hi there, everyone. the january 6 select committee changed the public face of the investigation forever. in his aided and elevating the issue of democracy to a top voting issue in the midterm elections, it is connected the dots between donald trump's lies and the violence on january 6 and it has presented a mountain of evidence to the public that strongly suggests donald trump committed crimes when he saw to obstruct the work of congress on january 6. the investigation included taped depositions or interviews of more than 1,000 witnesses. the vast majority of them trump allies and life long republicans. they have reviewed hundreds of thousands of records and chased down hundreds of tips and now it is time for the select committee's final act on that front, the committee still has some momentous decisions to make. the committee is shifting gears after interviewing its likely

last witness, wisconsin house speaker robin voss who faced pressure from donald trump as recently as july of this year to overturn the election results from 2020 in his state. he spoke to the committee on wednesday. i think that's it. that's the last subpoena that you've done, thompson said, in an interview. indicating that the committee had now turned to finalizing its report. legislative recommendations and more explosive final decisions including whether to make criminal referrals for witness tampering, perjury or contempt of congress. the committee also has to decide if the man at the center of the plot to overturn the 2020 election, the twice impeached disgraced ex-president himself, will be referred to the justice department for prosecution. a subcommittee within the panel is set to present its recommendations on that question tomorrow. according to news reports. the committee now has to contend with what can be described as a threat to their investigation

from within. from their own colleagues in the house. "the new york times" reports this, quote, representative kevin mccarthy, the california republican who is attempting to become the next house speaker, on wednesday warned the special committee investigating the january 6, 2021 attack on the capitol and plan to launch an inquiry of their own next year when republicans assume control of the chamber. this was the first official indication that newly empowered house republicans plan not only to end the inquiry at the start of the new congress but also to attempt to dismantle and discredit its findings. the latest piece of a broader effort the party has undertaken over the past two years to deny, down play, or shift blame for the deadly attack by a pro trump mob. members of congress from the party that once claimed that january 6 was, quote, legitimate political discourse, now investigate the investigators,

sound familiar? the attack that endangered all of them. they were running too. right? if only in an attempt to muddy the waters, please trump and obscure their own roles in practically every aspect of the deadly january 6 insurrection. a role which the committee has already laid out in painstaking detail for the american people. watch. on december 21st, some republican members of congress met with president trump in the white house to talk about overturning the 2020 election. >> were you talking to specific persons? >> he ordered john clark's takeover. >> are you aware about any members of congress --

had. >> major questions with major consequences for the country and the january 6 select committee is where we begin today. "new york times" congressional reporter who has been all over this story from the start, luke broadwater is here. hairy litman, former u.s. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, he is the host of the podcast "talking feds." and tim miller is back. writer at large for the bull work and also an msnbc contributor. luke, take me inside this final act of the select committee. >> yeah. just spoke with chairman thompson in the hallway about a half hour ago. and, you know, they're getting ready for this meeting tomorrow where liz cheney, jamie raskun and adam sciff who you're going to have on the show later, chairman thompson told us that,

you know, they're not just looking at criminal referrals about donald trump, but at other allies and actors. he said basically anybody they've come across in the course of their investigation. they're also going to be discussing at that meeting tomorrow how to finalize they have several decisions to make about what to put in, what to leave in the appendixes and then, of course, there's the matter of releasing all the transcripts. he said they're still going through and redacting those people whose identities need to be protected. so the redactions are taking some time. but for the most part, he said you'll see every single word of every single interview that we

had with every witness transcribed. >> so much of the work has been for the sole purpose of what you just described, transparency. what is it that house republicans are trying to do? out them sneflz. >> kevin mccarthy is trying to become speaker. it is his life long ambition to being the speaker of the house. he doesn't have the votes right now. there are certain members of the caucus on the right who really want to relitigate january 6 and they want to do it in a way that looks more favorable to donald trump and places blame elsewhere. not on trump. and so he is trying to shore up the votes by announcing this investigation. he also personally angry at the committee and has been for some time. remember, he refused the subpoena of him. he refuseded to comply. he's angry that they -- nancy

pelosi wouldn't allow two allies to sit on the committee. and so this is very personal to him. and he's vowing to try to, you know, get people in trouble for perjury or lying to congress. in that letter there was bate of -- a bit of a threat. i asked chairman thompson if he would respond to his letterhe? sort of laughed and said he had more business to attend to than to respond. but he said his -- the concerns are misplaced because everything will be put out. there will be no cover-up. the public will get to see the transcripts, good to see what questions were asked and how they were answered. >> chairman thompson laughing at kevin mccarthy is the mike drop moment. he is laughingstock. i mean, the number of house republicans who retain defense counsel when the committee began its work, the number of house republicans have been exposed by the committee's work. even if they couldn't reach

them. even if they respond to bipartisan subpoenas from the body in which they serve. certainly indicates that any effort to investigate the select committee whose entire purpose for existing was to put into the public arena the facts of the deadly insurrection. i would say bring it on. six months of hearings into this select committee. knock yourself out, kevin. >> that's exactly my response, too. i mean i guess it is unfortunate for some folks that have to get attorneys or whatever to deal with pointless subpoenas that kevin and his special committee or whatever they call it would submit. to me, this seems like an empty threat. it is meant, you know, either to express kevin's own personal frustration and venting or the strategic effort to win over a couple of the votes as luke said to get to 218. i found it hard to believe they'll do this. if they do it, it's a political disaster.

the worst case, the worst thing the republicans can possibly do is have investigations that relitigated january 6th again. it's like they learned nothing from the election deniers to the candidates that try to relitigate january 6 that got swept in overwhelming fashion by the vote ers. i think even if they don't do that, they'll do something equally silly. i was on a conference call i got invited to that had mick mulvaney on it. and mulvaney is like one of the more normal guys around mccarthy. he was advocating for the politicalization of the fib fun and the raid on mar-a-lago. again, this isn't louie calling for that or matt gaetz this was the team normal members of kevin's congress. this is kevin and mulvaney both

suggesting this now within the last two weeks. and so to me it seems that they are dead set on doing some kind of self harm, you know, via absurd investigations that i think will turn off the voters that just in large part rejected them in the mud terms. >> in very large part. i want to turn back to something that i think luke said, congressman will be our guest in a few minutes. but something that she is not likely to engage on. we can do it here in advance of that. and that, is you know, the committee down plays the legal significance of a criminal referral. the political significance is nothing short of a bombshell. and they have never at any junk tour ruled out criminal referrals. i know they have deliberated among themselves. but in some ways, harry, i mean judge carter already criminally referred donald trump and john eastman for criminal investigation. i want to show you the comments

