6. the user posted a picture.

schiff goes on to say, despite this, certain white house and secret service witnesses previously testified that they received no intelligence about violence that could potentially threaten any of the protectees on january 6, including vice president mike pence. tell me your sense of the importance of all of this premeditation on the part of trump and foreknowledge of violence on the part of the secret service. >> really startling testimony today. i have been saying all along, you have heard me say this before, the viewers have heard me say this before that january 6 was not so much a failure of intelligence but rather a failure to act upon available intelligence. today perhaps more than ever before, we got a public view of all the intelligence that had come in, not only to secret service and various law enforcement agencies, incluing

the fbi and had been briefed to the white house. that's the critical gap that had existed here. showing that trump knew there was a potential for violence, even up to the last minute. we have weapons in the crowd. he knows it. what does he do? he says, according to secondhand testimony, perhaps third from cassidy hutchinson, he implores -- we have him live at the crowd saying to law enforcement, i would really appreciate if you allow them up close, up front. those are people he knows to be armed. he wants them up front. it puts him right behind the violence that he seems to hope is going to happen. with regard to the advance warnings of intelligence, i got lots of questions. i know everybody does. we need answers. we need answers from this committee. we need answers from the heads of the law enforcement agencies. why is it that the head of the

fbi's washington field office right after january 6 said, infamously, we didn't have intelligence indicating violence was potential. yes, they did. in fact, it looks like they all did. we need to know why. i continue to have concerns about the safety of vice president pence, even more so here. why knowing what they knew, why wasn't there an enhanced detail on the vice president that day? let's go larger in terms of future recommendations from the committee. why wasn't the electoral college ratification designated a national security super event? why didn't we do it to prepet ate our democracy? lots of questions. >> i imagine we will from now until the end of time. let me show you the testimony from adam schiff. let's listen. >> on january 5th, a secret

service open source unit flagged a social media account on the donald.win that threatened to bring a sniper rifle to a rally on january 6. the user also posted a picture of a handgun and rifle with a caption, sunday gun day, providing january 6 will be wild. on the evening of january 5, the secret service learned during an fbi briefing that right wing groups were establishing armed qrfs, or quick reaction forces, readying to deploy for january 6. despite this, certain white house and secret service witnesses previously testified that they had received no intelligence about violence that could have potentially threatened any of the protectees on january 6, including the vice president. on the morning of the 6th, agents received alerts of online threats that vice president pence would be, quote, a dead

man walking if he doesn't do the right thing. another agent reported, quote, i saw several other alerts saying they will storm the capitol if he doesn't do the right thing. the anger reflected in the postings was obvious the man at center of the storm on january 6, president trump. >> the committee has invoked this term dereliction of duty to describe donald trump watching tv while the united states capitol and his vice president was under attack. do you have questions about whether it was dereliction of duty on the part of the secret service? >> it's more than that. what we are seeing with the secret service and the fbi, they didn't do their job. we know that they -- as frank said, this isn't a question of an intelligence failure. they didn't act on the intelligence. we also got reporting today within the fbi that they had

internal reporting that there was a real problem of sympathizers with the january 6 insurrectionists -- >> i think they're having a hard time hearing you. let me take to the control room for one second. we will fix your microphone. let me bring this back to you, frank. if anyone has superb hearing -- i'm not one of those people. andrew is talking about an incredible piece of reporting from ken dilanian that says this. fbi whistle-blower shares concerns about extremists inside the fbi. there was a sizable percentage of the employee population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the capitol. this is an internal fbi memo dated january 13, 2021, one week after the deadly insurrection. let me read from the memo that has been become public. several lamented the only reason this violent activity is getting more attention is because of, quote, political correctness. i was talking to an assa in a

red state, in quote, office who was telling me that over 70% of his ct squad and 75% of the agent population in his ofice disagreed with the violence but could understand where it was coming from which led to the protesters getting carried away. i have spoken to multiple african american agents who have turned down asks to join s.w.a.t. because they do not trust that every member of their office's s.w.a.t. team would protect them in an armed conflict. a current secret service agent is under administrative leave suspension as his agency investigates the social media postings he made supporting the insurrection. frank figliuzzi, you are going to have to decipher some of the acronyms for our viewers. but this is a smoking gun of the not just extremism within the fbi but sympathy for the insurrection and insurrectionists.

>> a couple of thoughts here. i'm as disturbed as anyone, perhaps more so, quite frankly. this is the agency i spent 25 years at and came to know and understand deeply. it would be a mistake to think the fbi is immune or is some kind of monolyth from society. my guess is the percentage that has sympathies toward the defendants is small. it still is extremely disturbing. the notion that the premiere agency responsible for ferreting out domestic terrorism and violence in our society also has to ferret out within their own ranks those who might align with such ideologies. it's a monumental task to do both at the same time. they are doing it, according to my contacts. we have got examples of recently suspended agents.

one in daytona beach, florida, who refused a s.w.a.t. assignment to be on an arrest of a january 6 defendant. thinks somehow that's, quote, overkill. thinks that there's too aggressive a posture here. to the extent that this will ferret out and move out of this agency people who should not have had the badge and gun in the first place, great. to the extent this poses a threat or distracts from the fbi, it's very troubling. i want to note, having read the letter, that it appears that this was an external email that came into a high ranking official who is now a deputy director at the fbi. it's important that that's is external. when you look at the indicators, it looks like this person is claiming broad access across field offices, people are talking to him and he feels like he has the email of this high ranking official and he can do this. there's a reference to, quote, my old unit.

i think we're dealing with a retiree here. i think or an agent association representative. this does not appear to be a scientific survey or poll of agent sentiments. i don't know the accuracy of it. but there's enough to be concerned. >> if one of the january 6 select committee's commissions was turning over all the rocks and seeing what was underneath, how we got -- i'm going to play some of the dramatic video from lawmakers in both parties gathered to try to figure out how to get the light backs on in the united states government at the capitol. never before seen before. remarkable. turning over all these rocks and really understanding what's underneath seems like an important thing to touch all of these agencies we're talking about, secret service and maybe even the fbi. >> yeah, absolutely. part of this -- look at the hearings and you think donald trump. everyone is concerned about what does it show and is there an indictment?

the other part of this is the real failure of the intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies on january 6 and why did it happen. there was a hearing where chris wray was asked about it. he gave it the back of his hand. it's not what you expect. it's not on the biden administration and merrick garland. i hate to add more to his plate. this is an intelligence issue and law enforcement, to get to why this happened. is it race? is it politics? is there a significant portion of the population goaded by donald trump within law enforcement? he has been sort of -- his version of tweeting is really targeting the rank and file saying, be with me and ignore your senior people. that is a way of fomenting what this whistle-blower is saying and reporting. i think this is a really serious problem. there are few checks and balances left. there's law enforcement. the courts.

you keep on seeing things chipped away. i think this is a real service that the january 6 committee did in turning over these rocks and trying to call more attention to a real problem that's out there. >> i want to ask you about some of the evidence they presented. i want to play some of this for our viewers. what they seem to get at here was his intent to lie. there's this sort of video montage of the advisers saying what they told trump and trump lying anyway. i want to understand how if a criminal referral for -- is it ultimately made, if this evidence proves his intent? let me play that. let me help my control room out. they have their hands full today. this is five.

>> if you missed that, donald trump's supporters defecated in the united states capitol on january 6. let me add luke broadwater. i don't know if you had seen this before. it goes on. it's remarkable. what's incredible is that haunted specifically by donald trump supporters in the halls of the capitol, speaker pelosi is trying to figure out how even the election deniers can have their day in the sun and says, maybe we can confine it to one complaint, arizona. what did you think watching these bipartisan lawmakers, mitch mcconnell is in the room with them, john thune, steve

scalise, what did you make of the footage? >> it brought back memories for me. i was evacuated during the -- during january 6, 2021. you could see in that video how nervous everybody was and how on edge they were. i was watching john thune swaying back and forth. you could see how dire the situation is in their minds. you can also see how they are working together to try to get the national guard to the capitol. it really undercuts this narrative we have seen on the right, that speaker pelosi didn't want the guard there and she was to blame. she's the one on the phone trying to get them there. you saw chuck schumer on the phone with the attorney general saying, can you tell the president to call off the mob? i really thought it was a dramatic moment. i thought it was a visceral moment. it gets to how in that moment, pretty much everybody in that

room, republican or democrat, recognized how bad the situation was on january 6. they knew something needed to be done about it. notice who she is on the phone with. it's mike pence. she's talking with mike pence to try to get things back on track and back to normal. no one is calling donald trump. they know where his thoughts lie. >> luke, i thought it was triggering, just as someone who anchored the coverage that day from the safety of a studio hundreds of miles away in new york, but say more about watching it again having been in the building. >> yeah. i mean, i remember -- i was with more of the rank and file senators. we had been evacuated to a secure room, not the one the leadership was at. you know, i remember how on edge everybody was. people were really concerned. we couldn't see everything at the time. we were getting hints that somebody had been shot.

