hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. the panel tasked with investigating the january 6th insurrection is barrelling towards the release of its final report and leaving no stones unturned, including the $64 million question about what exactly happened inside the presidential suv that day. a question that springs from cassidy hutchinson's explosive testimony over the summer. >> so, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with bobby, he thought that they were going up to the capitol and when bobby had relayed to him, we're not, we don't have the assets to do it, it's not secure, we're going back to the west wing, the president had very strong, very angry response to that, tony described him as being irate. the president said something to the effect of, i'm the effing

president, take me up to the capitol now, to which bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the west wing. the president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel, mr. engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel, we're going back to the west wing, we're not going to the capitol. mr. trump then used his free hand to lunge towards bobby and when when this story was recounted to me, he motioned towards his clavicles. >> i'm the effing president. sounds like him, huh? so, today, the january 6th select committee is reportedly hearing from the man at the heart of the telling 0 that extraordinary story. it was former secret service agent and trump white house aide tony ornato, who told cassidy hutchinson that trump tri tried

lunge at the secret service agents. as far as we know, that story was never refuted under oath. nbc reporting on that, saying officials from the secret service have questioned hutchinson's testimony, prompting the committee to bring some of them back for questioning under oath. ornato has already testified in front of the committee, but hutchinson's testimony prompted the committee to call him back again. committee investigators spoke to bobby engel who led the former president's protective detail. and at the beginning of november, they were scheduled to meet with a secret service agent who was in the lead car of trump's motorcade on the day of the insurrection. members of the committee have long cast doubts and they've been public about it, about the truthfulness or lack thereof, the secret service agents that testified in front of the committee. the agency is responsible for

protecting our most senior leaders. here's what adam kinzinger said a couple of weeks ago. >> there's somebody lying at the secret service. let's be clear. there's some interesting going ons with some of the people and we're not going to let that go. >> we are not going to let that go. january 6th select committee getting to the bottom of trump's state of rage about being stymied from witnessing and attending the violence at the capitol on january 6th. with us, carol leonnig is with us, along with neal katyal, and jonathan lemire, most of msnbc's "way too early" and author of the book "the big lie." >> so, carol, you and jonathan's books have exclusive reporting about this episode at the heart of really one of the only

disputed public allegations of perjury that the committee has made in the course of their entire investigation and it's over the testimony of some secret service agents and as far as we know, it's around this second-hand account that cassidy hutchinson provided under oath. tell us what the line of questioning is as far as you understand it for mr. ornato, carol. >> so, i did speak actually, nicolle, with some sources right before i came on today, because i wanted to understand a little bit more detail about what's unfolding behind the scenes in that interview. it's a virtual interview, where tony ornato is with his private lawyer. remember, he's since left government. and so, the government doesn't -- the government meaning the secret service, doesn't have a witness in the room, so to speak, but my understanding is that it still goes on, it started this morning and he's still being questioned. it could go on for many hours. but what's the focus of that discussion? did you tell cassidy hutchinson, were you told by bobby engel,

that the president almost came to blows with his lead security agent over being told that he couldn't join the mob of supporters heading up to the capitol? some of them armed with weapons, guns, batons, fire extinguishers, and bear spray. and he's also being asked a lot, nicolle, about whether or not there were other elements of violence and the foreshadowing of violence that the secret service warned the president about in the hours before the actual speech that he gave at the ellipse. >> i want to play -- so, cassidy hutchinson and liz cheney have a couple of exchanges in this very topic, carol, i want to play this one. this is about what ornato knew, to your point, about violence on the sixth. let me play this one first.

>> u.s. secret service was looking at similar information and watching the planned demonstrations. in fact, their intelligence division sent several emails to white house personnel like deputy chief of staff tony ornato and the head of the president's protective detail, including certain materials listing events like those on the screen. the white house continued to receive updates about planned ghon stragss, including information about the proud boys organizing and attending events on january 6th. >> i remember mr. ornato had talked about intelligence reports. i remember mr. ornato coming in and saying we had intel reports that there could potentially be violence on the sixth. >> you know, so, carol, i -- we pulled this and i watched this again today and i'm thinking of your reporting from your colleagues about how liz cheney is less enthusiastic about the

intelligence failures -- it's clear that it's her sort of theory of the case that there was no intelligence failure. that the intelligence made it all the way to the oval office through mr. ornato. is this part of what they're trying to sort of drill down on today? >> absolutely. i mean, why is it important that former president, then president donald trump was alerted that people likely had arms, that they had weapons that they were concealing outside the rally? the secret service knew that and shared that up the chain. why is it important that donald trump was alerted to that, either by ornato or his chief of staff? because it goes to his state of mind, as he's calling that group a few hours later, to follow him as he marches with them to the capitol. the idea of taking people who plan to be violent, have warned ahead of their arrival that they plan to quote unquote draw down on law enforcement and attack

the capitol guard, the idea that he would urge them and would join them on going to the capitol tells you a little bit about what he hoped would happen january 6th. and that's pretty critical. it's also critical to understand what he -- how angry he was that he couldn't join his followers at the capitol. i mean, that also goes to state of mind. why was he so desperate to join a group of people, again, with firearms, with weapons, with them as he basically pressured his vice president not to accept the peaceful transfer of power and the legitimate election of joe biden as president? >> you know, neal, there was some conventional wisdom around the public hearings of the january 6th committee that they had all of the goods in terms of proving that trump, you know, any reasonable doubt, that they

had all the goods that they knew that the fake electors scheme was illegal, but if they have mr. ornato meeting with them -- let me play some more of cassidy hutchinson's testimony and trump's knowledge of not just the violence, but of the specificity with which his supporters were armed. >> i recall tony and i having a conversation with mark, probably around 10:00 a.m., 10:15 a.m., where i remember tony mentioning knifes, guns, in the form of pistols and rifles, bear spray, body armor, spears and flag poles. spears were one item, flag poles were one item, then tony had relayed to me something to the effect of and these effing people are fastening spears to the ends of flag poles. >> he asked tony if tony

informed the president and tony said yes he had? >> yeah, mr. ornato said, make sure the chief knows that they're getting closer to the capitol. >> i mean, ding, ding, ding. donald trump was told by mr. ornato who relayed it to mark meadows, not just that they were armed, but what they were armed with. this seems like a vital witness for the congressional probe as well as doj's. >> that's 100% right, nicolle. so, there's kind of two state of mind issues here, both politically, as well as criminally, should this become a criminal investigation. one is, what did donald trump think about the election? did he think he won or lost? and second was, what was he connection to the violence and what was he aware of? and i think you're absolutely right, the january 6th committee has done a phenomenal job with more than 1,000 interviews and all sorts of separate hearings and including the late stage interviews, even today, and that tells me they're continuing their fact-finding efforts up until the very, very last moment.

and here it is looking very significant, i mean, it's not just -- clip, but also that cassidy hutchinson testified that trump was ordering the removal of the metal detectors. that's something that i think the committee is going to look at. we understand from "the washington post," there's a big debate within the committee about how much this report should focus on trump. i certainly think it's got to focus a lot on trump, because while other people were enablers, we've never had a circumstance like this, in which a president has done this much, and even the public record from the january 6th committee some months ago, a federal judge looked at that and said, it is more likely than not, based on what the january 6th committee had many months ago, that donald trump committed various federal felonies. >> so, connect that for me, jonathan, with these other data

points. there was reporting right ahead of the thanksgiving holiday that pence hasn't ruled outover dismissed an invitation from doj to share what he understands to have been the facts surrounding january 6th. we also know that a lot of evidence has been entered into the congressional record in terms of what his chief of staff thought the physical risks of bodily harm were to mike pence. those had to have come from, well, didn't come from ornato, he had to be in the loop. and we know that pence refused to leave the building, carol had the scoop about kellogg, who says, he's not going anywhere. we know from the committee that he sort of hunkered down in the loading dock and refused to get in the car. just talk about these -- this sort of net tightening around this part of the insurrection. >> well, the role of the secret service has always been of great

interest to all investigations into what happened that day, including that by the january 6th subcommittee, has been well detailed on this show. there's been question of the truthfulness of that agency. we know about deleted text messages, we know about call logs. some of the agents there were seen as blindly loil to trump. some stayed on to the biden administration and have been reassigned because there was some concern among those close to the current president about where their loyalties may lie. and certainly that day, vice president pence did not trust that he was going to get into that limousine at the capitol, because they didn't know where they would take him. and he felt his role was to stay there, for not just the safety of himself and his family, but to do his constitutional duty hours later and make sure that biden's win was certified. i think we're seeing some political vulnerabilities here in donald trump, newly vulnerable donald trump who is both seemingly weakened

politically and more endangered politically, which is leading so momentum among other republicans, including those close to his vice president to, a, cooperate, but b, to speak out against him. we've heard from vice president pence who while in office couldn't have been more loyal to donald trump, has repeatedly clashed with him and taken exception in recent days, including about this dinner with a white supremacist last week. so, there is a sense of the rope is tightening around this circle here for former president trump and with only weeks to go before that report has to come out, because republicans are taking control of the house and there's a firm believe this committee will be scuttled, urgency is on to complete it as soon as possible. >> carol, wait to read that reporting i mentioned to jonathan from your book. from "i alone can fix it." around this time, vice president's national security adviser keith kellogg ran into tony ornato.