they have produced. in this category of criminality on the part of donald trump. >> i think there is evidence of the former president engaged in multiple violations of the law. and that should be investigated. >> the justice department doesn't have to wait for the committee to make a referral. there can be more than one criminal referral. >> just get to the bottom for us with the real impact is inside doj. when a congressional committee refers someone criminally. >> not just any committee. you saw two of the four, schiff, raskin and i think for referrals, nicole, you need to divide it into two different categories. one is things like contempt where congress is the victim. and there really are the congress speaker that you mentioned, the members. you could add to that brooks,

gomert, perry, mccarthy, people that have not cooperated with the committee. it looks to me like thompson isn't going that direction. but that would be something that doj would really sit up and take notice of because congress is the victim. for something like donald trump referral, mark meadows, anything else, it will certainly be a shot heard around the world. but it will have less independent impact within doj because they'll take the view we're doing that independently that is congress is just one other body giving us information and please before you it on as fast and as much as you can. we're already very much about the business of looking deeply into that. so the first question is going to be are they referring for a crime for which congress or the committee us self were victims i remember the very giveng the select committee's work.

eric holder was on this program. and he said something that at the time didn't mean as much much to me as it means now. and what he articulated is the committee through its work and its public facing work might in some ways sort of socialize or familiarize the public with the much more opaque and secretive work of the justice department if it pursues these same things. here is liz cheney socializing the public with trump's crimes. >> president trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. the strategy is to blame people his advisors call quote, the crazies for what donald trump did. this, of course, is nonsense. president trump is a 76-year-old man. he is not an impressionable child. donald trump made a purposeful choice to violate his oath of

office. to ignore the on going violence against law enforcement, to threaten our constitutional order. there is no way to excuse that behavior. it was indefensible. >> harry litman, she has read from criminal code and we all have covered and watched the successful prosecution of the oath keepers for several of them among other things. the crime of obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting. what is the likelihood that this has an impact on what may or may not happen at doj? >> the whole point and the point you make are great ones. that is the socialization and another thing i would put in that category is this week's conviction against the oath keepers that really make people like mccarthy, perry gomert made

a protest look like nuts or even monstrous. so i you this it's true. the department would hold itself out to considering facts independently. but the fact that i think more and more, not 100%, there is 30% who believe in the big lie. but more and more people in society understand the attack for what it was and understand trump's rule that is really due to the meticulous evidence fact based work of the committee. they've done the country a great service in that respect. and it does kind of bed the soil as it were at the department of justice to bring forward indictment. now that's, of course, january 6. that is many months down the line. of course, we'll be hearing about mara log yoe, i think. >> luke, talk about the face that's became familiar to astute viewers of the public hearingses

were the former doj attorneys and real prosecutors. just talk about their work product and how much they influence what is in this final report. it's my understanding from chairman thompson. you heard me talk to him, doj will receive everything at the same time as the public. is that right? >> yes. that's correct. of that's what he said. it's going to be a public release. so rs you know, i'm not sure if they're going to send it especially to doj, maybe they will. but it will be a public release where all evidence will come out for the public to see as well as the justice department. two former top u.s. attorneys. the investigations that conducted this investigation, these were serious people doing serious work. they knew how to build a cause

and they knew wouldn't speak they could go to somebody else in the room or someone lower on the ladder thoor person's assistant and get them to speak. once they had evidence from that person, they could use it from the next person. so they really built the cases up and each of the various teams headed by different attorneys has written different chapters the report based on their investigation or submissions for chapters. that's what the committee will be deciding tomorrow is what will make the cut and go into an appendix or not. so, yeah, you're going to see series of investigative work. probably heard a hot of it already at the hearings. they did produce so much of the hearings. we're going to have new stuff, i've been told. there will be new findings and some new revelations in this report. >> tony ornado was in this week. this investigation was very much on going. you know, it was thursday. he was in on tuesday.

what is the sense of whether or not, you know, the committee came out and publicly accused the secret service. some in the secret service of lying. congressman kinsinger did it here. will the committee get to the bottom who have they believe lied to them? >> i'm not sure what will make the final report. but they have now reinterviewed everybody involved with that secret service matter about donald trump attempting to go to the capitol. they reinterviewed tony arnado. they interviewed other people in the motorcade in addition to cassidy hutchison. they have an understanding now where everybody heard what everybody said. they've been asked a second or third time. it is my understanding that some people's memories failed them.

so that may be what there may be mention of that in the report and we'll certainly see that in the transcripts when they come out. who got amnesia at convenient times and who had detauld memory of events. robin voss came in about him trying to overturn the election a year later. and he add muted he lost the election. so you can see how even the interviews this week may affect the final report in the different avenues of the investigation. >> tim, you've been out in the country ahead of the mud terms. and the big lie affected our democracy, affected states like arizona and candidates and the

republican loser in that race is the only one that hasn't conceded her defeat s that right? and i think it's something notable that the refusal to concede that donald trump ushered in. but just talk about the impact of what he did. what it had on republican politics across our country. >> yeah. so it's unambiguously big thing. there is only one or two and the secretary as state well imitators of trump that are going along with this rhetorical and following losses. there is a sad element to this and relates both to the committee and what is happening out in the country. all of these people and the grown-up that's want to be leaders in this country, they

were all in on a big joke. trump knew, everyone knew, even the cookiest canned dauts they candidates revealed they don't really believe that dominion machines were recounting votes or the chinese bamboo ballots, and go down the line. none of them believe it. here's the problem. a lout of the voters do. when i was going to the events in pennsylvania and arizona, you talk to people. you hear from people afterwards that they -- that this was their number one issue. they were radicalized by this and hard to measure the negative impact, what that is going to immediate going into 2024, what that means about a lack of trust in our institutions, you know, random acts of violence. all of that. it's extremely sad that we got to this place.