there was maybe a dead woman over in the house chamber. the rioters had made their way inside the building and they were hunting for people. we would see the s.w.a.t. teams come through with their heavy gear and their dogs and the heavy guns. it brings back a lot of tough memories. i remember interviewing chuck schumer not long after this. he had said that he had learned that people were saying anti-semitic things about him as they were hunting the halls for him. there you see him. he is trying to take charge. he is trying to get things back on track, get the country back to a peaceful transfer of power. and yet, here is donald trump's mob at their throat. i think the testimony we heard today that donald trump wanted to join the crowd even after he knew there was violence, even after he had been taken back to

the white house. just underscores his state of mind, how he knew what this crowd was doing and how he didn't care. >> i mean, frank, that has been proven, open and shut case, of his state of mind. there are so many pieces of evidence now that the committee has put before the american public. i think the reason people burn with curiosity about what the justice department is doing is because it's in our face. it's hutchinson's testimony, let them in, they're not going to hurt me. it's the testimony from secret service about not hundreds, not dozens, thousands of supporters outside the rally because they didn't want to leave their weapons. trump says, let them in. the violence was never a bug. it was all the central feature of january 6. it was planned by trump. he invited them over twitter when he learned that his challenges to his loss were going to fail. there's also this incredibly revealing moment where he says

to meadows and cassidy hutchinson -- it's a place -- you can't avoid them on this path. it's a path from the place where the christmas party was being held, white house residence back to the oval office. they were in the rose garden. i don't know the number. let me play the sound where cassidy hutchinson testifies to donald trump's rage. >> the president was fired up about the supreme court decision. i was sitting next to mr. meadows. stepped back, probably two, three feet kitty-corner from him. the president raging about the decision and how it's wrong and why didn't we make more calls.

his typical anger outburst at this decision. the president said, something to the effect of, i don't want people to know we lost. figure is out. i don't want people to know we lost. >> frank, exhibit after exhibit in the evidence that the january 6 select committee presented to the american public of donald trump's knowledge he lost. >> this is critical. this jumped out at me when we saw this today. i don't want people to know we lost. this goes toward the premeditation, the mindset of he knew darn well that not only did he lose but there was no plausible way to get into the courts and win with any evidence of fraud. he knew it. it was predetermined. this was a plan that dated way before the election.

i think -- kudos to the committee for laying out this central theme of predetermination, premeditation, a guy who knew he loss, refused to accept it and really a tire -- a tyrant who becomes livid when things didn't go his way. the supreme court had the audacity to rule against him. they did it today with regard to the mar-a-lago documents. he is going to be livid today. these are the actions and behaviors of a toddler. but it was a toddler with the nuclear codes, a toddler who had democracy in his hands and didn't seem to care about preserving it. masterful job today portraying trump at the center of this plan. >> jackie, i think you have a better window into what they are setting out to do that isn't

always clear to us until we see it play out. clearly, they set out today -- i think the scripted in and out of the taped deposition effective. they presented evidence -- i'm going to get through all of it -- that trump knew he lost. it was where they started with all campaign advisers. they told the jokes. who do you bring in when you have to tell the guy you lost? you bring in the pollster, the data guy, the campaign manager. keep bringing people in with their eyes on the numbers until a candidate accepts the hard news. that's where these started at the beginning. it ended with cassidy hutchinson's dramatic testimony revealing the pathetic smallness of someone who is america's commander in chief who is so ashamed he has been defeated that he says, we can't let them know we lost. >> that's very astute of you. i was thinking as i was watching the hearing that some of the

clips felt duplicative because we had seen them before and they were with the new evidence. i think that's the fine line the committee was trying to straddle during this hearing, especially for people who were tuning in for the first time who maybe changed their mind after the second to last or last hearing and watched this hearing in full for the first time. the committee and lawmakers had stressed it was important to give new viewers a bit of a baseline. that's where we saw some repeat testimony that we had previously seen. again, woven with some new evidence and some new one liners and interesting nuggets about various conversations that corroborated essentially what the committee had told us but added new dimensions to it. i think at the end of the day, what they were trying to do is really drive home and nail this prosecutorial road map. i think including moments that show that trump was deliberately

trying to defraud the american people was also important to them. they ended with another cliffhanger. this is a formula well worn by now, which is that they're going to subpoena the former president, which they announced, unanimously voted on. they want documents from him. they want his testimony as well. again, it remains to be seen what else they're doing with that. they sort of gave us this suggestive nod they're going to continue with their investigation until the bitter end of the 117th congress. >> just building on what she's pointing out, they set out -- the first couple of presenters, first couple of members who laid out the evidence that he knew he lost. there were new pieces of evidence and testimony with some of the things and witnesses we had seen before. then they also did an effective job -- this was in luria's

presentation -- showing he was informed of the opposite of what he would take to the podium and say to his followers. it culminates not just january 6, but a threat of domestic violence extremism with election lies at the heart. let me play that. for my team doing heroic work today, it's number six. >> raisd the dominion voting purchases. i saw zero basis for the allegations. i told them it was crazy stuff. they were wasting their time on that. doing a grave disservice to the country. >> we have a company that's very suspect. its name is dominion. with the turn of a dial, or the change of a chip, you can press a button for trump and the vote

goes to biden. what kind of a system is this? >> we talked about that. it was done at that point because the hand recount had been done. this is an example of what people are telling you and what's being filed in some of the court filings that are just not supported by evidence. this is the problem. people keep telling you these things and they turn out not to be true. >> in addition, there is the highly troubling matter of doe -- dominion systems. they are used in the majority of states in our country. >> i went into this and would tell him how crazy some of these allegations were. how ridiculous some of them were. talking about some of them like

more votes -- more absentee votes were cast in pennsylvania than absentee ballots requested. it was easy to blow up. there was never an indication of interest in what the facts were. >> there were more votes than there were voters. think of that. you had more votes than you had voters. that's an easy one to figure. and it's by the thousands. >> he raised the big vote dump, as he called it, in detroit. he said, people saw boxes coming into the counting station at all hours of the morning. i said, mr. president, there are 630 precincts in detroit. they centralize the counting process so they're not counted in each precinct.

the normal process would involve boxing coming in and different hours. >> this is michigan. at 6:31 in the morning, a vote dump of 149,772 votes came in. unexpectedly. >> with regard to georgia, we looked at the tape, we interviewed witnesses. there's no suitcase. the president kept fixating on this suitcase that had fraudulent ballots and rolled out from under the table. i said, no, sir, there is no suitcase. watch the video over and over. there's no suitcase. there's a wheeled bin where they carried the ballots, and that's just how they move ballots around that facility. nothing suspicious about that at all. >> election officials pulled boxes and suitcases of ballots out from under a table. you saw it on television.

totally fraudulent. >> what's amazing to me isn't just the stupid stuff trump is saying and the fact that his advisers know the truth, it's that all the sworn testimony includes this, and i said, sir, and from barr, and i told him, mr. president, and from donahue over and over, i said, no, sir, mr. president. this is what they told him, sworn congressional testimony. >> yeah. this section that you just played really spoke to me as a former prosecutor. the way you build a case to show criminal intent is you show what is the person saying publically and what do they know privately? here that juxtaposition of what he is saying publically and what he is told privately felt like a summation in a criminal case. over and over again what he is saying is not true. you have republican senior advisors loyal to him telling him, not just their opinion, but

factually what is true and what is not true. then you have donald trump saying the opposite. in terms of showing premeditation and showing that he did not believe that he actually won, these repeated lies are going to be devastating if merrick garland pulls the trigger on this case. this is really strong evidence. >> i think we have to back up. it was unprecedented for doj to be investigating all of his lunacy. they started before the election. the reason they know all of the crazy stuff is absolutely horse poo poo is because they took the step, another contortion of the justice department under trump, and investigated it. >> absolutely. that's one where bill barr in some ways, he was doing the wrong thing, but it ended up being something that was useful, because he wanted to get ahead of this in terms of, is this going to provide useful

information for the former president? it turned out they had looked at this and found no fraud that could in any way have undermined the investigation. at that point, you had too many senior people at the department who were like, i did not sign up for that. i'm in for a lot of policies and even some things that are -- go beyond policies. but not overthrowing an election. >> what do you do with the testimony from the most senior people around trump who have testified now under oath before congressional a committee that they told trump, every one of the. >> dale: -- these were false, what do do you with the statements that built to a deadly insurrection on the part of trump? how do you hold those criminally accountable? >> you need to -- you want the full transcript of what they said in front of congress. you need to evaluate how they

will come off as a witness. some are subjective. how have they said the opposite? what other bad acts have they done? you interview them. you put them in the grand jury. >> who would you put in the grand jury? >> everyone. what i have learned is, don't trust that in an interview they will repeat the same thing, they will say they remember different things, they will say the fbi wrote it down wrong, that the transcript is wrong. wouldn't be unheard of to attack the fbi in terms of what happened during the interview. i'm a believer in getting it in front of a grand jury. that's an independent body. that's a tape recording, not just a transcript, of what the person said. if you are trying to lock inasmuch as possible what a witness is going to say, that's a way to do it.