ornato told him that pence's detail was planning to move the vice president to joint base andrews. you can't do that, tony. leave him where he's at. he's got a job to do. i know you guys too well. you'll fly him to alaska if you have a chance. do not do it. pence had made clear to giebels the level of his determination and kellogg said there was no changing it. he's going to stay there, kellogg told ornato. if he has to wait there all night, he's going to do it. ornato denied having this conversation. did any evidence ever emerge -- this to me is important on two levels, carol. one, it's an unimpeached so far witness in mr. kellogg. he's provided testimony to the 1/6 committee that hasn't been challenged. and it's something that members of the 1/6 committee has accused this agency of having lied. so, who do you believe here? >> you know, i don't like to call anybody out as a liar unless i know that they

intentionally gave false information, so i'm going to answer this question this way -- the secret service over the history of the time that i've written about it and chronicled it and even back to kennedy, has tried to avoid revealing information about presidents that were embarrassing or humiliating. and in this case, as neal points out, likely criminal. the secret service over and over again conceals information that could be -- that it could view as basically outing a president of information that's dangerous or inculpatory. and the likelihood that keith kellogg made this up compared to someone else saying they didn't recall it, it is low. i think one of the reasons cassidy hutchinson's testimony was such a blockbuster and while keith kellogg's testimony also sort of still hangs there over this whole event, is that both individuals don't have a motive

to exaggerate or to shade or to gussy up. cassidy hutchinson was extremely careful in her public testimony. we haven't seen keith kellogg's public testimony, but in her testimony, she repeatedly said, here's what i saw, here's what i heard, here's what so and so told me. and i think that, you know, in a criminal trial, that's the kind of witness that juries rely on and believe in and that prosecutors put on the stand. because they are careful. because they are precise. now, who knows what's happening behind closed doors in the details, in the wields right now, nicolle, with tony ornato's testimony. he may be able to say, here's why cassidy was wrong, here's the evidence i have to show that she was wrong, but if he simply says, "i don't recall that," i think that still leaves a big question out there. >> carol, let me ask you to just widen the conversation a little

bit for me. is mr. ornato -- is it normal for someone to leave the secret service detail and become a political employee of a president? >> so, your question eck copes back to jonathan's very good summary of why this agency is in the lights in an unflattering way and i'm glad that you focus on it, as well. this was the first time in history, in secret service history, that a nonpartisan, objective public servant in the secret service, which is what all agents are supposed to be, took on a political role helping donald trump get re-elected. that's what happened when tony ornato was temporarily detailed from being the leader of the president's detail to being the deputy white house chief of staff. it's never happened before and it's the one thing about which

secret service alumni and agents of very different stripes, all agree on. they all hated this idea. and could not believe that the director at the time, james murray who was a very close friend of tony ornato's, that he would approve this. because it sullies and causes people to question the objectivity and the reputation of agents. you know, they have a motto, which is, the people elect them, we just protect them. and in this case, tony ornato's position crossed that line. from public servant to political hack, and it raised questions about whether his security decisions were basically to mostly help donald trump, which is what his mission was, to help donald trump get elected. >> i mean, and jonathan, i guess the problem for the secret service is that without any facts, without any evidence that

they've put forward as an agency, the perception is just that, that it was operating -- that the whole agency, not just mr. ornato that it had lost the sight of where those boundaries are. i -- carol knows this, i mean, from my time in public service, i had nothing but affection for the secret service agents who protected the bush family, because being around them, i was protected, too. i cannot imagine them going into the press shop. i cannot fathom any one of them having that job. you're involved in events, in rally planning, in stage, the idea that an agent would take a job like that is galling to me. is there any conversations afoot about reforming the secret service to make sure that doesn't ever happen again? >> well, certainly as carol pointed out, it's -- this move was much to the consternation of many within the agency. and let's be clear. most agents simply do their jobs

and do it very well. those of us who cover white houses and travel with the president, we rely on them, too, they're around with us protecting us, as well, though, of course, we're not the priority. but this is unheard of here. but it is something the biden white house was carefully watching, too, and still to this day, a sense of leeriness among some of the agents who are around the president and the first family who are believed to be supporters of donald trump. but this here is a new -- a new one, certainly, for the agency, and it's one that could lead to some changes, and certainly, while we're talking about mind-set, the other piece of this was kelly anne conway, who spoke yesterday to the january 6th committee and pressed by reporting in my book earlier this summer about how donald trump in the days after the election, suggested to her and to others privately saying, well, i can't believe i lost to this guy. he said it more colorfully than that, meaning joe biden, at the time, it was sort of an

admission that he had lost and only later did he change his story and he embraced all the conspiracy theories and that mind-set, of course, so key right now to these investigators. >> so, neal, what does jack smith do with all of this? what does he do with tony ornato, who is his interest in cassidy hutchinson? and take me through how he might find both of their accounts of use to his criminal investigations? >> right, so, he's looking into the same stuff as the january 6th committee, so, we're talking about a separate investigation into the justice department, headed by this new special counsel, jack smith. and his mandate is both to look into the mar-a-lago stolen documents, but also the same stuff that the committee's looking at with respect to january 6th. and there are questions about whether trump committed or facilitated the commission of crimes including obstruction of an official proceeding, by trying to delay what happened on january 6th and the official count. trump's defense has always been,

well, i didn't have the state of mind to do that, because i thought i won the election and i was just fighting for what i thought i had rightfully won, and i didn't know any violence was going to happen and the like. and this is where i think the kelly anne conway testimony is so important, because -- and if the incident reported in jonathan's book is accurate, and the committee can find that or jack smith and his own interviews can find that, it blows, you know, a wide hole in trump's basicdy fence, which is, i really thought i had won, because what he said to her was, how could i have lost? that is, you know, gold, when it comes to a potential criminal prosecution, which is what jack smith is looking at, but it's also very, very important to the january 6th committee, because it really does, whether you want to say a crime was committed or not, something very, very grave happened on that day and trump knew about it and did it anyway.

so, that's why i think, you know, both will look into this. and then, i think, just to go full circle with respect to the secret service, the interesting thing about kellyanne conway, she's testifying voluntarily. and she's been there -- she was there for five hours and it's always refreshing to see a trump person actually voluntarily show up. but that's evidently what she did, as opposed to trump and his minnons who use the courts to try to delay their appearances for official testimony. and then, you know, the question is, what's going to happen out of the secret service testimony today? and frankly, it feels to me, i think carol is absolutely right, that politicization of the secret service by ornato is really, really terrible. and remember, the secret service is the agency that lost all of those texts about january 6th, mysteriously, and it frankly feels like some of the members of the secret service and the trump administration were taking

that in the agency's name just a bit too literally. >> three of the best human becomes to have this conversation with. carol, jonathan, thank you so much for joining us. neal sticks around a little longer. the global event this afternoon that has a little bit of everything. high stakes, tension, drama. a bit of international geo-political intrigue. if you didn't catch the match of the u.s. versus iran, settle in. we'll tell you all about it. and the head of the anti-defamation league will be back on the frightening lurch toward main streaming anti-semitism in this country. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues of a quick break. don't go anywhere. in time for everyone who works. with other people. just in time for... ...more togetherness. just in time to say “oh, you bet we'll be there!” because the updated vaccines can now protect against

both the original covid virus and omicron. and that's a moment... we've all been waiting for. ♪ from holiday hills, illinois to rudolph, wisconsin. from santa claus, indiana to snowflake, arizona. from garland, texas to north pole, new york and everywhere in between. we're holiday ready with fast and reliable delivery, serving every address in america. the united states postal service.

xfinity rewards is a program whose sole purpose is to say thank you with experiences big, small, and once in a lifetime. sometimes it's about cheering hard enough to shake the stadium. let's go! -haha, woo! sometimes it's as simple as movie night right here at home, on us. you mean the world to us. so we're bringing you closer to what you love. kinda like this- welcome to 30 rock! join xfinity rewards for free on the xfinity app today. our thanks. your rewards.