they've been lied to over and over again. this is a dangerous radicalization spiral. >> stephen airs, the embodyment of what tim is describing. he is the select committee's witness who was an insurrectionist that realized it was all lies and literally the puppet whose strings were being pulled by his own testimony by trump's tweets. time to go home and the 5:00 or 6:00 hour, he goes home. what tim is saying we know is true. the broader point to bring it sort of ahead to the looming threat is we got a bulletin yesterday about an on going

they're articulate bid trump and the trump -- i wouldn't say wing of the republican party. trump's image of the republican party. they're one in the same now. and the grievances do have an impact in people not trusting institutions and representing a threat, a extremist threat in this country. >> 100%. this is why kevin mccarthy is not a joke to me. he can in a series and jim jordan will be more of the same and worse just pound the gavel with things that everyone who knows anything believes is false. but i can tell you for a fact during some of the, you know, trump's most severe times in his presidency, former colleagues of mine used to getting up and saying nicole wallace for the united states and having credibility there actually felt that they walked into the courtroom at a disadvantage. it's about faith in justice systems and institutions. and these lies besides being

false and for political reasons, have an effect -- two effects. the potential of empowering really dangerous people and the more sort of sinister but and more difuse distrust in institutions which is the bottom line, the fact of trumpism that we're not really sure how to climb out of. >> truer words. tim miller, thank you. thank you for inspiring that part of our conversation and start is us off today. when we come back, congresswoman will join us and the work left ahead for the january 6 select committee. we'll dive into all of it with her. plus, a former associate of matt gaetz, former wing man, was today's sentence for sex trafficking among other crimes. he gave testimony against dozens of people to the garland justice department including the florida congressman matt gaetz. greenberg's attorney on what may be next for those he provided evidence and testified against. and later in the program, the

ex-president has evaded accountability for years and years and years. now his taxes are finally at long last in the hands of lawmakers. his former attorney michael cohen will join us on that. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. use" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. you could manufacture a whole new way of manufacturing.

you could show them how to transform a company ...not just how to run one. you could disrupt buying habits before they disrupt your business. and use technology better, instead of just using better technology. you could fire up a new generation of start-ups. diagnose problems before they become issues. and fuel the search for what comes next... so...what are you waiting for? go. baker tilly folks, it looks like we're gonna have to land this big old bird earlier than expected because it's the xfinity black friday sale. get the fastest mobile service with xfinity mobile. yeah, we'll be cruising in to get the best price for 2 lines of unlimited for just $30 each per month.

oh my! plus, for a limited time, get 500 dollars off an eligible 5g phone. even you in 22c. flight attendants, prepare for big savings. drop everything and get to the xfinity black friday sale. click, call or visit a store today. these days, our households depend on the internet more and more. families grow, houses get smarter, and our demands on the internet increase. that's why we just boosted speeds for over 20 million xfinity customers, on us. so you get more of the speed you need for day and night streaming. more speed you need when you're work from homeing. and more speed you need as your family keeps growing. check in on your current speed through the xfinity app today. i love all types of dancing... salsa, and even belly dancing! i am a triathlete. i've always been into health, and wellness, and fitness... i tried everything with diet and exercise, and nothing worked. there was just kinda this stubborn area on my stomach.

but coolsculpting worked for me! coolsculpting targets, freezes and eliminates treated fat for good. no needles, no incisions. discuss coolsculpting with your provider. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort and swelling. you've come this far... coolsculpting takes you further. visit coolsculpting.com i am disappointed by a number of prosecutions. i think that there's a number of prosecution that's can be brought in the area of the sba

fraud, the bribery and kick backs, election fraud and the sex cases. >> so that is the attorney for joel greenberg. joel greenberg is the former close associate and wing man, if you will, of republican congressman matt gaetz. today greenberg was sentenced by a federal judge to 11 years in prison for sex trafficking of a minor and other crimes. meanwhile, matt gaetz who's also being investigated by the same justice department for sex trafficking with a minor has not been charged over a year and a half into the investigation. he denies any wrongdoing. "the new york times" reports that greenberg he could prauted with -- cooperated in several investigations including the one with matt gaetz in hopes of a lesser prison sentence. fritz scheller claimed that justice department has not charged those who mr. greenberg

implicated who he gave them information about. joining our coverage, mike schmitt, msnbc national security contributor who read from the case and take us into what greenberg's attorney is alleging in terms of case that's have not been brought by the garland doj. >> i think what he's trying to say is that the justice department was able to make several cases out of information that was provided by joel greenberg. it also in court filings laid out how joel greenberg sex trafficking of minor was a major crime and a terrible thing that

happened and exploited him for it. what he's saying is if the justice department is going through such great lengths to do and say that about his client, why aren't they doing that with other individuals? >> it's bit of an unusual tactic to openly criticize the justice department. i think what he is truing to do here is trying to make as big an argument as possible to bring down the sentence that greenberg is going to receive. to do that, he had to show that his cooperation bore a lot of fruit. and indeed, the judge who sentenced him today said that he had never seen the amount of cooperation that greenberg had provided in his 22 years on the bench. the judge also said that he had never seen such a high rate of

criminality than he did from joel greenberg. >> we'll have a chance to speak with mr. scheller in a couple minutes. we'll press him on. that mike in, your reporting, you where you this, mr. greenberg has told federal authorities that he witnessed mr. gaetz have sex with the 17-year-old girl and that she was paid. in documents filed in connection with mr. greenberg's sentencing, the justice department said he, quote, provided truthful and timely information that led to the charging of at least four of other people and provided substantial assistance on other matters that the government would address only in a sealed filing. do you have any sense of what the other matters are and if mr. greenberg is viewed as credible and witnessed mr. gaetz, quote, having sex with the 17-year-old girl. i believe it's the same one and having evidence she was paid. why mr. gaetz hasn't been charged with the same crimes that mr. greenberg was sentenced for today? >> well. >> we don't know.