they can say they learned something afterwards, but it makes it harder. it's under oath. it's serious. somebody has to prepare for it. it's the best way you possibly can to lock people in. >> cassidy hutchinson seemed central, if you take that step. she knows trump knew he lost. she knows that meadows knows that trump lost. she knows what everyone was doing in terms of the connections to violence, the united states secret service, the ex-president himself, mark meadows. she seems to be the one that has visibility into all facets of potential criminality. >> you probably know very well from having been in the white house, if people were candid, there are many more people like cassidy hutchinson who are aware. this is a fish bowl. this is kudos to her for coming forward and subjecting herself to that kind of scrutiny.

there are going to be other people. that's really the province of a thorough investigation is to corroborate her as much as possible, to take some of the burden off but also to help the jury reach the right result without having to have one person's testimony. >> luke, i believe you had some fantastic reporting since cassidy hutchinson's surprise hearing devoted to her live testimony, and some of her taped depositions, there seemed to be a concerted effort behind the scenes to corroborate many of the leads that she presented to this committee both in her taped depositions and her public testimony. the fruits of that effort were abundantly clear in all of the emails that they shared and made public from the secret service. that seemed vital and central to the investigation, but also personal. liz cheney gave a speech at the reagan library where she singled her out and said, i am thankful and proud that there are people like cassidy hutchinson in my

party. talk about what happened after her testimony that led us to really what was the most of the new evidence presented today was in the vein of the secret service probe, what they knew, what they told trump and the violence. >> yes, you are right. liz cheney very much was personally involved in the testimony of cassidy hutchinson and also sara matthews and some of the other witnesses that have come forward. she personally vetted their testimony and believed that it was substantial and accurate and trustworthy or else she says she wouldn't have put it out there for the public. so after miss hutchinson testified at her integrity called into question by some on the right, i do think the committee went about trying to back up some of the things that she said. so if you look at the text messages and the communications from the secret service, they do

actually get to backing up the things she said about donald trump being irate, about him being extremely angry about not going to the capitol, about him wanting to go to the capitol even after he had been taken to the white house and that the secret service was planning -- was making plans to try to make that happen before it was eventually called off. so i do think that was a motivation of the committee. you know, they have told me their job is not to bolster some witnesses at the expense of others. their job is to get to the facts. when they got all this evidence from the secret service, they're going through it to try to get to the bottom of it. it just so happens that it corroborates hutchinson's testimony. not that this was a private mission to back her up, i think. >> i want to add to our conversation, kimberly, i have

been trying to find my way to this piece of sound from congressman agula. luke gave me the opening. this is about -- this came up in cassidy hutchinson's testimony. she explained -- liz cheney had her explain what an otr movement was and how that was different from a presidential movement that was protected and plan and on the schedule and people knew about. you almost got the other half of that, the bookend of that, that it was the plan all along. it's in some of the radio traffic where they talk about the ppd, the presidential protective detail. they are telling them where all of the trump supporters with ar-15s are along the route. the route is only a route if you plan to travel from the ellipse to the u.s. capitol. the only way you have a route. this is congressman agular talking about the efforts on january 6, after the violence had commenced, to deal with one of the protectees, donald trump. this is number 15.

>> as soon as the president left his motorcade, leadership contacted bobby engel for the presidential detail and warned him they were, quote, concerned about an otr, an off the record movement, to the capitol. the people sworn to protect the safety of the president of the united states and who routinely put themselves in harm's way were convinced it was a bad idea. documents reveal how agents were poised to take president trump to the capitol later that afternoon. agents were instructed to don their protective gear and prepare for a movement, a few minutes later, they were told the president would leave for the capitol in two hours. it wasn't until 1:55 p.m. that the president's lead secret service at told them to stand down. we are not doing an otr to the capitol. rioters had breached the capitol and were violently attacking the efforts of the brave men and women if law enforcement trying

to resist the mob. >> donald trump was in it to win it. they were told to put on protective tactical gear. move the president of the united states at the time -- he is twice impeached and disgraced -- to the united states capitol where a siege was under way because he had planned it and it was playing out exactly as he wanted. he didn't want to go there to stop it. he didn't want to lay his body between his supporters and mike pence. he wanted to go to participate in it. >> right. it continues. the testimony we already saw about how angry he was when the secret service tried to prevent him from doing it in the first place. i think what you are laying out is very key in terms of the work that the committee did today, from the very start of the hearing to make very clear that

this was premeditated. this was was not just some spontaneous action that happened. it goes all the way back to even before the election when the president started preparing remarks that the election was stolen, even before the election happened, all the way through beginning in december. the pressure campaign on mike pence to get him not to certify the election and then the plan into january to storm the capitol, to urge people to go to the capitol to stop the certification of the election. every piece of evidence, everything that was put forth tells this continuous story of a premeditated and ongoing action that donald trump was at the center of. i think the only thing surprising about the fact that it ended with the vote to subpoena him is that that vote didn't come until october. it didn't come until today. i would have expected that to have come much earlier.

>> kim, to your point, i'm surprised it didn't come with a subpoena for mike pence. they have been flirting with him for many months. luke and his colleagues had reporting six months ago that there was relationships between investigators on the committee and some in pence's circle that he was hamstrung by his presidential desires. it seems pence is as important. >> i agree with you. i am shocked that he was not subpoenaed. given that he has not cooperated and testified before this committee. he is one of the most central players, the most central witnesses to all of this. it was his life who was in the most clear danger on that day. it's remarkable seeing that footage of bipartisan group of leaders from both parties that included republican governors, that included the republican and democratic leaders in the house,

that included the secretary of state and mike pence on that day all acting in furtherance to protect people from being hurt or injured or killed and to ensure their security and also to ensure that the election certification went on so that the american people would know that an insurrection would not stop the advancement of their constitutional duty. they were working in tandem with no question in that moment. it's extraordinary that in this moment, because of his presidential ambitions, mike pence still hasn't testified before this committee. >> luke, i invoked your reporting. i would like you to elaborate on it. bennie thompson confirmed they will not subpoena mike pence. they feel like they have all the testimony and information they need to be confident he did what he was supposed to do. that's not the point, is it? no one knows better than pence,

because he wouldn't overturn the will of the voters. why are they letting him off the hook? >> he told reporters that they were not going to subpoena pence. he has said sort of varying things over several months about that. has recently been leaning towards not issuing a subpoena towards pence. it does raise questions. how do you do a complete investigation if you don't make the most -- the toughest attempt possible to interview witness one and witness two in this? witness one is donald trump and witness two is pence. >> right. >> who is the direct -- on the direct end of the pressure campaign to overturn the election? it's mike pence. there are don't know. there are private phone calls that no one else heard between trump and pence that only those two men can answer the questions to about what was said and what went on. you know, i do think, for a

while, the committee was reluctant to get into subpoenas for those two men, because they knew they would be bogged down in litigation and might serve as a distraction to their work, but at the end of the day, i think they had to reach the conclusion, at least with trump, that you couldn't not issue a subpoena to him. you had to try to interview him. he's so central to everything. he's the most important person in the plan to overturn the election, and so if you don't make an attempt to interview him under oath, you cannot have a complete investigation, and i've got to think a similar line of argument applies to mike pence. now, they had said in the past, they do believe greg jacob and marc short's testimony make up for pence not testifying, that because they got a lot from those two men, that perhaps that alleviates the need for pence to testify. and so, you know, this -- that's the decision they've reached. i actually can't fully explain it. >> i want to show you, i mean,

you know, because until this clash with trump, mike pence did acquiesce, and i want to show you. this is number 12. this is liz cheney's sort of warning about enablers. >> with every effort to excuse or justify the conduct of the former president, we chip away at the foundation of our republic. indefensible conduct is defended. inexcusable conduct is excused. without accountability, it all becomes normal, and it will recur. so, as we watch the evidence today, please consider where our nation is in its history. consider whether we can survive for another 246 years. most people in most places on earth have not been free. america is an exception. and america continues only because we bind ourselves to our founders' principles to our