if your business kept on employees through the pandemic, innovation refunds could qualify it for a payroll tax refund of up to $26,000 per employee, even if you got ppp. and all it takes is eight minutes to find out. then we'll work with you to fill out your forms and submit the application. that easy. innovation refunds has helped businesses like yours claim over $1 billion in payroll tax refunds. but it's only available for a limited time. go to innovationrefunds.com to learn more. ♪♪

big run. snuck in behind. in the middle -- pulisic scores! might have today the price, but the u.s. takes the lead! >> it was a do or die win or go home match for the u.s. men's national team at the world cup today. and that goal in the 38th minute is what delivered the win, put them over the top. a few minutes ago, just asser with coming on the air, mercifully, the u.s. beat iran's team, meaning they will advance to knockout round for the seventh time in team history. joining us now, journalist and soccer fan, bobby gosh, and kevin blackistone, professor of practice at the university of maryland merrill college of journalism and someone i turn to

with help for not just sports and the politics, and in this case, geo-politics of sports. my meetings were held all over the phone, so my team would have one eye or two eyes on the match on the tv, and i love it. i love the love for this thing, i think we need it so badly, but this is so complicated. there's the gutter of it all and the iran of it all, so, bobby, you first. >> well, it was a geo-political match-up, just as much as it was a soccer match-up. there was a great deal of politics around this game, the iranian regime is going through a very difficult time with iranians protesting against their government back home. iranians also are in two minds about whether or not they should support their national team in qatar at the world cup. the united states had fewer problems of a political nature, but this was a clutch match. if they hadn't won this game,

they would be on the flight back home to the u.s. so, a lot was hanging on this match and, happily, for us anyway, the u.s. team pulled it off. remarkably, already i'm seeing reports out of iran that iranians are celebrating the american victory. that is something i would not in a million years have expected to see in my own lifetime. which tells you that they hate their regime and they hate the team that represents that regime even more than they were taught to hate the united states. >> you know, kevin, as i grapple with how to cover the, i guess hopes/expectations put on athletes and teams and franchises because of the politics of the moment, i don't know that there is a situation more dire than what the iranians are protesting and dying for, and so their relationship to their team is so complicated and

so fraught and this notion that, what bobby's reporting, that they're cheering the american victory, is just stunning. it feels next level. >> it is next level. i mean, that sounds like to me a bigger story than the game itself, than the outcome of this game itself. it's just a reminder of what a tremendous platform sports can for people to protest for whatever might be the issue. and in this case, for iran, and this keeps this story going now for the next several days. this is not going to go away. this is the second day story. sure, the u.s. has advanced and they have advanced before, but i think the bigger story is the fact, what bobby just reported. what this means for the protests for freedom and for human rights

and human dignity going on in iran right now. >> yeah, and i mean, look, to the degree that i grapple with it, it's clear, bobby, that the iranian people don't grapple with it at all. they wanted more from their team. they wanted more from their athletes and they turned against them when they were willing to stand for the islamic republic, just talk about, and everything they're in the streets dying for and protesting. how does this team go home to iran? what will their welcome look like? >> well, the team was caught in the middle. they represent the national colors, which means they do represent the iranian regime. they refused to sing the national anthem. their captain came out and openly said the team supports the iranian protesters. so, they are caught in between. they are neither fully embraced by the regime or the protest movement. now, for the offense of refusing to sing the national anthem, there will be repercussions. we should start worrying about

what happens to these players when they go back home. other players who have openly supported the protest movement have been arrested, their families have been threatened, and others who have been associated with the protests more generally have been arrested, tortured, beaten up, sentenced to death. so, as kevin said, this is not over for these players. the americans will go on to play the next game and eventually come back home being satisfied as soccer players of having given their best on the soccer pitch, but for these iranians, there's a lot more to be heard from andfifa, the world authorities, the world soccer authorities, need to start a conversation with the iranian regime to say, if anything happens to these players, there will be repercussions for raerngs as well. >> kevin, i watch -- i'm a terrible sports fan, and

watching sports with me is worse than watching a hallmark movie. everything makes me cry. to what bobby's saying, to us, with all of our freedoms and all of our liberties, it's the biggest game of their lives, i'm sure, for this young american team. but talking about it for the iranians, this could be their lives. the decisions they made ahead of and during this game could cost them their lives. how do we sort of lift up sports and should we separate them, can they be separated? >> they can't be separated. and, you know, this is a good time to remind people in 1968, what john carlos and tommy smith protested for human rights at the '68 olympic games in mexico city and how they were treated, not only by the olympics itself, but also by the u.s. olympic committee and by this country upon their return. so, now we are cheering for the team from iran who has just been

ousted from the world cup, for protesting for human rights back in their country. think about how far we've come. to me, there's -- there's a through line right there. and people need to now go back and understand what carlos and smith were all about. and what this iranian team is all about. and what carlos and smith suffered upon coming back to this country and even peter norman, who was the third man on the podium at mexico city, who was from australia, what he suffered just by supporting what carlos and smith were all about, is a reminder of how important a role sports can play in society. and what athletes really put on the line when they put their feelings on the line about what is going on in their country, or what is going on among their people or what is going on elsewhere in the world. >> will you both come back and talk me through the next u.s. match? i'm a soccer novice, everything

i know, i mostly learned from watching "ted lasso." it's great to learn from both of you. tell me your favorite soccer moment, both of you, before we go, bobby? >> well, for me, it was a personal moment, interviewing lionel messi some years ago when i worked at "time" magazine to write a cover story about him. and getting to spend time with the great egs player of all time and possibly of all time. >> and what about you, kevin? >> oh, for me it was definitely covering the world cup in 2010 when it was in a free south africa. and just seeing the outpouring of support from this newly freed nation and nelson mandela being there in the middle of it, that -- that was incredible. goosebumps just thinking about it. >> amazing. so important and so important to everyone who messed the a-block, if you were still watching, i forgive you. bobby and kevin, thank you for

being with us here today. up next for us, there's breaking news in the fulton county, georgia, investigation. another close trump ally,/enabler, mark meadows, has been ordered to testify been the grand jury there. that story's next. ble,... i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. check. when uc held me back... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc got the upper hand... rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older... with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks.

don't take if allergic to rinvoq... as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save. for people living with h-i-v, keep being you. and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it cannot be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take h-i-v treatment every day and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding,

or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv, keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you.

♪♪ what will you do? will you make something better? create something new? our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you. with some breaking news to tell you about, a verdict has been reached in the oath keepers trial. members of that militia group have been charged with seditious

can conspiracy. it comes after three full days of deliberations by that jury. we don't know the verdict is yet. we will break in and tell you as soon as we know. we have another bit of breaking news, though, on this front, regarding a fast-moving investigation into donald trump's campaign to overturn the 2020 election, something we actually heard in his own voice on that phone call with brad raffensperger. former white house chief of staff mark meadows has been ordered to testify in the fulton county, georgia, grand jury investigation. that is led, of course, by district attorney fannie willis it was a unanimous decision by the supreme court in the state of south carolina, that's where meadows lives. their ruling reads, in part, we have reviewed the arguments raised and find them to be man any festally without merit. if i had to describe their brand, it would be manifestly without merit. joining us now, charlie sykes,

editor at large of the bull work and msnbc contributor. yamiche, courts take much longer than i think some of us aching for accountability would like them to, but trump and his cronies keep losing. mark meadows being ordered to testify is so huge. he went down to georgia separate and in advance of trump's call with raffensperger, he was on the call when trump orders raffensperger to find him, quote, 11,000 votes, he was a party of everything that went on in georgia. >> certainly. i mean, if you think of former president trump's white house, he was -- you know, he had the title of chief of staff, he was also the president's right-hand man when it comes to efforts, alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. let's remember that when people at fox news and other places right wing people who were supportive of former president trump, when they were alarmed on

january 6th. it was mark meadows they texted and said, hey, even for us, this goes too far. that's how close he was to the president and a sort of gatekeeper to former president trump when it came to information. he was also someone that repeatedly we heard during the january 6th hearings was someone that really refused to ever reel former president trump in. you had chief of staffs in the past, you think of general kelly who was complicit in some regard, but definitely tried to put up barriers and also tried to say to former president trump, hey, you cannot do this, here are the things that do not seem presidential. by the time you got to mark meadows, after a number of other chief of staffs left the white house, he was very much aligned with former president trump's views of things, including his obsession, really, i think that's what you would call it, with trying to get this election, this 2020 election overturned. so, it is a very big deal that he might not be forced to answer questions under oath about his conversations with former president trump about the efforts to try to overturn the

election there, as you said, he was on the call when trump was saying, get me those 11,000 votes. i think he is someone who will have a lot of information. of course, we'll see how this turns out, but it seems as though when it comes to fulton county and you look at lindsey graham and what happened with that decision, that people are being told, you have to come and you have to be part of this investigation. >> so, charlie sykes, close viewers of this program will remember cassidy hutchinson has already been to georgia. she was mark meadows' right-hand person, to borrow yamiche's description of how this trump white house operated. they likely already know everything that mark meadows did. and i wonder what you make of what mark meadows may sort of -- what circles he may close in terms of what trump knew and what meadows knew and what they did. >> well, first of all, it was very interesting that the supreme court decision was unanimous and so definitive. it was a slam dunk against mark