a high profile matter is complicated for the justice department and the justice department as you have seen has moved very sort of methodically and, you know, at times, you know, according to the critics, slowly on the issues of politicians because they want to do a painstaking job to make sure they follow the evidence and the evidence is there to bring a case. it is -- while we're supposed to be treated equal will you under the law, it is more difficult to bring a prosecution against a high profile politician. a member of congress that allied himself so closely with donald trump. and i think that if the department were to bring a case and lose a case, it would have enormous consequences. so the decision to bring the charge in that sense against

someone like matt gaetz is a much weightier decision than when the government had enormous amendment of evident against joel greenberg, he was a local tax collector in florida and could get him to flip and cooperate. he had a lawyer who realized that the only pathway to reduce his sentence time was to cooperate. greenberg was looking at up to three decades in prison for his crimes. he was sentenced to 11 years. that's a significant departure. that was due to his cooperation. >> mike, you've also reported and you believe cassidy hutchison reported to his pursuit of a pardon from donald trump in his final days and weeks in office. do we know what matt gaetz thought he had to be pardoned for? >> i think that our understanding of it was that gaetz was seeking a blanket pardon, a pardon for anything

that the department might ever be able to bring against him. and if i recall our reporting correctly, the white house counsel and other people at the white house and the justice department knew this was a terrible idea. if you remember, trump went to extraordinary lengths to give out pardons. and he gave them to a lot of people that would not have received a pardon under -- if the pardon office at the justice department was in charge of giving out the pardons. but trump never went as far as giving someone a blanket preemptive pardon in the way that gaetz was looking for. he was essentially looking for a true get out of jail free card for anything that he may have done. if you remember on gaetz, gaetz is part of a group of congressmen and republicans who were encouraging the president's efforts to overturn the

election. >> i want to bring you into our conversation the attorney we referenced and play sound from today. fritz, we showed some of your distress the right word to use, that you articulated by evidence that your joel greenberg had produced in case that's had not been maud. what is your theory of why that is? >> distress is a good word. the you think it is more frustration. i think i have a special insight into this case. mike made a really good point that mr. greenberg's past was cooperation and so in that regard, for the last two years or so i think as the judge noted, he provided the most significant cooperation that court has ever seen. i think there is a strategy in the justice department to bring

prosecutions and go from bottom up. but what is often the case though is sometimes they stay at the bottom. and what concerns me about mr. greenberg's case is he's easy pickings. he's an easy prosecution. his conduct was in the open. it was notorious and blatant. and the problem is in such a situation that for defense attorney, obviously, you have no other choice. there is no trial there. you need to cooperate. but what the justice department really needs to do is have the resol to have go after the bigger fish. -- resolve to go after the bigger fish. when you prosecute the tax collector you have a false sense of security and complaisancy that everything is fine. justice has been achieved and we move on. really what i have seen is that

there's a more insidious backdrop to mr. greenberg. he's only the tip of the spear, to to speak. hopefully the department of justice the show the fortitude and resolve because the things he he could prauted is the sex prosecution that got a lot of press but the election interference and election fraud, the public corruption, i think that is a greater threat to our democracy. and that's why i'm frustrated. >> can you take us throughed evidence that your client provided on each i guess you only raise the sex trafficking because the story points out that, you know, i don't know how this goes, but mr. greenberg told federal authorities he witnessed gaetz have sex with the 17-year-old girl and she was paid. it seems that in today's sentencing that, carried some of the years that your client will serve in prison. tell us about the evidence that your client provided and take us through the buckets, the sex

trafficking with a minor, the dangers to democracy and election fraud and other crimes. >> yes. so you know, as i outlined in the response, 5 k motion, what i articulated forcefully in court yesterday is that mr. greenberg participated in a series of about 15 proffers both personally d.c. in person or in writing. there was about 40 e-mails with documents including financial documents, receipts, photographs, so on. and that goes into each one of the buckets. if you want me to break it down, you know, we have uber receipts, we have venmo receipts, we have hotel receipts. in terms of the sex prosecution. we also have flight data. and so -- threaten is multiple

witnesses. there was a story in the "washington post" which was misleading that said well it comes down to the credibility of the victim and mr. greenberg and they have credibility problems. there's a lot more witnesses than just the minor and mr. greenberg. and credibility of witnesses is an issue in every single case. but there is multiple witnesses that corroborate mr. greenberg's information and there are document that's corroborate his testimony. >> again, i cover the stories. there was alleged by michael cohen and it's clear in the new york prosecution that documents back up a lot of what he alleged about fraud and we see that coming home to roost. so what i hear you saying is greenberg didn't just witness the sex with a minor, he produced the actual receipts of the financial transactions and hotels. i mean, documents seem to be the more compelling kinds of evidence for doj.

why do you think they didn't prevail in this case? >> we don't know yet. we don't know if -- i haven't been given information one way or the other. the only thing i'm going off of is "the washington post" store you. i think that mike made -- made significant insight which is that, you know, it's a more difficult prosecution. and they're going after a bigger fish and, you know, it wasn't as blatant as open and he's you to prosecute as mr. greenberg's case. mr. greenberg in some ways as you told the government during the case, he should get a reduction for super acceptance and response built because he made the prosecution so easy. the department of justice is not there to just prosecute felons in state cases.

the department of justice and my conception should be there to take on the tough cases and the case that's threaten the fabric of our society. >> matt gaetz denies the allegations. but again, that makes the evidence your client produce all the more fascinating. can you take us inside some of the election fraud and the other evidence provided that maybe didn't get as much attention? you believe there is also some reporting that mr. gaetz was wrapped up with the proud boys around a state election. can you talk about some of the other evidence that your client shared about mr. gaetz? >> i threw out tidbits for you all and you just have to follow the breadcrumbs. yesterday when talking about election fraud, i -- or generally his cooperation, i said starts in seminole county but extends to tallahassee and washington, d.c., and broward

county. and i think -- i can't go into too many details. there is obviously open information. there was a proud boy activity in the 2018, during the 2018 election for the governor's race. there was an effort to -- there was a ral will you for lack of -- i hate to call it a rally, a rally at the broward supervisor of elections when they were counting ballots and i believe mr. gaetz was there also. >> so let me bring harry litman into this. tell me what doj sees in a witness like joel greenberg and someone who might be a subject like matt gaetz? >> it's really important to understand that the doj process. they saw initially, remember, a year ago -- i think mr. scheller

said i would hate to be matt gaetz today. they had him in their sights. there is no absence of resolve at the doj to get big fish. read this a little tea leaf reading, but it was the on the ground judgement of the prosecutors, the trial team that said as to the victim, not simply her credibility but she actually testified to them, would testify in court. she didn't regard herself as a victim. that doesn't mean there is no crime. but it definitely is a buzz kill for sure on the charges they were contemplating. that's recommendation as i understand it. from the local office. it then goes up to the main justice officials. they have it now. they could technically overrule it. but it will be unusual to do it because it's based on a sort of on the ground assessment of the actual prosecutors and based on the facts and law. you don't see any reason for -- without more for jumping at some