constitution. we recognize that some principles must be beyond politics, inviolate, and more important than any single american who has ever lived. >> heady, heady sort of comments there from liz cheney. but you've got a really sort of inside view about why subpoena trump is not pence. explain. >> so, first, if you're just looking at the january 6th committee, i totally agree that you would want to hear from both of them in terms of completeness. and i agree, why wouldn't you have done it earlier? i think it doesn't really look good that they're doing it for one of them just now. but if you're sitting at the department of justice, you're sitting there thinking, you know what? if we're going to bring a case, we're going to have to interview mike pence. any witness who has not been subject to, you know, this kind of public glare and lack of control, you're going to be thinking, great, it's great to have this witness, clean, to

ourselves, where donald trump doesn't necessarily know exactly what they said. remember, if congress flips here and the house becomes republican-controlled, all of this evidence is going to be in the hands of the targets, and so they're going to be able to look at this. >> the accomplices, yeah. >> they're going to look at it and do puddle-jumping, seeing, where are the holes and where can i lie without being caught? so, if they haven't actually interviewed mike pence, that's a good thing for the doj. >> and you don't think they'll ever get to interview trump? >> so, for the department of justice, there's a rule that -- under the justice manual that you're not supposed to subpoena and sort of force the testimony for somebody who's considered a target. now, who is a target versus a subject is actually more of an art than a science, but i don't see this department of justice

playing games with that definition, so i don't see them, unless donald trump volunteers, which he's not going to do, them actually doing that. so, you know, there, if the committee was actually going to get his testimony, that's something that would help the department because they would actually have under oath exactly what his defense is, and what he's going to say, and so they know in advance what to anticipate if they were to indict him. >> frank, my first thought, when i saw the news break and the graphic went up before even the dramatic vote from the committee, was that -- is that it could potentially be a dangerous spectacle for donald trump to -- and i'm sure the committee is mindful of all this, more than any of us. but you know, how do you assess testimony from donald trump? >> so, i understand that we need to acknowledge the historical significance of this. it's very rare, and we're

rightly saying this is really dramatic, but i also have to point out that from a straight-up investigative viewpoint, this is what you do. you're done with your evidence-gathering. you're ready to talk to the person who's at the center of it. and you give him a chance to tell his story. now, yes, you are right, from a radicalization standpoint, i mean, look what we heard today, which we haven't talked about yet, is the twitter testimony, the employee who pointed out this fascinating call and response timeline. he tweets this, the crowd does this. right? go home, they listen. you know, pence screwed us and didn't do what we needed him to do, they get angry and start moving. it's that call and response that was fascinating, and he can do the same thing if they don't tightly control his testimony if he ever agrees to it before the committee. so it's got to be tightly controlled and managed. i think, ultimately, he won't do it, but he's going to -- almost

certainly he's going to not only incriminate himself, he does it at every rally on every weekend, but he's going to lie. it's just who he is. so, you have to weigh the danger, right? cost-benefit analysis. i don't think he's going to do it. >> frank pointed out this really important and pivotal piece of sound we didn't play yet. we will play it. we're going to keep going. there's also an incredible, i think, a new sort of production of all of the people that didn't talk to them, not because they didn't show up, but because they all took the fifth and how they responded when directly asked about conversations and interactions with donald trump. i'm going to show that to you. for now, i'm going to thank kimberly atkins stohr, frank figliuzzi, andrew weissmann at the table with me and my heroic team who turned all this around and ended less than half an hour before we came on the air. another hour of coverage coming up. we'll talk about the vote to subpoena the ex-president and

whether the committee considered votes on possible criminal referrals. the next hour of "deadline white house" starts after a quick break. don't go anywhere today. s after break. don't go anywhe ertoday. i may be close to retirement but i'm as busy as ever. and thanks to voya, i'm confident about my future. voya provides guidance for the right investments. they make me feel like i've got it all under control. voya. be confident to and through retirement. ♪ it's the most wonderful time of the year ♪ claritin provides non-drowsy symptom relief from over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens, day after day. feel the clarity and make today the most wonderful time of the year. live claritin clear. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months... and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections, or a lower ability to fight them, may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. ♪nothing is everything♪

talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. ♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us.

we desperately need more affordable housing, but san francisco takes longer than anywhere to issue new housing permits. proposition d is the only measure that speeds up construction of affordable new homes by removing bureaucratic roadblocks. while prop e makes it nearly impossible to build more housing. and the supervisors who sponsored e know it. join me, habitat for humanity and the carpenters union in rejecting prop e and supporting prop d to build more affordable housing

♪♪ donald trump maliciously repeated this nonsense to a wide audience over and over again, his intent was to deceive. >> and there was no doubt that president trump knew what he was going to do, sending an angry mob, a number of whom were clad in tactical gear and military garb, armed with various weapons, to the capitol. >> but he made the deliberate choice to ignore the courts, to ignore the justice department, to ignore his campaign leadership, to ignore senior advisors and to pursue a completely unlawful effort to overturn the election. his intent was plain. ignore the rule of law, and stay

in power. >> hi again, everyone, it's now 5:00 in new york. we are continuing our breaking news coverage of a remarkable day of public hearings for the january 6th select committee. it culminated in an historic and unanimous vote to subpoena the twice-impeached former president for documents and testimony under oath in connection with the deadly attack on the united states capitol. in what was likely the committee's final hearing, each member outlined specific evidence proving that donald trump knew his claims about the election being stolen from him were false. knew his claims about how to overturn the results were illegal. that he knew the rioters he sent to the u.s. capitol were armed and dangerous, and not only did he want to join them, he did all of that anyway. the committee underscored its obligation to seek answers directly from the individual responsible for inciting the deadly attack. >> this is a question about accountability to the american

people. he must be accountable. he is required to answer for his actions. he's required to answer to those police officers who put their lives and bodies on the line to defend our democracy. he's required to answer to those millions of americans whose votes he wanted to throw out as part of his scheme to remain in power. >> our duty today is to our country and our children and our constitution. we are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set this all in motion. and every american is entitled to those answers so we can act now to protect our republic. >> today, a remarkable step taking by this committee, a twice-impeached ex-president subpoenaed by congressional committee over what they describe as a premeditated, concerted effort to overturn the

will of the american people. we begin with pete aguilar. you had some of the most dramatic evidence presented. we played some of it, specifically about the secret service, and it seems like this was one of the most fruitful parts of your investigation since we last saw the committee publicly until today. explain what you learned and how it was deployed today. >> well, what we wanted to lay out was a continuation of the hearings that we had previously in june and july, but specific to the secret service documents, we wanted to lay out to the american public that this information was out there. people at the white house knew that it could be dangerous, and yet, they continued -- they allowed the president to speak at the ellipse, but more importantly, they also, you know, barely stopped the former president from coming up to the capitol, and it's clear within that -- within those secret service documents that they were planning for the president to

come to the capitol as late as 1:55 p.m. while the riot was ensuing. >> and that movement is known in political circles and among ex-staffers as an otr. it's clear that the otr was planned until -- i mean, you presented evidence that until 1:55, the standdown order hadn't gone out. is it your sense that at 1:55, when they ordered the stand-down of the otr, that it is because of threats to donald trump or because of threats to mike pence? >> you know, i don't know. i think that's a good question, and that's something that our information hasn't gleaned so far. but i think that's all the more reason why we need to continue to bring back some of these individuals. many of them had foggy recollections in their first interviews with the committee. we need to give them another opportunity to come before us. and there are more questions that we have, clearly. >> do you believe mr. engel and mr. oronado lied to the committee?

>> i think mr. engel and mr. oronato have a lot to answer for, and i think they didn't tell us the complete information that they have or they have incredibly foggy memories, very convenient testimony that they give, and i think that it's important that we ask them to come back, and i also think that it's not lost on any of us that the service was working with us to schedule mr. orinado coming back before his retirement. >> lying to congress is a tool deployed by many trump insiders. i believe roger stone was convicted of it. and others. i mean, will you refer lying to congress to the justice department if you believe that is what has happened? >> if we believe there is wrong-doing, we have an obligation to give that over to the department of justice. we feel that the department of justice has had a number of these interviews, and they might have even more information than the committee has. we just don't know that.