meadows, telling him that he had to go in and testify. but as yamiche points out, mark meadows is at the center of everything, and he turned over all of his text messages to the january 6th committee before he was told to not the and those text messages basically do confirm that he is the nexus of everything that was going on, that everyone was communicating to him, all roads led to and through mark meadows. so, yes, i'm sure that cassidy hutchinson gave a lot of information, but if mark meadows were ever to flip on the president, it would be one of donald trump's worst days, legal days, because he was -- he was very much the keeper of the secrets, and, you know, so, yeah, cassidy hutchinson probably gave them a lot of information, but my sense based on looking at the text messages that we've already read, is that mark meadows knows a lot more, whether he's willing to testify to it, we will -- hopefully we

will eventually find out. >> and just to remind everybody, efforts to not testify, to not show up, and not provide truthful testimony, have been rejected by the u.s. supreme court, the south carolina supreme court, every court that has examined them. no one has prevailed. so, in terms of having to provide the entire story that they're looking for -- adam kinzinger on this show said that mark meadows was their only star witness who never showed up. but what he turned over in terms of the text messages was this granular detail. and he, unlike some of the other people we heard from, he was in the room. he was in the oval all day. he was in the car during the rally. he saw -- he bore witness to everything and/or participated in it, yamiche. >> certainly. and he was someone who was very, very aware of what former president trump was thinking and

doing. he was someone who was very aware of the people who were coming in and out of the white house, who were having these deep conversations with former president trump, all of these different theories, conspiracy theories that really started to manifest in the trump white house. and georgia, because this is so focused on georgia, let's remember that when former president trump learned that he had lost the state of georgia, it really deepened his sort of conspiracy theory and i'm thinking about attorney general bill barr who said, former president trump went from someone who you could argue with and pull back into reality into someone who sort of lost it and could no longer be talked to and be shown reality in any sort of way. he just completely went off the deep end. and mark meadows in some wakes was someone who, as chief of staff, his job would be to pull the president back, but by all accounts, just based on the witnesses that we've heard in the january 6th hearing, he was someone that jumped right over

with the president and who was very much involved in all of different things that we've been talking about. i'm very interested to see if this actually goes through, if he goes and has to be deposed, has to come before and answer questions under oath. i also say, you know, when we think about sort of his messages and all the text messages that he turned over, i think it's been reported, he was someone that was also operating a lot of times with a private email address. >> yeah. >> so, i'm interested to see what the sort of information this fulton county investigation pulls out that we don't know about, because i think there's a lot that could be possibly found out when we think about all of the other ways he was communicating with journalists, with right-wing conspiracy theorists, maybe even with the former president. >> i always come back to the testimony given by multiple witnesses, testimony given by multiple witnesses that tells cipollone and cassidy hutchinson and hirsh man, he won't condemn the protesters

because he agrees with them. he won't say leave mike pence alone because he's on their side. let me remind everybody the two breaking stories we're covering together. we're waiting for the verdict in the oath keepers is a difficult shows conspiracy trial, and also covering that mark meadows has lost an appeal before the south carolina supreme court to testify in the investigation on georgia on trump's efforts to overturn the election. let me bring in former justice department prosecutor, andrew wiseman. it's your choice, oath keepers trial or mark meadows? >> let's go with mark meadows. one thing i was reacting to is this is either a huge story or it very quickly could become a sort of nothing story because mark meadows asserts his fifth

amendment rights which he clearly has a fifth amendment right. and that is something he could do not just because of the real liability he might face in georgia, but remember, over his left shoulder he's got to be thinking there now is a new special counsel and whatever he were to say in georgia is something that the judge can get his hands on. to me, i would suspect, rather than go in and tell the truth or go in and lie, he has an option, especially since he is no longer a public servant. it's a little more acceptable for him to go in and assert the fifth. if it's happening in the grand jury, it technically is not supposed to become public. he may be able to do it without a lot of us knowing that that's what he does. now, obviously if he goes in and tells the truth, as charlie

mentioned, he has really the keys to the kingdom with respect to both the january 6th investigation and the documents investigation. he really is -- he reminds me of what we used to say about chief financial officers in economic crime cases. that's the person you want to talk to. here he is the chief of staff and he sort of was really directing traffic in both of those investigations. so he really has just a ton of information. >> i think traffic is a kind word for the coup. andrew, let me ask you everything that's public faces when it comes to mark meadows. congressman kinzinger was on the show and had nothing but concept, called meadows a backstabber. he's obtained a former doj official as his attorney, extremely conservative, but an attorney held in high esteem at least in conservative circles. tell me what the strategy will

be as he is now forced to testify in this georgia criminal investigation. >> well, just remember the one thing, nicolle, i would disagree with, he's forced to show up. >> to appear. >> exactly. he is well represented. george terwilliger, he probably is not as well known in georgia, he's extremely well known in the department of justice having served in senior roles there. he's going to be keenly aware of the potential criminal liability that mark meadows faces in one of two situations. one, if he goes into the grand jury and lies, obviously that is not going to be a good thing for him. it's going to only make matters worse in terms of his own criminal exposure. and two, if he goes in and tells the truth, he may, in fact, be implicating himself in a crime. so i would think that, if you

are george terwilliger, you're going to be advising mark meadows to assert the fifth and to use the fact of -- the fact that he has so much information to try and strike a deal. in other words, to say, you know what, right now we're going to take the fifth, and if you need my information there's a cost, which is you have to immunize me so i won't ever be prosecuted. the screws are turning by what bonnie willis is doing in georgia. i suspect we're going to see something very similar happening at the federal level. >> how does that work, andrew weissmann, does jack smith see this news and say i want first dibs on mark meadows, he's key to both the mar-a-lago documents case, widely reported by "the washington post" and "the new

york times" on the move down to mar-a-lago as well as the coup accomplice. he wasn't just aware of all of donald trump's delusions, he was putting them in action. he traveled to georgia to try to overturn georgia's election that resulted in joe biden's victory. he was enabling and opening the doors to the west wing of the white house to the likes of the pillow guy and the overstock guy, sidney powell, rudy giuliani and john eastman. talk about his importance to jack smith. >> so, first, to answer sort of what you do in normal circumstances, you would have the state and the federal government work together because they both have an interest in essentially flipping mark meadows. the way you do that is you increase his criminal exposure so he's saying to himself there's going to be a state and a federal charge.

the importance of the state charge is whatever mark meadows may be thinking about what might happen in a couple years at the presidential level, that's going to be irrelevant to what happens at the state level, because there's no pardon that's available. it is charged in the state. so really they have every incentive to work together to present the strongest possible case. and for jack smith what that means is he really has to get up to speed quickly on all of the evidence on mark meadows because he's going to want to be part of that conversation. one thing we don't want is to have the state get ahead of you when you have an interest in flipping somebody. again, to the importance of him, obviously we don't know what we don't know, but everybody, all the documents we've been looking at, witnesses like cassidy hutchinson made it abundantly

clear that this is the person you want to talk to, but she also made it clear that he has real exposure in so many ways, and that is the area where you really want the state and the federal government to be if you're on the prosecution side, to be working together to stress to george terwilliger exactly why they need to be cooperating at this point, that this is sort of a golden opportunity to come in and do the right thing. >> charlie -- do we still have charlie with us? charlie, so steve bannon is over here with all the pardoned trump allies. i guess john kelly is sort of over here with the disgusted former chiefs of staff. i don't really know where to put reince priebus. does he go the bannon route, take the fall for trump or is he

flipable? is he someone whose knowledge could be part of a potential prosecution of ex-president donald trump? >> well, i don't have the impression that he's a steve bannon type. but listening to andrew, he laid out in very succinct way the kinds of pressures that the federal government can put on mark meadows. and there's something about facing felony charges that can marvelously focus the mind. this is what we don't know. we don't know what leverage they can bring on him, but i don't sense that mark meadows is a warrior. i don't sense he's particularly an ideological zealot. i think he's going to look to save his skin. we can't know what is going on inside his mind. he has outstanding legal counsel. i think andrew just laid out exactly what the scenario is going to be.