suggestion of fear and get it going after he is in congress. >> mike schmitt, harry litman -- go ahead. >> you know, always a pleasure to have former u.s. attorneys and i understand your position is. and i disagree. and the comment you just made about her not considering herself a victim, that this is significant. this is the first time i'm hearing that. if it's true, it should have been disclosed to me. but honestly, that statute -- >> it's been in reports. >> the statute of mr. greenberg. >> it is still news to me. believe it or not, i'm not an

avid reader. whether she says she is a victim or not that, is a strict liability statute. and, you know, the fact she may say i'm not -- i don't consider myself a victim, again, she was on seeking arrangements and doing solicitations is irrelevant to a great extent because she's a minor at the time. it's not a defense. >> fair enough. it's a legal point. >> yeah. >> you do want to really emphasize the process from home office to main office. that's the big thing to keep in mind. >> and absolutely and probably have better insight. i don't have insight into the inner workings of the department of justice. i don't want to have that insight. so i appreciate that. >> fritz scheller on a bug day for your clunt and more --

client and more questions than we have answers right now. i appreciate both of you for helping us make sense whatever may or mao not be going on at main doj. when we come back, there is a lot of loose ends for the january 6 committee. we'll talk to a member of that committee coming up next. don't go anywhere. f that committee coming up next don't go anywhere. feast... ...is the ultimate form of shell-fish-pression. create your own ultimate feast is here. choose 4 of 10, like new cheddar bay shrimp. welcome to fun dining. as an independent financial advisor, i stand by these promises: i promise to be a careful steward of the things that matter to you most. i promise to bring you advice that fits your values. i promise our relationship will be one of trust and transparency. as a fiduciary, i promise to put your interests first, always. charles schwab is proud to support the independent financial advisors who are passionately dedicated to helping people achieve their financial goals. visit findyourindependentadvisor.com

it's your last chance to shop wayfair's cyber week! save on kitchen and dining furniture up to 50% off. bedroom furniture up to 30% off. and décor up to 50% off. plus get fast and free shipping on everything! ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ there are still an interviews going on about the secrets, i'll say this, there

are inconsistencies, we received over a million pieces of information finally from the secret service and some of that isn't consistent is testimony. you know, whether it is lying, whether it is faulty memory, or what, it is very difficult to say at this point. but it doesn't completely square up, let me just say that. >> ever since she said that we have not been able to get over it. that is a member of january 6 select committee zoe lofgren on the testimony of secret service agents before the bipartisan committee. it is been a major focus of the investigation the panel has undertaken since before and definitely after cassidy hutchinson's explosive testimony over the summer. joining us now on a busy day on capitol hill, congresswoman zoe lofgren from california, a

senior member of the house judiciary committee. i know how busy you are, thank you for making time for us. >> i'm sorry i'm so late. >> we're still here. we'll be here for a long time. congresswoman, without ever getting ahead of the chairman and vice chair, you have always made clear this is an active part of the investigation and i wonder if your questions were answered by the testimony this week of mr. ornato? >> let me just say, i don't -- i still have more questions than answers. >> wow! >> and we're going to release all of the evidence, all of the transcripts, and people can reach their own conclusions. let's put it that way. >> will you reach a conclusion about perjury in a criminal referral for any members of the secret service. >> i think it is premature to say that. you know, we've got documents that we thought were significant, i mean it took tremendous effort to get these

documents, and to some extent i think they were significant and yet they were not -- there was to recollection in some cases. so, you know, we'll see. in the end, we're just a legislative body, right. we're gathering information and where there are inconsistencies, we can't necessarily say who is wrong, who is right. but we can certainly put information out and others will make judgments. >> but do you believe that you were lied to or do you buy the amnesia defense? >> i'd rather not get into that at this point. i do have concerns either there were inconsistent recollections, or else there were, i mean, there were warnings that should have been -- that should have been heeded. there were certainly vulnerabilities that were left

open and why that happened is a big question. >> so this sounds like more than the area of the investigation around the altercation in the car, you're talking about actual security failures? >> yes. and you know, the testimony of miss hutchinson, was never that that happened, was that she was told by mr. ornato that had happened. and we'll see. there were different recollections about that. but the real point wasn't whether or not there was, you know, a physical altercation of a minor sort, it was whether the former president intended to go to the capitol and there is ample evidence from multiple sources that that was his intention. and i think that is very chilling. as one of the officers said, and i think we've played this or had the record in one of our hearings, his going to the capitol turned this into something other than a rally. it turned it into a coup

attempt. >> it is extraordinary. so much of the evidence and the witness testimony and the taped depositions that the committee produced for the public consumption was extraordinary. when you hear kevin mccarthy talking about investigating the investigators, what does that make you think? >> i have no idea what kevin is thinking. you know, that somehow they're going to seize the records. well that is not going to be necessary. because we're going to publish everything. we're going to publish all of the evidence. and there is a reason for this. not ome do we want the public to have it, including the press, including federal departments, but we don't want to give those who might want to destroy or undercut the committee the opportunity to selectively edit and spin. we're going to put it all out there so no one can do that. >> do you have any sense on the timing when a -- we have an

alarm going off. i'm sorry. [ sirens ] >> i can't give you a date. i mean there is a lot of work. i spent a number of hours today and i'm going to after this interview, i'm going down to work on some of the material again. there is a lot of editing left to do. but, there is a lot of material that is also done so we're working hard to get it done. >> and is it right, i believe chairman thompson said that the last interview was yesterday with mr. voss, is that the last witness interview? >> that is my understanding. obviously if some other important witness asked to come in, like a former president, we wouldn't turn him down. but i think that is the last witness so far. i think that is it. >> from the outside, we analyze that the importance of kellyanne conway's testimony might be the mountain of evidence that the committee published through last

of campaign aides and white house aides saying that they knew that trump knew that he lost, that the data guy and the came manager went in and he acknowledged his loss. was that the importance of kellyanne conway's testimony? >> well, again, under the rules we don't discuss the witness testimony. but i will say that that testimony along with all of the other testimony will soon be made available and in its entirety. so you could make your own judgment. >> all right. congresswoman zoe lofgren, never revealing too much ahead of her committee members. thank you very much on a busy day for taking some time to talk to us. we're grateful. >> thank you, nicolle. up next for us, michael cohen on what it means now that house democrats have their hands on something trump never wanted them to see. his taxes. that is next.