but if we see wrongdoing, we're duty-bound to turn that over in our final report. >> congressman, the point today was introducing new evidence that, as you said, continues the case that's been made against donald j. trump, and it was made clear through new testimony and a couple things that we had seen before, that the pillars of your work are that he knew he lost, and we heard that in the very first hearing from his campaign aides, mr. stepien, mr. canon, and we heard it again in this dramatic piece of testimony that i don't think we had heard before from cassidy hutchinson about what she described as his rage, and this incredible quote, it's pathetic and sad if he wasn't so dangerous, he says, we can't let them know we lost. your other pillar today that you laid down was all of this evidence that he was told, and all of the testimony, so explicit, i said, mr. president, i said, sir, and then he lied

anyway. explain how those two pillars and all the efforts to just layer upon layer, testimony and evidence and documents proving them, why was that so important today? >> well, it was important today because it just continues the focus that the president really didn't believe in a peaceful transfer of power. he believed in a very convenient truth. he believed in having people around him that told him what he wanted to hear, only listening to those folks, and everybody else was just noise, even though as we clearly laid out, these people were telling the president that he lost. and it's just deeply unfortunate. but it also -- and it goes to show, and why we took the step of issuing a subpoena, is because all roads to this point have led to the former president being responsible, that he knew this information, that he continued to espouse and push forward the big lie, and that he played a role, and has some responsibility, and clearly, as we laid out, even leader

mccarthy said he had responsibility in some of those audio recordings. so, you know, we feel that that's important, and so, as we have gone through these 1,000 interviews, all roads have pointed to donald trump. and so, it's important that the next step is to hear directly from him. >> there was a unanimous vote to subpoena the ex-president today. was there any debate or discussion, or was this something that everyone agreed was important, and why now? why not do this at the beginning? >> our committee is nine democrats and republicans who have all come together to put the country first and to talk about the importance of protecting democracy. there are always debates on everything that we do, but i think it's been a credit to the committee that everything we have done has been in lockstep together, and it's through the leadership of bennie thompson and liz cheney that we have that ability. there's always discussion and debate, not about the substance,

sometimes about timelines, but that's part of what being a thoughtful committee is about. and i'm just honored to be part of it. >> why not subpoena mike pence? >> well, we haven't closed the door on anything. i think that's important. i chaired the pence hearing, and clearly, there is information to be gained by the former vice president. he mentioned, in new hampshire, he opened the door, i think, to having discussions about that day. he did make his staff members available, who gave extensive interviews and live testimony to us. if there's information to be gleaned, i hope we can get it. we haven't closed any door, and we continue to want to seek the truth here. >> congressman jamie raskin, i was going to say dangled, but he doesn't dangle anything, he teaches. but he mentioned in his presentation today sort of, i think, maybe not obscure, again, to someone with his knowledge of

the law, but it sounded obscure, and that was this idea that the 14th amendment precludes anyone who's an insurrectionist from holding public office. are you, as a committee, considering applying that to donald trump and passing a resolution to ban him from holding public office because you've laid out evidence showing that he's an insurrectionist? >> i'm not going to get ahead of professor raskin or the final reports and what it could entail, but we've been very clear that it will have legislative recommendations within it, and we'll see what is included. >> well, i mean, that's not a no, and i guess my question extends to the 19 republican members of congress who were not subpoenaed, but they were invited to chat. none of them did. ginni thomas did. i mean, when you look at what you got and what's outstanding, how do you assess it? >> well, what i would tell you is an overwhelming number of people have come forward and given us testimony.

yes, there have been some, including some of our republican colleagues, who have stonewalled us and not responded and have turned back a lawful subpoena, and there are some who have exercised their fifth amendment right, and we've shown some of that audio tape, not passing any judgment on them using their rights. but overwhelmingly, over 95% of the people who we have sought to talk to, we've been able to talk to. so, that has, you know, laid the groundwork for where we are, that we've been able to come this far and tell this much of the story of january 6th is really a tribute to all of those people following lawful subpoenas, and i hope the subpoena that we put forward as a result today is carried out as well. >> i do not make election predictions, so i don't ask this in the spirit of who controls the congress after the midterms, but more in the spirit of the threat environment that you have all had to do this really important work for

accountability, as liz cheney talked about, for history, all of this, and i wonder what sort of plans are being made for once the report is done or what happens in january. i mean, how do you preserve the work product and make sure that it serves future policymakers and future generations and does what every one of you talks about wanting to do, make sure this never happens again. it's not lost on any of you that there are election deniers running all over the country. there will surely be more of them in office in january, even if all of them don't win. so, what is being done to sort of protect the sanctity of the committee's work? >> it's a fair point, and it's a deeply disturbing that over 300 election deniers are on the ballot up and down across the states, across the country. and the work that we need to do needs to be to stamp out those who don't believe in a peaceful transfer of power and democracy.

so, you know, we're going to do our level best, and i'm not going to comment on the political side, but i can tell you that the work we are doing is not going to end when this congress ends. we're going to have to work together to make sure that we maintain and protect our democracy. if there are any recommendations that we can't get done, we have to continue and pick up that baton and carry that mantel, whether, you know, i'm serving in congress or being in the majority or the minority, that will continue to be something that is a priority for me and many of the colleagues that i choose to work with each and every day, democrats and republicans. >> congressman pete aguilar, at the end of what has been a busy day for all of you, thank you so much for spending some time to talk to us. we're really grateful. >> thanks, nicole. joining our coverage, pete strzok, former fbi counterintelligence agent, also miles taylor, former chief of staff at the department of homeland security and cofounder

of the political party forward, and with me here at the table, tim walden, a former assistant u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. pete strzok, i start with you, because so much of this, as the congressman was saying, turned on new evidence they developed from the secret service, and i wonder, first, your reaction to both how that was presented and the question that he wasn't able to answer, whether the president -- ex-president's movement from the white house to the capitol, which was on the books as a possibility until 1:55 p.m. on january 6th. the violence was well under way. do you think we'll ever find out whether it was ultimately taken off the table because they were worried about trump's safety or because they were worried about pence's? >> nicole, that's a great question. two things leap out at me. the first is the volume of information that we saw today, and i thought it was presented very, very well in the context of all the different threat streams that the secret service was receiving. you know, starting out this wasn't so much a threat but

going back to october 31st where you had tom presenting this plan to protest, so months, months and months and months before the election, this was under way, but what bothered me was, in the specific threat reporting, they mentioned it in the context of the secret service reports, but many of them are reported as coming from the fbi, and what it pains me to say it, but what is increasingly hard for me to understand is the volume of information that was present within the federal government, within federal law enforcement, well in advance of january 6th, and yet we had this utter failure to protect the capitol with all this information indicating that something very significant and something potentially very violent was coming. when we turn, though, to this otr, the potential movement of the president up to the capitol, having said to the crowds that i know they're armed, take away the magnetometers, they're not here to hurt me, whipping them into a frenzy and then wanting to go to the capitol where we know from prior hearing aids

hearings we know the capitol was breached, vice president pence was telling his detail leader who asks him to get in the car, no, i know you, but i don't know the driver, and i'm not getting in the car, and the prospect of trump with his secret service detail driving up to the capitol with this incited, armed, angry mob, facing also, by the way, metropolitan police officers, capitol police officers, fbi tactical agents who had come in to protect members of congress, in some standoff in the midst of all this, i can't imagine how horrific that scene might have unfolded. whether or not we ever, you know, find out, i think there are probably two or three people who can tell us. one is trump. one is his detail leader. and then, you know, possibly a couple of people within the secret service who were there during the decision not to move. but this is an extraordinary story that the committee laid out today. and again, as i've said multiple times, just stunned that we did not have more violence even than we did. >> yeah. i'm going to unpack all of this, pete strzok. let me start with the first thing you said.

this is evidence that the committee presented that moves the premeditation of the coup to october 31st, and they may have developed evidence that even goes earlier than october 31st. but let me play this. for my team, this is number 13. >> as you can see, the draft statement, which was sent on october 31st, declares, "we had an election today, and i won." and the fitten memo specifically indicates a plan that only the votes counted by the election day deadline, and there is no election day deadline, would matter. everyone knew the ballot counting would lawfully continue past election day. claiming that the counting on election night must stop before millions of votes were counted was, as we now know, a key part of president trump's premeditated plan. on election day, just after 5:00 p.m., mr. fitton indicated

he'd spoken with the president about the statement, sending along again, just talked to him about the draft below. again, this plan to keep -- to declare victory was in place before any of the results had been determined. >> i mean, pete strzok, ding, ding, ding, your missing white house call logs are calling. the reconstructed evidence that seems to have been, at best, lost, at worst, destroyed, they know that fitton, who had a plan for overthrowing the vote, that trump knew he was going to lose because it turns out one thing he can read is a poll. talk to him on election day and said, hey, just re-upped my coup plot statement, and so we've got at least one person he was conspiring with to carry out the overturning of the will of the american people on january 6th. incredible. >> yeah, it really is, and again, when you look at all the

people involved in all the facets of this, whether it was tom fitton, who, by media reporting, is apparently still, even though he's not an attorney, still advising the former president on what his legal strategy should be, whether it's the mar-a-lago documents or something else, but all of the rudy giulianis and mike flynns and sidney powells and people who came in and out of the white house, there are so many of these kind of, you know, bizarre conspiracy-theory-laden folks who are whispering in the president's ear, and we heard today, time and time again, whether it's pat cipollone or other folks in the white house counsel's office, the attorney general, bill barr, all of them telling trump, there is no truth to any of this. and yet, nevertheless, all these folks find a way to get in the former president's ear and whisper these things that he then comes out and says, completely falsely, that there was voting fraud, that it was illegitimate, and again, going on for months prior to january 6th. >> the premeditation, one of the big points. some of these new documents,