we're going to switch gears to the verdict in the oath keepers seditious conspiracy trooil. ryan reilly is outside the courthouse in washington, d.c. set the scene for us and what do you know? >> reporter: the christmas tree lighting ceremony is having a u if hundred feet away as this verdict is set to come down here potentially in the next few minutes. the judge just entered the room. we're hearing from our producer inside the courtroom. we should be hearing shortly on what is the biggest verdict in the biggest january 6th case we've seen so far. this is a big shock for the justice department. it's the most serious charges they've brought. doj, of course, has a mixed record when it comes to bringing seditious conspiracy charges. there's also a slew of other charges that the defendants are facing here. even if there ends up being a next verdict on the seditious conspiracy charges, there's a lot of o criminal exposure these

defendants have for their actions at the u.s. capitol on january 6th. this was a trial where we saw testimony over the course of more than a month and a half from a variety of different oath keepers as well as three defendants themselves, including oath keepers' founder steward rhodes who said it was, quote, stupid for members of the oath keepers to go inside the capitol even though doj pointed to all the praise that rhodes had for all those who actually did storm the capitol on january 6th. obviously, we have a lot of folks down the street here at the justice department who are on pins and needles waiting for this verdict to come back. this is certainly the biggest move and riskiest move that doj has brought forward thus far in connection with the attack on the capitol on january 6th. >> brian, they have charged other individuals with seditious conspiracy and prevailed with juries, is that right? >> reporter: they've gotten

guilty pleas from a number of oath keeper defendants. this would be the first jury verdict regarding a seditious conspiracy charge. that's what makes it a big case for doj. what was interesting, during the trial, while they had those three individuals that pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, they didn't bring them forward to testify, even though they were cooperating with the government. they brought forward other oath keepers who pled guilty to less serious charges, including one from florida who said he was ready to die to keep donald trump in office. he said essentially goodbye to members of his family. we had another oath keeper who talked about how he got sucked into a lot of these conspiracy theories online and was spending too much time on youtube and facebook and getting sucked into these algorithms that were telling him that the election was stolen. that's obviously an ongoing theme with a lot of these january 6th cases as people just believing this information coming from the former president of the united states as well as irresponsible media outlets talking about the 2020 election. >> ryan, if you need to go, you

just turn around and go. we have charlie sykes and andrew weissmann here. i want to tell our viewers what we understand to be happening behind you. the defendants have been brought into the courtroom. they are bringing in the jury momentarily. andrew weissmann, what are your thoughts as we're sort of in these final moments before we learn this verdict? >> well, obviously this is -- there's a reason so many dramas are based on trials and that's -- this is a moment where the prosecutors and defense counsel are on pins and needless in terms of what's happening. in terms of the larger significance, this is the most important case that the department of justice has brought to date. they are to be commended because they really put together a case about the organization, the oath

keepers and their leadership. we talked about bringing a seditious conspiracy charge is a rare charge, but if it is going to be brought, this is the kind of case to do it because it has a number of elements that involves the use of violence, in this case in obstructing governmental functions. you can't imagine a more serious obstruction of governmental functions than the overthrow of a presidential election and not following the will of the people. this is an incredibly important verdict for the defendant and for the governments. in terms of the government, it puts the wind in their sales if the department wins this. i think it will be viewed as a big defeat if they don't. it could be a 134ri9 verdict where the defendants are

convicted of certain things and not others and certain defendants may be convicted of seditious conspiracy and others not. that is because there's proof that may be there with some more than others and we have to wait and see how the jury went through all this. this is a relatively fast verdict. there were a number of defendants and a lot of proof. it's very hard with tea leaf reading. but the length of the deliberations which is relatively short is probably a good sign for the government, but you never know. >> andrew weissmann, covering a trial with the crimes of seditious conspiracy carried out to aid donald trump in his efforts to overthrow the will of the people is not something on my bingo card, anything i would ever cover in my life or see as

a political operative. we're doing it now with fuentes, did he know fuentes was a heinous white supremacist and anti-semite. the extremists in america don't spend near as much time as what trump knew. they viewed him as their guy and they were there for him. they were willing to brutally, brutally beat police officers with flagpoles, willing to use zip ties, willing to hang mike pence. this is in their own words. talk about the violence that erupted concurrently with the enthusiastic support and embrace of donald trump. >> well, nicolle, in a very different time, hannah hent talkedbenality of the people. and i think what we've been

living through in the last administration and what we're seeing now is something that is a real eye-opener. a lot of things that you and i and a lot of the viewers thought were fundamental to what it means to be an american, where there's a commitment to the rule of law and to fairness and to decency is something that you really need to fight for and you can't take it for granted. your point is absolutely correct that it's worth taking stock of what the nature of this trial is. this isn't a splintered group where we have seen, for instance, janet reno when she was head of the department and brought cases involving domestic terrorism. merrick garland did as well in the oklahoma bombing case. but those were quite different because they were not led by a president, now former president

of the united states with the support of so many millions of people. so this sort of unimaginable is now imaginable. that's really the import of this case. but again, it is important to remember that at trial, while it's easy for us to read bigger things into it, at the end of the day, it does come down to did the government set out enough proof to establish beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of a crime as to each person. so it is very much a factual call by the jury on those issues. but it's inevitable that you think about the larger picture and scheme that's going on outside of the courtroom. >> ryan reilly, i believe we still have a couple minutes with you. what are you hearing is going on inside the courtroom? >> reporter: the jury is now in

the room. i think we're talking about momentarily here. remember, it's going to take them a little while to get through the number of charges here. it's five defendants. they'll go through several of them. rhodes is guilty. stewart rhodes is guilty of seditious conspiracy is the verdict we just came in with the first one. so they're going through them now. that's a good sign, obviously, for the government. i think the other charges are the ones where there's a little more possibility. i think the rhodes one, i can say this confident because it's come in, i think the rhodes one was the one that that was going to be one the government would succeed on. i do think there was some mystery as to potential for reasonable doubt on some of these other charges in terms of seditious conspiracy. so we have to see whether or not the doj gets a clean sweep here. first seditious conspiracy charge, guilty for stewart rhodes is certainly a huge win for the government here. >> ryan reilly, we know so much

about stewart rhodes' intent both from the evidence produce friday this trial, and i believe some of his former close associates and family members, even his ex-wife talked about stewart rhodes going to washington waiting for trump to invoke the insurrection act. this was truly a ringleader of the goings-on, if you will, the criminal conduct of january 6th. talk about the significance of a guilty verdict from a jury on stewart rhodes of seditious conspiracy. >> it's significant because the government had so much evidence before and after january 6th of his intent here. he kept trying to get in touch with donald trump. before he was trying to get in touch with donald trump, meeting with potentially a member of the secret service. on january 6th itself, there was another person who he tried to get in touch with, a trump confidant whose identity we still don't know. afterwards he communicated a message to someone who he thought was going to send that message along to donald trump

and essentially tell them that they were ready and willing to step up to help him -- to help donald trump use force to stay in power. so they really did have a ton of evidence including some recordings that were made secretly by an individual who later cooperated with the fbi after the january 6th attack. i believe this was around january 10th when this individual secretly recorded rhodes talking about how he wished they had brought guns on january 6th and how, if he could do it all over again, he would have strung up nancy pelosi from a lamp post. i think that rhetoric along with all this evidence of planning was what really got the jury to a guilty verdict on the rhodes seditious conspiracy charge here. >> ryan, you're staying with us. wave to us when you have more information from this jury. we're covering the breaking news. the jury has found stewart rhodes, oath keepers founder and leader guilty of seditious conspiracy. it is the most serious charge that has been leveled at any of

the insurrectionists, people in and around the capitol on january 6th, and the government has reprald. joining us now, someone who has been in the courtroom for every bit of this. former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst glenn kirschner. your reaction to this guilty verdict for stewart rhodes. >> nicolle, i felt a sense of relief when i heard my friend ryan -- we spent weeks and weeks in the courtroom, when he announced that the jury has contradicted stewart rhodes of the lead charge, seditious conspiracy. that's important for so many reasons. one, it carries with it up to 20 years in prison. let's face it. you can only confine a person for but one lifetime. i'm sure the jury is in the process of announcing additional charges on the remaining charges against rhodes and then they'll move on to his co-defendants. it's not only important because elmer stewart rhodes has been

held accountable for trying to violently overthrow the government or to use violence to stop the execution of the laws of the united states. there's a real atmospheric value in a guilty verdict of a seditious conspiracy charge. the last time the federal government tried it was back in 2010-2012 in michigan. those charges didn't even make it to the jury. so this is going to have some really important ripple effects. >> glenn, to your point, i believe ryan has more. ryan. >> reporter: that's right. so one of the headlines out of this, across the board they got guilty verdicts for the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting for all five defendants. it was a mixed verdict when it came to seditious conspiracy. two have been found guilty of seditious conspiracy. that's stewart rhodes as well as kelly meggs, the head of the

oath keepers chapter in florida. the other three were found not guilty on the seditious conspiracy charge according to our producer daniel barnes inside the courtroom right now. the obstruction of an official proceeding charge, a mixed verdict there. essentially doj got the obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting charge across the board for all five defendants. nobody is going home with no jail time after this one is basically one of the headlines. it was a mixed verdict when it came to the seditious conspiracy charge. that's the result of the amount of evidence we saw against some of these defendants. for the three defendants found not guilty of seditious conspiracy, there wasn't a ton of evidence that they had preplanned a lot of this in terms of actually planning to storm the capitol. what i would note is that two of these individuals who took the stand were found not guilty, but stewart rhodes, that didn't help him, taking the stand.