electronic voice: it's a cat. (meow) it's an owl-cat. it's an owl-cat-bat. some things leave you guessing. (meow) but not mailchimp. mailchimp takes the guesswork out of email marketing by analyzing millions of data points from the billions of emails we send to offer personalized suggestions for how to improve engagement and revenue. guess less and sell more with the #1 email marketing and automation platform. intuit mailchimp.

it was my experience that mr. trump inflated his total assets when it served his purposes. such as trying to be listed among the wealthiest people in forbes and deflated his assets to reduce his real estate taxes. >> but to your knowledge, did the president ever provide inflated assets to a bank in order to help him obtain a loan. >> these documents an others were provided to deutsche bank on one occasion when i was with him in our attempt to obtain money so that we could put a bid

on the buffalo bills. hi, again, everybody. it is 5:00 in new york. years after we first heard those claims from the ex president's personal attorney, trump's tax returns are just now finally in the hands of house democrats. six years after the ex president's tax returns were being handed over from the treasury to the house ways and means committee after last week the supreme court rejected trump's attempt to block the release. he was the first major presidential nominee since nixon to not publish his returns ahead of his election. congressman richard neil now in possession of trump's tax returns began waging this battle back in april of 2019 about you supreme court's ruling, he said it rises above politics and committee will now conduct the over sight that we've sought for the last three and a half years. regarding the democrats finally gaining access to those tax returns, "the new york times"

reports this, quote, at this stage the law that allows the chair to request a tax returns requires treating with confidentiality, details about any requests returns that could be associated with a particular taxpayer. that same law also allows committee to later publish the returns in the congressional record which could make them public. mr. neil has not announced whether he would do so. a member of neil's committee believes he should. here is congressman bill pass qual of new jersey. >> i want them all released. i think these records are so important. the delay has been as long as the civil war. i mean, this is unprecedented in every way. this is not about one man. this is not about just one part of the law. this is whether we affirm that there is no one in this country be it the president, a congressman or whom ever that is

above the law. and we are intent to follow through on this. >> it is a bit of a theme that emerging today, whether there are people in this country who are above the law and it is where we begin the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. charlie savage is here, from "the new york times." also an msnbc contributor, his by line is read from. with me at table michael cohen, author of the new book "re venge, how donald trump weaponized his department of justice." and charlie take me through your reporting on this extraordinary story. >> well, it has been a long legal battle since early 2019 when house -- the house came into democratic hands and they started tie trying to perform over sight of the trump administration and among the things they wanted to do was look at trump's tax returns, which they lost as the house

ways and means committee is allowed to request any taxpayers tax returns. the trump administration would not let the treasury department turn over those documents, notwithstanding that law. and the house filed suit. and then for two and a half years a trump appointed judge sat on the case and would not make a ruling one way or another, helping trump run out the clock on over sight and then the obama administration came in and looked at the law and said the committee could get this and that restarted that lawsuit that trump appointed judge agreed that they have a right to see it even though he had taken two and a half years off the clock. and then appealed up and finally the supreme court with three trump appointees declined to block it. so now with just four weeks to go before the house is going to no longer be in democratic hands, this saga is coming to an end and the question now is what are they going to do with these returns now that they have finally gained access to them. >> michael cohen, have you seen

them or do you know what is in them? >> the tax returns. the answer to that is no. the only people who saw those tax returns were donald, allen weisselberg and donald bender of mazers and his team. other than that i saw them on table outside of the conference room door which is right across from my office, short of that i've never seen the tax returns. >> why do you think trump fought so hard to hide them? >> because the information that it coin tains is damaging to him. not just potentially legally, but also his fragile ego. he's been telling the entire world, i'm really rich. right, i'm worth $10 billion maybe more. it is just not true. and what the tax returns will ultimately show is that he probably received more money back from the government in terms of refunds than he paid in. because we already know that he lost a billion dollars over a period of time. right. and so, yet he still received

back what was it like $170 million in refund. there is a lot here for them to go through. and there is a lot of information in there that is going to be damning. >> his political brand was of a successful business man. are you saying that the tax returns will show him to not have been. >> that is exactly what i'm saying. i don't think i could say it better than that, nicolle. >> charlie, your colleagues undertook some incredible reporting on his taxes. piecing together what they could get their hands on which is a lot less than what congress now has. what is your sense of what the congressional investigate work will be now that they have the entire documents. >> well they don't have a lot of time to do much of anything. after january, when republicans take over the house, they will abandon this effort. so maybe they punt it to the senate where democrats are still in charge of the finance committee, or maybe they vote to make these documents public and just put them out into the hive mind by publishing them, which the laws allows them to do but

it is rare that they have used that law but not unprecedented. but i'm not sure there is that much time to do a study of these. the reason they were looking for them, looking sand wanting them was they were studying a program that audits presidents and one of the big fights was there that was a pretext and this was a politicallily motivated phishing expedition. but i think from a real perspective, there is a lot of political reason that democrats may want to just put these out in the world. >> well, and think that the other half of that charlie, is there are political reasons that trump didn't want them out into the world. i think other than sort of his fights against doing anything in the public safety category around covid is to protect his taxes were among the vicious. he did steve mnuchin i believe for a while, it was the work of the administration to shield his tax returns from scrutiny. if you have had him in front of

you, what would you look for. >> the starting point is where investigators who have gotten glimpses have already gone. this is not like april 2019 when these were under lock and key. so one of the questions is are there further revelations here that manhattan district attorneys office has gotten a lot of financial data, the supreme court let them do that. and now they are criminally prosecuting the trump administration. and the state attorney general in new york is civilly suing trump and his children saying that they defrauded banks by overstating the value of assets when they were applying for loans and so forth. so the question is, and then my own colleagues, their study last year finding that most years trump wasn't paying any taxes at all and that he had taken this gigantic loss that was now the subject of an irs audit, claiming a gigantic loss that for years allowed him to write off his taxes entirely.

so the question, is there more? what else is in there? and that is a question that from the outside i don't want to speculate about but i'm certainly very interested in finding out. >> and harry, what about from a legal perspective. what do you want to know from the six years of tax returns. >> i want to say as to the four year delay, it was completely unconscionable. the law said you shall turn it over at trump's direction, mnuchin just stalled for no reason. it was lawless. it is just a good example of what happened in the last few years when you take meritless positions and count on congress's weakness to be able so strike back. what to look for, there are the crimes that michael cohen documented, that actually it appears that the new york d.a. may be looking at, the disproportional assets. and this is the mother lode. and if doj doesn't have it, if not they will.