another big piece of what was introduced by the committee today. someone who played a role in all of this for a very long time, our friend, former congressman and former advisor to the house january 6th committee, riggleman, the author of "the breach." what leaps out at you in terms of the evidence presented today? >> thank you, and i think it was a -- i was definitely locked on to the secret service texts. you probably know that, nicole. but you know, i was locked on. we already knew -- >> denver, let us fix your audio. you're coming in and out, and i don't want to miss a word. can i -- i don't think they're going to want me to talk you through it. let me someone talk to you real quick to fix your audio. what jumps out at you? we're taking apart some of the documents and something that denver worked on, some of the texts that we're seeing firsthand, what jumps out at you? >> there was one line from

cassidy hutchinson's testimony that i thought was super compelling where donald trump just found out he lost in the supreme court. he says, why didn't we make more calls? >> right, to whom? >> that's right. >> you were, like, whoa, what were the others? i mean, i guess we know it was the raffensperger and michigan. >> but it was in relation to the supreme court. it wasn't really in relation to the georgia effort. >> let's pull that. i think we have that. let me pull that up. i played it in the last hour. but let me pull that up. let me get you guys a number. i think it's -- pat, do we know? let me play that. >> the president was fired up about the supreme court decision, and so i was standing next to mr. meadows but i stepped back so i was probably two or three feet diagonal from him, the president just raging about the decision and how it's wrong, and why didn't we make more calls, you know, just his

typical anger outburst at this decision. and the president said -- so, he had said something to the effect of, i don't want people to know we lost, mark. this is embarrassing. figure it out. we need to figure it out. i don't want people to know that we lost. >> i fixated on the, i don't want people to know we lost, because it proves that you knew he lost, but your point, why didn't we make more calls? >> it was a terrifying line, and i hope it gets unpacked -- i hope it was unpacked either in her interview or with the doj. but there were other interesting bread crumbs during this picasso painting when you look at the fine details. why did they mention the troop withdrawal? that was such an interesting facet of, i think, kitsen berger who brought it out, the unfinished business. i wonder if intel is looking into this to see because russia is very -- was very adamant about the united states withdrawing from somalia and afghanistan, and right after the

election, he issues this hasty withdrawal that the generals disagreed with. >> yep, yep. let me play that for you, denver, because you don't have to answer whether or not you knew this before, but there's just a remarkable, remarkable piece of the questioning where john mcentee, who i think had been fired and rehired by the trump white house, is talking about how he wrote the orders to end american involvement in somalia. this is number nine. >> are you familiar with a memo that the president reportedly signed on november 11th of 2020, ordering that troops be withdrawn from afghanistan and somalia? >> yes. so, i think you might have seen some things where this memo or something from johnny mcentee to douglas mcgregor, it says, here's your task. to get u.s. forces out of

somalia, get u.s. forces out of afghanistan. >> who was in his office drafted the order? >> it was myself and one of my assistants. >> mcentee duly types it up, brings it into the president, president signs it, and boom, it's over, faxed over or emailed, scanned over to me. >> was it by auto pen or was it the president himself signing it? >> it was the president. >> and who obtained that signature? >> i did. >> it is odd. it is nonstandard. it is potentially dangerous. i personally thought it was militarily not feasible, nor wise. >> so, denver riggleman, unpack this for me. i mean, johnny mcentee's assistant under supervision, ostensibly, by johnny mcentee drafted orders to have the

united states leave somalia and afghanistan, two of putin's most urgent policy wishes. >> you know, first, nicole, i think nonstandard could apply to the entire trump administration. you know, when you look at what general milley said. now you got individuals that are completely unqualified pushing orders. as a former military individual, i would have been horrified. i can see general milley is horrified. that comes from johnny mcentee's office to kash patel, a guy who writes bizarre children books, pushing this type of theories. it's been proven over and over again that president trump knew he lost, but there's another thing that i think the committee proved, and that's the lunatics were running the asylum. and you know, looking through what they did today, by summing this up, as a military command briefer, at the beginning of this, they told people what they were going to tell them, then they told them, then they told them what they told them. they went through the three phases of how to do hearings and there's other things, when you look at data, there's so much there, nicole.

but the doj and fbi need to unwrap a lot of that, especially the white house links to extremists, which are specific, and they're linked and then when you see something like this, when you see the lack of professionalism, when you see, you know, young individuals that have no qualification doing this type of business with people like general milley, this should horrify the american public, and when you look at it that way, the committee has certainly gotten to the bottom of why we can't have people like this in office anymore and they're just simply unfit. >> the ties to extremists, which is something you cover in the breach, did come back today. it was in the context, and there were photos of the oath keepers who protected roger stone and then the same oath keeper is shown inside the u.s. capitol. the oath keeper who protected mike flynn in mid to late december and his ties. they did come back to the ties between trump's most senior insurrection advisors and the extremists, many of whom are on

trial, some for seditious conspiracy. they also played this inner circle pleading the fifth. talk about the importance of closing with that. >> you know, i heard the fifth so many times in these interviews, nicole, i almost woke up my wife thinking she's yelling the fifth amendment at me. crazy to see that. when you talk about the oath keepers and proud boys, right-wing extremist groups, there's a lot of stuff going to be, nicole. why was an oath keeper texting andrew giuliani? why was that happening? why was that going back and forth? why did we have rally planners with specific links to rhodes and tario? why did we have the white house with outgoing calls to riders on the day off? what you see the committee doing is looking at roger stone's videos. he seems to be a pivot point in all of this. we knew this. the evidence is there. the data links are there. we have him on video. we have him saying ridiculous things, calls to violence, but we know he started the stop the steal movement, so we've known

this for a long time. this isn't something that's a surprise, that roger stone with the nixon tattoo might have something to do with stop the sale and the individuals that were involved. and you know, when you see these individuals plead the fifth like flynn and stone and people like that, especially flynn, which really gets under my skin as a former military officer, just the lack -- when you talk about nonstandard, right, the lack of professionalism and the fact that he couldn't even own up to what he believed in as a former three star general. the people that were attracted to trump were grifters, scam artists, and people who didn't care about the truth. they were liars and they radicalized so many people and that's why january 6th happened because you had an administration that was irresponsible, dangerous, and they had no ability to grasp truth from, you know, credulous lies, just from idiocy. and sorry if i get a little bit emotional about this, but when you take an oath to defend the constitution, and you see this type of ridiculousness, and what i saw today about the afghanistan and how they crafted that, that actually shocked me more than anything else, even

the secret service texts, because at that point, every single american who's paying attention and there's not a lot of them, but every single american who's paying attention are going to say, you've got to be crapping me that this is actually going on in my administration for a president of the united states to default to people that are completely unqualified to run this country. and i think that's what the committee proved over the 15 months. >> denver riggleman, we're so glad we had a chance to get you on the record today with us. thank you so much. >> thanks, nicole. let me add to our coverage, mary mccord, former top official in the justice department's national security division. let me start with the two things denver's talking about here. this -- the throughline is it feels like it goes through both who was doing what in the white house. this is mr. mcentee, who was released from the white house, came back because mr. and mrs. trump liked them a lot and

then was drafting orders to end u.s. military involvement in somalia and afghanistan. what do you make of how that was presented? adam kinzinger did a remarkable summation of a lot of the national security threats, and we were excited we'd have a chance to ask you about them. >> yeah, it was really an interesting piece of the hearing today, and of course, it was news. it was something we hadn't really heard anything about, and i think, again, it was that effort to draw into this not only what -- the threat that trump presents to our democracy in the united states, his incitement of political violence, his lies, disinformation, et cetera, but it shows what a national security threat he is, particularly right now where we have an ongoing, very significant national security breach that's being investigated as a result of the search warrant executed on mar-a-lago, i think, you know, foot-stomping that this is a man who's been a threat for some time, and as you just pointed out, taking these

actions, you know, after he knows he's lost the election, without adequate consultation with his military, really brash, i think, what, i think it was general milley or else general kellogg said would have been catastrophic to do what he said to do, and as you pointed out, happened to be priorities of putin. these things are, you know, really significant, and i think in terms of just recognizing the threat he poses. and remember, part of what the committee is doing here is gathering information to be able to consider legislative reforms as well as other types of reforms in addition to making criminal referrals and getting to the bottom of what happened, and so, you can imagine this national security threat, both what we heard about today and what we know is happening at mar-a-lago or happened with the mishandling of classified information at mar-a-lago, are things that might be ripe for reform. >> mary, because you have talked us through so much of the mar-a-lago investigation, at points when it's been hard to