he was convicted even though he took the stand in his own defense. i think we're going to hear a verdict shortly on the jessica watkins count, an individual who pushed up against officers inside. she admitted guilt to that charge on the stand. at the end of closing arguments in this case, her attorney just said, go right back there and find her guilty on that count. i believe we should be hearing soon about whether or not they did that. i think that was sort of in the basket for doj before the jury even started deliberations. >> glenn, your reaction to, as ryan is reporting, a clean sweep on obstruction of an official proceeding and two defendants found guilty of seditious conspiracy, kelly meggs and stewart rhodes. >> that makes sense because rhodes and meggs were very much leaders of the conspiracy. frankly, some of the most vay lechbt and some of the most

outrageous text messages and signal post chats came from stewart rhodes and kelly meggs. they were clearly two of the leaders of the conspiracy. the other defendants did come across as followers. now, not surprisingly, as a former career prosecutor, i would say there was enough evidence to hold them all accountable as co-conspirators. there's another added benefit, nicolle, of the jury taking this thoughtful approach, convicting on some counts and acquitting on thoers. what that says is these defendants got a fair trial and this jury was not so overwhelmed and prejudiced against these defendants that they threw up their hands and said we're convicting everybody of everything. this actually will something strengthen the case on appeal across the board. >> andrew weissmann, your reaction to five of five being found guilty of obstruction of

an official proceeding and two of them on seditious conspiracy. >> i agree that it's going to help on appeal for the government, that there is this consideration of individuals -- individual factual circumstances. it also is the case that sometimes when you are a defendant who has -- where there's less proof against you, where you might have been convicted if it was a trial just against you, you're kind of benefited when there's someone a whole lot worse. >> the laws of relativity. >> it actually happens because the jury says this top person, they're guilty. it's nothing compared to what the proof is against me. that happens quite a bit. i think it's really important, though, to go back to basics here which is the top defendant was convicted of the top count

which is seditious conspiracy. i can assure you that the government is not viewing this as a split verdict. a split verdict is when serious criminals walk out the door and you have this sinking pit in your stomach that you didn't do your job and you think about all of the other things you could do and should have done so change that result. in this situation, as mentioned, no one is going home, and the most serious participants in this seditious conspiracy have been found guilty. that is going to make the department of justice feel very relieved, gratified by the jury verdict, and i think it's going to strengthen their -- and stiffen their backbone in terms of their upcoming work, whether it's the d.c.u.s. attorney's office that's now completely charged with the people who were participating on that day in

storming the capitol or whether you're in the special counsel's office and you're thinking that the jury is capable of making this decision and holding people to account, particularly when you're focusing on the people who actually instigated what was happening here today that the jury just convicted. >> ryan reilly, we have all benefited from your coverage, your journalism on this story. you are in a league of your own in terms of how you have covered this and brought this trial to all of us. i want to sort of go back to the beginning. take me through all of the verdicts, everything we have learned so far and let's just slow this down. stewart rhodes, go either by the conviction or by the individual for us. >> reporter: absolutely. so seditious conspiracy, that was stewart rhodes and kelly meggs found guilty. the conspiracy to obstruct an

official proceeding that was kelly meggs and jessica watkins. obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting, all five defendants. in terms of the conspiracy to prevent an officer from discharging duties, all the defendants but stewart rhodes and alcohol mass caldwell were found guilty. on the charge of destruction of government property and aiding and abetting, not guilty verdicts for three defendants there. those were the only three who actually faced that charge. jessica watkins found guilty on the one charge of civil disorder that we had spoken to earlier. four of the defendants, everyone except for jessica watkins were found guilty of the charge of tampering with documents or proceeding and aiding and abetting for their conduct there. overall, i think this is -- doj is going to look at this as a victory. of course, they got those obstruction of an official proceeding charges against all five of these defendants.

but like we've discussed on the air, i do think this goes to the credibility of d.c. juries. they're taking a lot of heat from defense attorneys in this case. this is something they say, that d.c. jurors can't be trusted with these cases, too partisan, too biassed, too many voted for biden. when you go through the voir dire process and eliminate people who have obvious biases or can't decide a case fairly, you end up with a jury who can look at the facts and evaluate this on a pretty fair basis. like was mentioned before, on appeal that's definitely going to benefit the government here because you have those mixed verdicts. it's evidence that the jury very closely followed the proceedings over the course of a month and a half of a lot of really in depth testimony and came to what they thought was the most logical conclusion based on the facts as they were presented.

previously we've seen juries have hung on cases involving january 6th. but i don't think -- i'm going to have to check myself on this. i think this might be the first cquittals on any charges in terms of the jury trials thus far. overall i would say it's definitely a victory for doj, it is also interesting that the jurors clearly looked at the evidence and thought that there was reasonable doubt on some of these charges that were brought forward. but overall, i think the headline is definitely that doj got two of the defendants onto seditious conspiracy and got all five of them on the obstruction charge. >> ryan, as someone who has been on this story and on this trial since the beginning, any sort of personal dangling part sippals here that you want to go run down. what stood out to you personally in having watched every moment of this?

>> i think the verdict largely makes sense. i can see the logic they followed here based on the evidence as it was presented. i thought that the stewart rhodes case, that was pretty much a slam dunk for doj, but there definitely was a mixed record about whether or not some of these other defendants intended to violently overthrow the government and actually preplanned that or this was more of a spontaneous think. kelly meggs, separating him out because of the amount of violent rhetoric he came out with also makes a lot of sense. the logic that jurors applied here does make sense in terms of who they chose to found guilty of seditious conspiracy and who they found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, which didn't indicate there was a ton of preplanning on their part. the proud boys trial, when that starts up, that will be a whole different ball game. i think there's a lot more evidence of pre planning to actually physically storm the u.s. capitol in that case that

we've seen represented thus far. >> ryan reilly, thank you. i know you have reporting to go do. thank you for your coverage on this. >> no problem. let me bring in joyce nance, former u.s. attorney, from the university of alabama school of law. i'm looking at the charges. to ryan's point, kelly meggs and i think jessica watkins, this jury found them guilty -- no, kelly meggs, one, two, three, four, five charges for which meggs was found guilty, stewart rhodes -- a huge pileup of guilty convictions for doj today from this jury. >> this is an enormous win for the government. there are some plight verdicts. as a prosecutor, nicolle, you hate seeing a jury go out for a

holiday while they're in the middle of deliberations. that always slows things down. maybe that impacted the verdict here, maybe it didn't. this was a very solid result for the government. the last time seditious conspiracy was charged the case resulted in the judge dismissing the indictment because it's such a difficult, such an unusual sort of charge to bring. it involves an agreement, and that's the essence of a conspiracy indictment. it's an incoate crime. that means they didn't get it across the finish line. because congress has set forth the series of rules that say we're concerned about groups of individuals who agree to break the law, we have these statutes, but they can be tough to prove. i think andrew said this very appropriately. if you're going to charge seditious conspiracy, this is the case to do it in. these are people who tried to interfere with certification of

a presidential election, so the result today gives doj a little bit of momentum, a little bit of wind in its sails because it is clear that stewart rhodes is not the most culpable participant in the events on january 6th. there are people who are more accountable, people who had greater intent to interfere with the transfer of powers and now doj can go about that business having won this case. >> does jack smith look at this set of verdicts and guilty verdicts from a jury -- what does wind in the sails mean to jack smith? how does that manifest? >> so it's not strictly speaking a legal consideration. this is something you think about as a prosecutor. you know, what will a jury do? where will a jury convict based on my evidence? in this sort of a situation, the

convictions are a very strong science. it's good for justice, good for the country. it's a good sign for prosecutors. a loss here on this evidence with these facts is something that would have caused prosecutors to take a step back and to have concerns about where they're going next. there are more of these sorts of cases to try involving militias, but doj hasn't ventured, for instance, into the people working in the war rooms at the willard hotel, people who were making an effort to interfere. of course, folks inside of the white house. so this conviction i think gives people some confidence that juries will look at this evidence and convict. >> some of what you hear on the outside -- dangerous tossing around these terms. there's a novelty. a lot of movies about seditious conspiracy. does it start to lose its novelty when you have a trial yield this kind of result,

joyce? >> well, thank goodness there aren't a lot of prosecutions or stories involving seditious conspiracy, right? the problem with these charges, nicolle, prosecutors talk about left of boom. this notion when you're the fbi and investigating a militia group you don't want them to get to boone. you don't want them to have the bad thing to happen. your idea is to gather your evidence and implement it before the bad things ham. the problems has been that the fbi or investigating agency has been so far left of boom that judges or juries have been hostile of the case. there's not been enough evidence that the people intended to get to boom. that's not the problem in this situation. we know we came perilously close to boom on january 6th. i hear you saying that there's a risk that the novelty wears off. it's the same risk that we've

seen with these events all along. in some ways we're now numb to what happened on january 6th. this is doj's challenge, and their job right now is to educate the american people about the fact that their work is not done, the special counsel has miles to go before we can be comfortable that we've held people accountable for the crimes that were committed against our government and perhaps as importantly, created deterrence and maybe done work through the january 6th committee to deter any sort of future reputation of this sort of conduct. >> glenn kirschner, what happens now? what sorts of sentences are each likely to face? >> they're facing years and perhaps in stewart rhodes and kelly meggs' circumstance perhaps decades. the guideline calculations will be sorting out in the next couple weeks. joyce said this puts wind in the