it is a first thin you want to get into a big potential investigation. there is so much a forensic accountant could do with this, not to mention the political damage. but the big problem charlie nails it on the head, the ostensible reason is here we want to study that audit program. do they really? and could they do it in a month. ? probably not. and if they publish the returns it is a bit of political hardball but i think you may see them playing political hardball. >> the mueller team never had trump's taxes and do you think doj has them and how long do you think they had them. >> it would be nice for them to tell us. but while i was on your show so many times, i've always said that donald trump's power is delay, delay, delay, and i agree with everything that harry lit mab just said. everything. what donald did is he delayed ability to get the tax returns. you remember at the house over

sight committee you have people like mr. clay and alexandria ocasio-cortez and all asking me questions about donald trump's tax, about how he moves money around. and i gave them the answer. they should have been able to get those tax returns immediately. so that now with the change of the house, it wouldn't be effected by it. and this is unfair. it is unfair to america, it is unfair to the american people. you would never have gotten away with it, certainly, i would have 48 hours to turn them over based on southern district of new york's attitude. but this guys skates over two and a half years, weaponizing, as i said in my book, weaponingize the government and to prevent the returns from being shown. and now it looks like he's going to win that again. p and this is just wrong. it is just -- >> what is the remedy. >> we have to hold government accountable to move in a more expeditious manner. because the way that they move now, only benefits the guilty.

and donald trump is guilty of all of the allegations regarding his tax returns that i put forth during that over sight hearing. >> to charlie's point, do you think that the new york prosecutions have his taxes. >> i believe they do. i believe the district attorney was able to get them as well and i believe that if the d.a. has them, all of the documents between the -- are being shared between the district attorney and the attorney general's office from what i recall. >> and you think that is how they came to the fraud charge in letitia james's kay. >> i think that came from a much simpler document, the personal financial statement. >> right. >> by donald when he claimed his house was worth over $370 million and the bottom of each section, there is a description of the asset. and the asset alleged that the property was 33,000 square feet, over three floors being a tri-plex, which it was 11,000 square feet.

and so that clearly is an error and it is very hard for him as the owner of the property, the developer of the property, to make the allegation, oh, hey i just didn't know. right. it is allen weisselberg's fault. notice it is always somebody else's fault. >> he's a notorious micromanager. >> notorious is right. >> and charlie, what the house can do, democrats, house democrats have been asking questions for six years about foreign money, about emoluments. is there any way to, as you said, refer these cases to different committees in the senate. and just tell me for all of the pile up of questions about donald trump's money and ties to foreign governments and enriching himself during the presidency and the use of the trump hotel and the -- i mean, there were more questions than we could come up in the 45 minutes remaining in the show. but how do you begin to try to

answer them in the four weeks that are left? >> well, one thing, in the four weeks that are left, they're not going to be able to do it. there is not enough time to do an investigation that you are describing. it is the case that democrats have kept control of the senate and so senate finance committee and other committees in the senate could pick up the ball and run here if they have gained access to the same documents. and in addition, if they make the documents public, then the media and the world can scour them and put two and two together. so they -- this same law that allows the committee to obtain the documents, were supposed to get it right away, not four years later, but they have them now, allowed them to vote to send it the full house and that means put it in the congressional records such that it is published and the public could see it. the republicans on the ways an means committee when they controlled it in 2014 did that

as part of the whole irs target conservative groups investigation. and the congress did it on a bipartisan basis in 1974 when they studied some of the richard nixon's tax returns. so it doesn't happen very often but it can be done and at that point it will be there for anyone to look at and investigate. >> so harry, this deliberation that charlie is describing is lookly going on between house democrats an the ways and means committee and the counsel and others, what would you advise them to do legally? >> i don't know if i would give them advice but i could give a legal prediction. the answer to the legal question what could they do is going to be who is going to stop them. there are some unclear lines here in theory, they really are supposed to be having them for a specific reason. but i don't see specific laws and even if there were specific ways to enforce them, now the

sort of leverage is on the other side of things and that is -- if they choose to go that route, publish them, et cetera, will it not -- once they open the barn door, everybody has them and as charlie and michael said, there is just so much to glean politically, legally, all the way down the line. >> and on the good government front. we could already predict what jim jordan and kevin mccarthy will threaten. they'll threaten to investigate the investigators which nave already done. >> want people to go back and remember how this whole thing, because you brought up the trump hotel in d.c. under the obama administration, trump managed to lie, using these tax returns, and using that personal financial statement, to obtain the property, the old post office. that was under the obama administration. under his administration, as you stated, he took advantage of it. now i don't think there is going to be a line in his tax return that said payoffs, overseas

money or payments and so on. right. but then the greatest part is now during the biden administration, somehow or another the guy who fraudulently got the property, ends up selling the property and he pulls down over $200 million in profit, selling it to an inside group that he's friendly with. we as a country have to wake up. we need to wake up and stop allowing all of this to go on. to get his tax returns, for forget about the other documents, just look at facts, the facts basically dictate that the man should be indicted and he should have been indicted years ago. >> but he's above the law is certainly a defensible position. charlie, thank you for your reporting and michael and harry stick around. whether we come back, another big legal you know what for the disgraced ex president which is nearing a dramatic conclusion as

arguments have begun. and plus a question we've had to ask over and over around here lately. how is this happening? indiana attorney general doing everything in his power to punish a physician, a doctor who treated a 10-year-old rape victim who had to flee her own home state to get abortion health care. and later rick stengel will be here to tell us about his brand-new podcast about nelson mandela. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. you could manufacture a whole new way of manufacturing. you could show them how to transform a company ...not just how to run one. you could disrupt buying habits before they disrupt your business.

and use technology better, instead of just using better technology. you could fire up a new generation of start-ups. diagnose problems before they become issues. and fuel the search for what comes next... so...what are you waiting for? go. baker tilly i promise - as an independent advisor - to put the financial well-being of you and your family first. i promise to serve, not sell. i promise our relationship will be one of partnership and trust. i am a fiduciary, not just some of the time, but all of the time. charles schwab is proud to support the independent financial advisors who are passionately dedicated to helping people achieve their financial goals. visit findyourindependentadvisor.com

well, we fell in love through gaming. but now the internet lags and it throws the whole thing off. when did you first discover this lag? i signed us up for t-mobile home internet. ugh! but, we found other interests. i guess we have. [both] finch! let's go! oh yeah! it's not the same. what could you do to solve the problem? we could get xfinity? that's actually super adult of you to suggest. i can't wait to squad up. i love it when you talk nerdy to me. guy, guys, guys, we're still in session.