decipher, i cannot have you here and not ask you about the two big bombshells we have learned, one in the "washington post" yesterday and today, "the new york times" very much advanced that reporting, that a military aide, who left government service, went with donald trump down to mar-a-lago, has testified to some of the mishandling of the documents, and we had talked at the very beginning about the security footage being mentioned in, i think, the original affidavit that was unsealed and then the desire or the seeking of more security footage. what do you make of what's now public-facing in this probe? >> well, again, i never like to get out ahead of the department, which speaks through its papers. i spent too long there to try to do that, but what we're hearing is very consequential, potentially, because you know, we, i think some of us were initially maybe a little bit surprised to see obstruction as one of the offenses listed in this search warrant and thought, oh, i wonder what supports that. and i think this gives us a real

window into some of the evidence that supports that, because if there were boxes being moved that you can see on videotape, so it's not just relying on the testimony of one person, but if that's corroborated through video and particularly if those boxes are moved after trump has been told the importance of returning classified documents, i mean, that's very significant piece of information about his intent, his motive, and potentially about obstruction. so, you know, there's more to be seen. and i can't -- if we're going to be talking about mar-a-lago a little bit, and i'm happy to get back to the committee hearing today, i listened to the whole thing, but today was also significant in the middle of that committee hearing, the supreme court rejected trump's latest entreaty to get them to intervene and essentially reverse the 11th circuit ruling, which essentially reversed judge cannon's ruling and really was asking for the supreme court to demand that judge cannon's order that the classified information be reviewed by the special master be reinstated and the

supreme court, not surprisingly to me, declined to do that. >> i mean, i'll ask you one more question, mary, about mar-a-lago, and then we will go back to the hearing. but you know, trump is -- i hate to ever describe him or pursue a line of questioning about him being down on his luck, because he's like the bugs that don't die in the nuclear blast, but none of his legal moves have worked out, and the hail mary was this supreme court petition. what happens next from doj's perspective? i mean, do they go back uninhibited to sort of pursuing the criminal investigation and the obstruction probe? can they go back to interviewing witnesses and have access to the documents? >> so, we got two kind of things going on here. they, under the 11th circuit's current ruling, which is what is standing now, because the supreme court didn't intervene, they are able to continue to use the classified documents in their criminal investigation as well as in their intelligence damage assessment and national

security investigation. and they do not have to submit those classified documents to the special master for review. but what they still cannot do right now is use those 11,000 other documents directly in their criminal investigation because those are still going through the special master process for review for privilege, executive privilege, potentially, and attorney-client privilege. and so, i do think there's freedom for them to still subpoena witnesses and talk to witnesses about what they might know, what they might have knowledge of but what they can't do right now is hand a witness one of those documents and say, here, what do you make of this? that is still a setback. that's still a delay for doj, but remember, doj appealed that entire order of judge cannon to the 11th circuit. it took the emergency stay on just the classified piece, but the 11th circuit granted an expedited request on that bigger appeal. that's being briefed right now. that will be ripe for decision

quite soon. well, in november, but you know, as court cases go, relatively soon, and then when this -- when the 11th circuit rules on that, that could potentially free up the ability for the department to use those documents right away in its investigation. >> so, add to all of that the subpoena today for the ex-president to provide documents and testimony to the january 6th committee. let me show you what liz cheney had to say ahead of the vote about why they must seek trump testimony. this is number one. >> this is a question about accountability to the american people. he must be accountable. he is required to answer for his actions. he is required to answer to those police officers who put their lives and bodies on the line to defend our democracy.

he's required to answer to those millions of americans whose votes he wanted to throw out as part of his scheme to remain in power. >> our duty today is to our country and our children and our constitution. we are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set this all in motion. and every american is entitled to those answers, so we can act now to protect our republic. >> powerful words from the chair and the vice chair, mary. what is the sort of investigative importance of seeking -- pursuing this path of a subpoena, of a document request, of testimony? what ramifications does that have for the ex-president? >> so, you know, it's interesting, because liz cheney was clear at the beginning of the hearing today, right, that

they have, over the course of the committee's work, they have -- the evidence is sufficient for them to make criminal referrals. it's sufficient for them to consider legislative reforms, et cetera. but accountability is what both she and the chairman, bennie thompson, mentioned as the real need to have donald trump testify. now, they know, as a committee, as part of the legislative branch, they don't have responsibility for criminal prosecution. that's in the executive branch. that's department of justice. they don't have responsibility for adjudicating crimes. that's up to the judicial branch and a trial. if it comes to that. so, they need to -- it's important that if they seek this testimony, which they are, this was a subpoena that was authorized, that it is in furtherance of their constitutional duties, which include oversight and legislating. so for example, last year, when they sought documents from the national archives that were

presidential records of donald trump, the issue there, and that went through litigation, as you may recall, in trump v. thompson because trump tried to stop the archives from providing those documents to the committee. at that point, the committee had, you know, it made a compelling case that the courts agreed with that they had a compelling legislative need to be able to do this investigation and determine in aid of their legislative and oversight functions what reforms might be necessary. so, they're going to need to tie this subpoena to that as well, and i think that's where it becomes important that we've seen things like reference to the 30 witnesses who at various points asserted their fifth amendment specifically when asked about communications with donald trump. so, that just leads you to go, what is it that was within the answer to those questions that they refused to give because it might incriminate them? fifth amendment is about incriminating yourself in potential criminal conduct, and so they have a big gap here in terms of the communications with

the president. know, on the flip side of that, the president -- of course, the former presiden i should say, he may decide he wants to testify. he's been saying throughout this, nobody's heard my side. he could just surprise everyone, especially his lawyers, he could just say, i'm going to do it anyway. but assuming he fights it, he'll be arguing, i have executive privilege here. he may even argue, i have a fifth amendment privilege here, so we will have a similar type of separation of powers showdown between congress's legislative need and whether they can establish this compelling need, and a former president's executive privilege, which, you know, is less strong. it exists. the supreme court has indicated, but less strong than a sitting president's executive privilege, because the executive privilege really is about protecting of the republic and not about -- it's not a personal privilege. fifth amendment is a little different. that privilege is -- that goes with the person, and that's kind of -- it can be an absolute bar. so, depending on, frankly, how

the midterms go, and whether the republicans take over the house, that's, i think, really what we're going to see whether this gets litigated because if the republicans take over, there's a good chance they will dissolve, you know, not reinstate this subpoena in the beginning of the new term, in january, and which case this will go away. if the democrats remain in control, a new congress can still authorize a reissuance of the subpoena, and we can expect, you know, legal -- a legal showdown. >> miles taylor, to mary's point, trump may very well want a stage. he seems to be eager, hungry, really eager to talk and have a forum. as he was when mueller wanted to talk to him. he always wanted to talk to mueller. i'll talk to him today, i'll talk to him tomorrow, i'll tall to him in pants, i'll talk to him in a dance. he was like dr. seuss. but at the end of the day, his lawyers finally said, publicly, i will lay down my body on the tracks before i will let donald

trump perjure himself, and lying to congress, it's still a crime. >> i think it's unlikely, but i still think it's very possible. i mean, think about it. this is a man whose now potentially facing multiple federal charges and whether or not he testifies, those are probably going to go forward. donald trump may -- he may wake up in the middle of the night tonight and say, you know what? i want to tweet out that i'm going to do it. because that's how he would make decisions. i mean, you saw that with the tape of general milley and others talking about the sudden decision to pull out troops that he made. that was donald trump's decision-making style, so, look, i think it's possible. do i think it's the likeliest outcome? no. but donald trump is also someone who does not shy away from a spectacle. in fact, he's so deeply tempted

by the spectacle of something like this that it's going to be hard for him to turn away from it. so, i actually think he'll spend days considering the ways that he might respond to this invitation. again, as mary notes, in ways that lawyers would be very, very worried about. but nicole, i would add that i've put together a lot of congressional hearings before, as a congressional staff member, and while this hearing may not have had the most eyeballs of the january 6th hearings or maybe not the most new information, i actually think this may be their most significant hearing, if not the most significant congressional hearing we've seen in our lifetimes, more so than watergate or iran-contra, because they met their mandate here. they answered the question of why this happened and how it happened, and who was responsible. and they did it very compellingly, and to me, the operative words during the hearing were that donald trump was the central player, was the

central player in all of this, and i think the committee very compellingly made that connection. >> miles sticks around. mary mccord, thank you for being part of our coverage and letting us have you multitask on both the big stories we cover here. we have much more to get to as our coverage of today's dramatic hearing in the january 6th committee continues. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. >> a key lesson of this investigation is this. our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost. we have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. any future president inclined to attempt what donald trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. what happens when the president disregards the court's rulings as illegitimate? when he disregards the rule of law? that, my fellow citizens, breaks