sails of the department of justice moving forward. andrew says it stiffens the spine of doj prosecutors. i agree with both of those characterizations. what it also does is weakens the spines of the other defendants facing seditious conspiracy trials in the very near future. remember when we saw that infamous military style stack of oath keepers with hands on one another's shoulders breaching the capitol. the federal prosecutors have only prosecuted half of that stack. the other half is pending seditious conspiracy trials in the near future as are the proud boys. the other thing that these verdicts might do is it might cause those other defendants who are pending trial to think twice about whether they want to roll the dice and run the risk of being convicted and going to prison for decades or perhaps plead guilty and maybe even plead guilty with cooperation to assist the government to try to

reduce their exposure. >> glenn, i hesitate to do this with three former prosecutors, but i'll do it anyway. i've interviewed three of the capitol police officers, michael fanone, harry dunn and officer ganell. to me retraumatizes them still today is the denialism on the right, the crisis actor smears from fox news, the refusal to acknowledge their service or their injuries by house republicans, the refusal to bestow upon them medals and commendations for saving all of their lives, no elected officials of either party lost their lives or were physically harmed that day. what this jury verdict says to me is inside a courtroom facts still matter outside in the political arena, at least on the

right, they're fact immune. the fact that these officers can't break through. in a jury, in a courtroom facts still prevail. is that a fair thing to take from this verdict today? >> it absolutely is. you know, you can set aside the screams of fake news and the gratuitous attacks on public servants and you can look at how the jury resolved these cases against these defendants. i was in court watching harry dunn testify. when he was but one man guarding the hallway and the stairwell that led to the speaker's office, and he said and he testified that there were a group of people including oath keepers who were trying to get past him, and he said you will not get by me. i got public service goose bumps listening to harry dunn testify the way he did. he was not only a police officer that day and a heroic one at that, he was a victim. courtesy of these convictions, he will now have an opportunity

to make a victim impact statement to the judge when these defendants go to sentencing. i look forward to that as much as i look forward to his trial testimony. >> andrew, i wonder if you can weigh in on this. the democracy was the intended victim that day. but the people who laid their bodies down between the oath keepers and the proud boys and the trump supporters that showed up that day to halt the peaceful transfer of power and succeeded in some ways in delaying it, the victims of those crimes were harry dunn and michael fanone and officer ganell and brian sicknick and all of those officers. i think today this justice is very much for them and in service of their sacrifices and the truth that they have gone out there and really -- i'm sure unwillingly in a lot of instances entered the ugly nature of our politics to put the facts out there. how should this verdict be viewed in terms of what they've

sacrificed? >> well, the three of us who have been prosecutors, i would say one of the most, if not the most gratifying part of the job is seeing some vindication for crime victims and having them -- there's nothing that can take away what happened, but it can give them some comfort that the justice system has held those people to account and that there's also a record of what happened and that the jury has agreed with it. one of the beauties of the american system which a lot of countries do not have is we have a system wherever day citizens -- i'm sure all of us have been called to jury duty and it's decided not by experts or politicians, it's everyday

citizens listening to the evidence. it doesn't matter if the department of justice believes it, if they think people are guilty or not guilty. at the end of the day it's the public that gets to decide that's called to the jury to make that decision. i think the other thing is it really does, to joyce's point, help with deterring this in the future and trying to have this not repeat, that people see there is accountability for this kind of conduct that the people who may not deter everyone -- you may not deter someone like mr. rhodes, but the people who were sort of followerers, they see there are consequences to their actions. that's something that we should all be thankful to the department and the jury in reaching this kind of decision because it is something that

makes us all safer in the long run. >> joyce, this is -- and i understand mostly from the three of you that this was a trial about specific individuals, specific buckets of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a specific crime. we're in a moment where countering extremism and deradicalizing like mr. ayers who testified before the january 6th committee, is an urgent domestic security priority. talk about the verdict in that context. >> andrew's point i think is a very savvy one. something anyone who has been involved in dealing with domestic terror organizations know is they're very fragile. this isn't the solidity of the ku klux klan which was disassembled in a lawsuit by the southern poverty law center. they bankrupted the klan.

the history in the south and other parts of the country as well has been shifting the formations of different groups, smaller groups with different goals. they seem to come together for a time, but they can be easily dissuaded from staying together. these are not brave or courageous people. they are very fearful. a successful prosecution can discourage them, can deter them from continuing with their efforts. to glenn pointed out that the sentence that stewart rhodes faces here could be decades. the seditious conspiracy statute carries a penalty of 20 years in prison. that's the statutory maximum. we know that he'll be sentenced other a vehicle called the sentencing guidelines which typically calls for a lighter sentence than the statutory maximum. but in this case i would expect those guideline ranges to be very high because of the seriousness of the crimes and some of the factors in play including the use of force and violence here.

so others who are out there who are thinking about continuing in that sort of vane will be deterred, by the verdict and the sentencing coming up. does it mean they'll change their ideology? it might not mean they'll back off. but it means they'll be less likely to adopt this sort of violence to carry out their aims. that's a very important goal for the justice department, to tamp down on that sort of violence and make sure our communities are safer as we move forward. >> let me do something here, it wasn't part of our plan but breaking news intervened. i want to add ceo and national director of the anti-defamation league, jonathan greenblatt and eddie glaude chair of african american studies at princeton university and msnbc political analyst. jonathan, we were going to have a slightly different conversations, but this is very much on topic. when you lead to glenn and andrew and joyce talk about the

ripples from a guilty verdict like the one today for mr. rhodes and mr. meggs of seditious conspiracy, and you think about the fact that elected republicans like marjorie taylor greene, newly elected senator j.d. vance, twice impeached ex-president donald trump, they've described them as political prisoners. what do you think in terms of countering political radicalism and political extremism, today's guilty verdict may or may not be able to help with. >> i would agree with your guests. this is an incredibly important verdict. the oath keepers have been one of the largest and most problematic groups within the armed militia movement in the united states since their founding in 2009. the convictions here, especially stewart rhodes, the yale-educated stewart rhodes, putting him down this way is a

crushing blow, this dangerous extremist group. rhodes was able to articulate an ideology that attracted, and adls studied this, so have other groups, attracted hundreds of active and retired law enforcement, military, elected officials, emergency responders, the view they're faj ill is not something we would entirely agree with. in fact, they were reasonably well penetrated in parts of our establishment. nonetheless, despite their claims to be upholding the constitution on january 6th, these verdicts show that when push came to shove, rhodes and his followers were more than willing to thwart the constitution, to trash it, to trample on it in order to stop an election outcome that they despised. so i believe that this is important because the oath keepers are the largest armed militia group in the country. cutting the head off the snake

is going to do a lot of damage to them, and i think we'll have cascading effects on other groups. the analyst who mentioned earlier, nicolle, about the likelihood that this may prompt some of the other militia members currently on trial or pending trial to work with the government, i think that's a smart and savvy point, and i hope that turns out to be correct. >> eddie glaude, i keep thinking that it is so out of body to be covered a seditious conspiracy trial where the seditious conspirators, part of their defense was, well, we were only there because donald trump asked us to be there, we were watching our phones waiting for him to invoke the insurrection act. we thought that's what he was going to do. we know that from an interview on cnn that stewart rhodes's ex-wife has done. i believe that was part of the story he told that led to this guilty conviction today. this doesn't exist in a vacuum.

the conversation you and jonathan and i were going to have was about white supremacist nick fuentes and kanye, whatever he goes by now, being at mar-a-lago, and frankly, those are the three least interesting parts of that story. it's the very difficult time the republican party had condemning any or all of them. certain members, certain elected officials condemned one of the three. no one was able to vigorously confront donald trump's embrace of white supremacists and anti-semites, and that is still alive and well in america today. >> absolutely. i thought joyce's point was so important, that this conviction frees the justice department to go after more central characters. i think it's important for the american public to understand certain folks are being held to account. but the real actors, the people behind this must also be held to

account. because stewart rhodes -- those folks are going to be martyred, they'll enter into an information ecosystem that's going to render them as particular kinds of characters, just like matt gaetz and others are talking about the political prisoners of those who attacked the capital on jan 6. rhodes and megs and these other folks will get characterized in a particular sort of way in light of that narrative. if doj continues to move forward and to go after those major actors, now we're beginning to get deeper -- get to the heart of the matter. until we get to the heart of the matter, we may cut off this head, but we know what greek mythology suggests, other heads will grow, many actually. >> what is the heart of the matter, eddie? >> we've got to get to trump. we've got to get to donald trump because he's at the heart of it. just to be most explicit. and in the context of the discussions that we were going to have, there are folks trying