our republic. our republic okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete balanced nutrition for strength and energy. woo hoo! ensure, complete balanced nutrition with 27 vitamins and minerals. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. ♪ ♪ (dog barking) we love our pets. with 30 grams of protein. but we don't always love their hair. which is why we made bounce pet hair and lint guard with three times the pet hair fighting ingredients. just one sheet helps remove pet hair from your clothes! looking good starts in the dryer with bounce pet. give me that! why do you always get to talk first? [groans] hi, we've got questions about medicare plans. well, we've got a lot of answers! how can i help? well for starters, do you have a medicare plan i can actually afford? how about a plan with a $0 monthly premium? well, that's a great start. well, then you'll probably love the dental, vision and hearing coverage that's included. i hear that! [laughs] we also want a plan that helps us to stay healthy,

not just one that covers us when we're sick. then you'll want to know about plans with $0 preventive screenings, over-the-counter benefits for certain health and wellness products, even fitness benefits! that's exactly the kind of thing i'm looking for. me too. what other benefits can we get? well, every plan is different. let me walk you through all your options so you can pick the right one for you. don't wait, call 1-888-65-aetna to get answers to your questions and pick a plan that's right for you, and let's make healthier happen, together. now that sounds like a plan. oooooh, sure does! my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist

about a nunormal with nucala. ♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us.

naomi: every year the wildfires, the smoke seems to get worse. jessica: there is actual particles on every single surface. dr. cooke: california has the worst air pollution in the country. the top 2 causes are vehicles and wildfires. prop 30 helps clean our air. it will reduce the tailpipe emissions that poison our air kevin: and helps prevent the wildfires that create toxic smoke that's why calfire firefighters, the american lung association, and the coalition for clean air support prop 30. naomi: i'm voting yes on 30. did you speak to president trump on his private cell phone on either january 5th or january 6th? >> once again, on advice of counsel, i will assert my fifth amendment right to respectfully decline to answer your question. >> did you, general flynn, talk to president trump at any point on january 6th, 2021? >> the fifth.

>> president trump authorize you to discuss publicly your january 4th, 2021, conversation with him? >> fifth. >> so, it's your position that you can discuss an immediate, direct conversation that you had with the president of the united states, but you will not discuss those same conversations with this committee? >> fifth. >> mr. clark, when did you first talk directly with president trump? >> fifth. >> mr. clark, did you discuss with president trump allegations of fraud in the 2020 election? >> fifth. >> we're back with pete strzok, miles taylor, and jim walden. most of what i know about the fifth amendment i learned from "law & order," but how is answering questions about donald trump, unless you're worried i "law is order." >> one of those people is a former high ranking doj official, so it's hugely embarrassing. >> and the other a former high ranking military official. >> absolutely.

there are two parts of today's hearing. one was the speaking indictment and the other was trying to convince hearts and minds. i think the fifth, that whole segment is part of the hearts and mind, and it's tied to the subpoena. donald trump said anyone who takes the fifth must be a criminal. it's not true, but it's his perspective tom overlay that with the individuals taking the fifth, i think that's the hearts and minds strategy. >> peter stark, i wonder, there's so much hypocrisy it's almost not worth pointing out. people who cooperate are flippers in trump's mind, people who take the fifth are guilty. his innermost circle, i think three of them received pardons in the final weeks of his presidency, taking the fifth. what were the investigative theories be about why they did that when asked specifically about trump? >> i think clearly it indicates

they're concerned something they say could be used to incriminate them in a criminal context. i agree with jim. a jury is not supposed to take a negative inference from somebody in a trial taking the fifth amendment, but in the court of public opinion, that has an impact. and when you compare and contrast to all the people coming forward talking about the extraordinary detailed plans, threats of violence, it stands out in terms of yes, these were doj officials, senior military officials, and by the way, in the case of eastman as well as clark, both of their phones had been seized by the department of justice via search warrant for evidence of a crime. it looks awful. any good defense attorney is going to counsel their client to take the fifth in a scenario like this. but it speaks to the people who

were close to trump and concern that the conversations they had with trump, they had would be used as incriminating evidence against them. when you step back and look at who these folks were, that's extraordinary, and i don't think we've ever seen anything on this scope and scale before in our nation's history. >> but it became so frequent and so normal while trump was president that you almost need -- to lift it out, put it up. it's 5:52 so we're just getting to it. it always strikes me that trump benefits so much from the implicit and explicit way he moves the goalposts. it was an insurrection, but only a few people died. it was bloody and deadly, but pence didn't do the right thing. i knew i lost, but it made me look bad. it is this slow moving

degradation of everything about our democracy. >> nicole, i've got to say, as you started saying that, my facilitier is getting thinner and thinner and thinner on this. it made my heart race to watch today's hearing, really, because they brought up trump's mind set, and the question was, what was his mind set. i'm going to demystify that for america right now. i've spent time with the guy in the oval office, the white house situation room, air force one. i'll tell what you his mind set was on january 6th. i believe donald trump wanted people to die. he wanted people to die. he wanted people to die who were elected officials en masse so he could call out the military so he could invoke the insurrection act so he could prevent the peaceful transfer of power. that's not a conspiracy theory. in fact, in hindsight, it's pretty damn clear to me this is

what he had in mind from day one in office. at first we were scratching our heads about why he wouldn't do anything about domestic terrorism when we were going to the white house, saying the numbers were up, and trump was make excuses for domestic terrorist groups, why he always brought up the insurrection act, which he wanted to use to bring out the military to enforce laws. we told him he couldn't use the military to enforce all of these things. they came together and made sense on january 6th. why did he make excuses for domestic terrorist groups? because he was on their side. those were the arms people going to do those things for him. we saw in testimony the other week in courts that the january 6th plotters knew they were engaging in an insurrection, an armed insurrection. that's what they intended. and we have people, extremists as denver riggleman noted, two hops away from the president of the united states who were planning on making that happen. he wanted people to die on january 6th so that he could use

those presidential powers to prevent our democracy from transitioning to a new president. and i think the committee presented that in extremely powerful passion. >> i'm almost out of words. i don't know what to say to that. but the evidence certainly supports that he had no plans of leaving. i remember covering 2016. i know from inside his campaign at the highest levels there was no victory speech written because he didn't think he was going to win. in 2020 he knew he was going to lose and there was no concession speech written, no concession planned. what do you do with that in term of a criminal justice system that seems to be struggling at holding out of his criminal acts to account. >> i think, it's difficult when you look at the scope and spread of activity. i think what doj and fbi have to do is look at all these discrete events, discrete violation of law, and do what they do with

anybody, that the law applies equally to everyone. we have criminal statutes on the book, elements of the crime. you look at what trump did and list out all those things. if you step become and take a look at how broad this is, it is almost overwhelming but there are discrete things doj is doing, new york state is doing, georgia's doing, separate and distinct from all the mar-a-lago activities. at the end of the day, doj has to do, in term of criminal justice accountability, take a look at the law, apply the law, and then be fearless in the application of it. i think that is coming. i think it always takes longer than people would like, but i anticipate the more i see, the more evidence that comes out, it just seems increasingly likely to me that trump will be eventually charged with federal crimes by this department of justice. >> wow. pete struck, miles taylor, jim walden, my mind is blown. thank you for being part of our breaking news coverage. quick break for us, we'll be right back. right back

have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. [coughing] hi, susan. honey. yeah. i respect that. but that cough looks pretty bad.

try this robitussin honey. the real honey you love, plus the powerful cough relief you need. mind if i root through your trash? robitussin. the only brand with real honeyand elderberry. ♪ it's the most wonderful time of the year ♪ claritin provides non-drowsy symptom relief robitussin. from over 200 indoor and outdoor allergens, day after day. feel the clarity and make today the most wonderful time of the year. live claritin clear. naomi: every year the wildfires, the smoke seems to get worse. jessica: there is actual particles on every single surface.

dr. cooke: california has the worst air pollution in the country. the top 2 causes are vehicles and wildfires. prop 30 helps clean our air. it will reduce the tailpipe emissions that poison our air kevin: and helps prevent the wildfires that create toxic smoke that's why calfire firefighters, the american lung association, and the coalition for clean air support prop 30. naomi: i'm voting yes on 30. we have put the band back together. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern we'll have a two-hour recap special feature analysis from rachel maddow and all my friends and colleagues from msnbc's primetime lineup. 8:00 p.m. eastern, two hours from right now. but stay where you are. our coverage continues on "the beat" with ari melber. hi, ari. >> hi, see you soon. >> yep, see you soon. >> this is a special edition of "the beat" as we follow with our