to put the genie back in the bottle by condemning the loud racists. those folks are the ones that let it out. we need to understand their role and how implicated they are in the current state of affairs of the country. >> jonathan greet blat, two days don't go by and we go back to donald trump tweeting out anti-semitic and racist comments. i said why don't mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy -- you made the point that mitch mcconnell doesn't condemn racist attacks against his wife. here we are. this has nothing to do with the three underemployed heinous individuals with abhorrent belief systems, it's a part of the story we don't focus enough on. that was just how difficult and

how slow -- every elected official has a twitter account and nobody condemned him. donald trump is at his political weakest, the six-time loser. he's cost the republicans the senate twice. he hasn't won anything since '16, and they can't attack him forcefully for associating with racists and anti-semites? what do we do? >> in all honesty, that's not attacking. that's a fact-based analysis. that is indeed deeply troubling. as you said, this was sort of a d list reality show, these three people at mar-a-lago. it's sad if nothing else. i do think we've got to be careful. the more oxygen we give it, we give them a kind of strength. we shouldn't even validate these people anymore. i love how the "new york post" covered his announcement he was running again. they said florida man running for president. that's how we should think about

him. he doesn't deserve our time. to your point, it is indeed hard to fathom how in today's political climate people have a hard time simply calling out hate and holding accountable those individuals. i'll tell you what. one thing we know is that -- donald trump knew who nick fuentes was. you can't get into mar-a-lago without submitting the names of people who are coming. there are secrete service agents there who look it up. people on all sides know who these individuals are. what we need to reckon with is why is it that it is still so difficult to push them out? i believe there's this idea, nicolle, that white nationalists are part of some kind of electoral coalition. here is a reality check. they're not. there are far more good people in this country who reject this racism, this anti-semitism, and we need to ask our leaders to dig a little bit deep and find

their better angels and simply do what, by the way, geo leadership did for not just decades, generations, and call out this kind of sludge, this kind of garbage. it's long overdue to happen again. >> let's leave the three yahoos out of this. kevin mccarthy is running for speaker. he plans to reinstate marjorie taylor greene and paul gosar's committee assignments. they were at nick fuentes erasist fest, america first something. what is the solution today for a leader in the republican party who is about to restore and reward two associates of nick fuentes, jonathan. >> i think the way i would look at this, this is the perfect opportunity for a speaker mccarthy to once and for all push these people out of the spotlight. resign them to the despot of

history where they belong. i would love to see and i would hope we'd see that kind of leadership. the reality of america today is racism and anti-semitism and hate is corroding our society. it is tearing at the fabric that holds this continue together. i'm hoping, i'm hoping that kevin mccarthy, mitch mcconnell, that these leaders will say, you know what, we don't need this anymore and make a clean break. that's what the public so desperately wants to see. >> i love hope. i have said this to eddie. i believe it is the gateway to despair. do you think that will happen, jonathan? >> i am hopeful, and you've got to be hopeful coming out of this verdict. you've got to be hopeful to watch one of the most dangerous armed militia groups get dismantled today by the court. you've got to be hopeful when you see other republicans, even if not speaker mccarthy or minority leader mcconnell have

called him out. we've got to find the hope, nicolle. if we just stay in despair, we'll never get through this. let's hope that the better angels finally find themselves and bring the gop current leadership through this moment where we desperately need them to get. >> eddie glaude, a who lot of republican members including a lot of trump former staffers and pardon recipients, people like roger stone, use members of the oath keepers for security. this is a republican party up to their eyeballs in oath keepers. do you have hope they'll put some distance between themselves and members of militia groups? >> i think they're going to try to do so. but i think we need to understand it's a crude political calculus. they're going to try to banish the loud racists to the margins once again. that doesn't mean they're not going to appeal to white grievance and white fear. it's been a staple of the

republican playbook. it's been a staple of american politics, to appeal to white grievance and white fear as a way to gain power. so it's easy to denounce stewart rhodes. it's a great decision today, but no one is denouncing stephen miller and what he was doing during the midterms, sending out all kinds of incendiary racist -- the ads against mandela barnes and what was going on in north carolina. unless we get that aspect of our politics under control, get that out, this appeal -- this dog whistling. it became a fog horn out of late. unless we get that out of our politics, we'll find ourselves here once again. let me

escalators. we need to understand him for who he is and the folks who support him for who they are. >> the militia members and the racists and white supremacists is understood him for who he was since he came down the escalators. all trump supporters are not white supremacists, but but all white supremacists, everyone i've seen declare a preference was for trump, not biden and kamala harris. to eddie's larger point, how does today's verdict and the future trials against specific proud boys outside the courtroom, how does that impact recruitment? how does that work to delegitimatize these extremist groups? >> i think today's verdict spoke loudly and spoke truthfully. because what these five defendants did, three of them

testified and told the jury, we are patriots. the election was stolen. it was unconstitutional. therefore we are the patriots and we had to put things right. and 12 members of their own community, at least figuratively speaking -- 12 citizens sitting in a jury box said to these five defendants, no, you are not patriots, you are traitors. and that is a message that needs to be blasted out, you know, all across america loudly and often to try to drown out all of the hate and the white supremacy and the anti-semitism that these nefarious actors continue to throw into the public square. >> andrew weissman, i'm looking at my sheet of convictions, and obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abet was the one the doj went 5 for 5 on. in a related matter, obstruction

of an official proceeding is the criminal statute that liz cheney cited almost one year ago in january of last year in her discussions of the evidence. she believed the committee had and would marshall against donald trump. do you believe jack submit will -- for the official crime of aiding and abetting? >> absolutely. and obstruction is something that's going to be i think central to the department of justice considerations, both with respect to the january 6th investigation are the expect reason the jury convicted here, and with respect to the mar-a-lago documents case. those are clearly going to be important. and to give a little bit of substance to the sort of phrase that joyce and i have been using about sort of wind in the sails and -- it is really going to be

something that the department is going to be -- i think thinks i think the same way eddie thinks, which is it's not enough to get the people who are sort of at that congress entering the capitol on january 6th when the leaders who have caused that to happen have not been held the account. and the reason you become a prosecutor is because you want the make sure the sort of lower level people, even somebody like stewart rhodes, who's not a sort of grassroots level, that he is not the end, that you will feel like your mission is not accomplished if you stop there. and you really want to be working to the very top. and to your point, nicole, that is the former president. and i have to say for mark meadows, this is a very bad verdict, because it is going to lead the department to think they can bring these charges, they can win these charges, and it is not justice to just have

the people who are doing their bidding being held to account when the people who are sort of firing the gun have not been held to account. and i think that is how they will be thinking in terms of their work and establishing the proof for those people at the top of the food chain. >> yeah, i mean, that is such an interesting insight into how prosecutors think and really sort of the idealism, right? you don't go after a drug dealer on a corner. you get the drug dealer and then you go after, you know, the boss. and you don't go after mob operative. you try to get to the mob leader. with january 6th you don't just go after the people in formation, you go after the people who invited them there, sent them there, and was furious he couldn't be there with them. joyce, i wonder, merrick garland, the most interesting thing he said in the announcement of jack smith at

special counsel was when he said the mission was focused on the non-stewart rhodes type prosecutions, the people who were not at the capitol on that day. what you think -- of the investigation? >> i agree with andrew that this is a strong sign for doj to move forward. and here's the point -- in reality, where we are right now is we are assessing whether donald trump, who succeeded for four years in avoiding any form of accountability for his conduct -- whether donald trump can beat our institutions -- in many ways, jack smith's special counsel investigation is donald trump versus the institutions and rule of raw in this country. and there are a lot of people who have lost faith that our institutions can live up to their billing as creating a country where no man is above the law. there are a lot of watchful eyes to see if our institutions are able to pick up the challenge that donald trump has created.

you know, today's verdict doesn't get us all the way there. doesn't mean that donald trump will be indicted by the special counsel for charges related to january 6th. but it gives me a rare moment of optimism here, and part of that is the convictions here not for sedition conspiracy, but for obstruction of governmental functions. that sort of a charge has always been a key focus for donald trump's role here. and i think that's where we'll see the special counsel focus his efforts as regard to january 6th and trump. >> i don't know if you all know how extraordinary you are, but for spending the last two hours with me, i am deeply grateful. when the camera's not on me i write wow after the things you say. my deep, deep thanks. quick break for us. we'll be right back. r us we'll be right back.

you've put your dreams on hold. remember this? but i spoke to our advisor, and our vanguard investments are on track. “we got this, babe.” so go do what you love. thanks for being our superhero. only at vanguard, you're more than just an investor—you're an owner. giving you flexibility to follow your dreams. that's the value of ownership.

nicorette knows, quitting smoking is freaking hard. g you get advice like: to follow your dreams. just stop. go for a run. go for 10 runs! run a marathon. instead, start small. with nicorette. which can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette. the first time your sales reached 100k was also the first time you hit this note... ( screams in joy) save 20% with the lowest transaction fees and keep more of what you make. with a partner that always puts you first. godaddy. tools and support for every small business first.

thank you so much for letting us into your homes

during the whirlwind