and i don't know what the heck you're talking about.

closing arguments got under way in the manhattan d.a. tax fraud trial of the trup organization. accused of a multi-year scheme to give off the book perks to top company executives. defense attorneys began their closing argument with the theme since the beginning of the trial. that the company's former ceo and star witness for the transaction allen weisselberg was responsible. and he testified that trump's eldest sons don jr. and eric did not discipline him after they found out. and joining us tom winter. that would be the first time that it ever happened. what a weird defense. did people buy it? >> reporter: well, i think it is a sharp thing for them to do.

if the jury do believe it is all on allen weisselberg, maybe they'll say the trump organization doesn't know and at the end of the day there is a development here that might center around that. so all throughout the defense's closing arguments, particularly susan neckly and her arguments this morning on behalf of the trump organization, she pointed out that the former president and his family didn't know what was going on here, that this was something and allen weisselberg admitted to this conduct, that he was taking perks an not paying his taxes on it. this is on him, an effort to line his pockets and his greed and that is what you're focusing on. the trump organization if anything may be more of a victim. but in doing so, and later we also heard that the form he president couldn't have known about this. he's building golf courses and building buildings and he's not in the weeds on who is doing what on their tax returns and by the way he pays mazars

$2.5 million a year and donald bender to make sure they're on the right side of the law. they did invoke the former president's name. it is not something that where he has been the star of this because he's not been charged or accused of any illegality in this case so once the jury left the courtroom this afternoon, the defense said, wait a minute throughout the trial we've been saying what the case is and what it isn't and donald trump isn't on trial here. effectively prosecution arguing on behalf of the district attorney's office here said not so fast. you brought up what the former president may have known or not known in the course of your closing arguments, and i believe i should have some room to go there in my closing arguments when they continue tomorrow. the judge said, look, recalled numerous occasions where you brought this up addressing the defense, this morning so yes if the prosecute wants to address that, they can. a couple of important notes. it is not like donald trump will

be clarnled at the last second tomorrow. they have to play with the evidence been presented so far in this case. and as we know, there is no smoking gun emails involving the former president. there is nothing that is tied to him, no sort of notes, no sort of declarations that he was particularly aware of anything that could tie him directly to the types of tax fraud and schemes that allen weisselberg has pled guilty to. and if the manhattan district attorney's office had something to charge donald trump with, just based on their public statements an the assistant -- and the district attorney while he was campaigning and what we've heard from the office in the past, they probably would have moved forward with that prosecution already. but it will be interesting to see tomorrow if joshua steinsunglasses arguing on behalf of the district attorney's office if they have some theories about what trump knew within the confines of

their closing arguments could walk the jury through that. what that ultimately does for this jury remains to be seen. but clearly they're trying to draw a connection, the prosecution is, in their efforts to prove this case that the upper levels of management of the trump organization certainly allen weisselberg would qualify as the cfo, they say, were aware of this. there is some benefit that is a key phrase in the elements of law here that they're going to seek to prove there was some benefit to the trump organization. they argue it is hundreds of thousands of dollars and in medicare payroll tax that they didn't have to pay as well as pay raises that they would have have to give to individuals to cover their taxes for their perks. so, that is what we might see tomorrow. the jury could begin deliberations here as soon potentially as early as monday, nicolle. >> michael cohen, my understanding was that all that

trump did in his office was play in the weeds. what are the chances that he was in the dark? >> there is no chance. and, look, i understood the route that defense council is going. it is the only play. i'm a little shocks that allen weisselberg would risk potentially spending the rest of his life in prison for lying which is what he's doing. all of a sudden donald didn't know, listen, let me be very clear about something that -- that tom just mentioned. first of all, there were two prosecutors, the two lead prosecutors in this case for over two years. mark pomeranz and kerry dunn. that implored them to bring an indictment against donald trump because they know from the documents from the testimony that they have him on everything. for whatever the reason is, alvin chose not to do and we're suffering. >> and pomeranz quit.

>> they resigned in protest. there is absolutely nothing, and i want to be so clear about that, there is nothing that goes on at the trump organization that donald trump's hands are not in. now, he's correct, tom, that there are no emails because donald never had an mail address. but you know what you do have. you have the contracts for property, for the leases. it is donald's property, the car payments, all paid by checks signed by donald. the fact that they were able to even get the vehicles was all off of the trump organization line of credit with mercedes. which is what they all ended up getting as a perk. it is absolutely -- >> why did trump compensate that way. to save money. >> to save money and so he didn't have to raise people's salaries. one of the things donald would pride himself on and there are hundreds people that will attest to this statement, the more you pay your executives, the stupider you look.

that is his theory. and so if he could give you a perk and keep you from asking for a raise, what would he say to allen weisselberg, his cfo, if allen came to him and said i need another 100,000. he's not going to give it to him. of course he is. but he didn't want to do for the same reason. higher payroll taxes and fica and state and city and et cetera. so yes, there is a benefit to trump. and the notion that anybody could claim that donald didn't have his little fingers into this, and signing checks and knowing everything, is absolutely ludicrous. he knew every single thing that was going on in company. he is the ultimate micro manager. >> tom, you want the last word. >> yeah, i think it is interesting to see, you know, michael just raised something there, this idea of grossing up and the prosecution is telegraphed that they're going to get into that tomorrow. the idea of grossing up income. so effectively, and to

summarize, if i'm correct, michael, what is being talked about here is that the idea that donald trump would have had to pay these executives more in salary for them to then pay the taxes on these perks. who knew what about that and when and how that might help the prosecution bring home their case, i think is something by this time tomorrow we'll have a better handle on, nicolle. >> and that is a great point. and let me just put my own scenario into that to justify everything that you just said. when i paid stormy daniels the $130,000 and other moneys that they owed me, what allen, myself and donald had done is explained to donald and donald didn't need much explanation, is the concept of grossing up. which is why they anded up having to double the amounts that were owed to me because i would have a tax consequence as a result from taking back the

various moneys that donald owed me that i had laid out in his -- and for his benefit. so the notion that donald doesn't know what grossing up, that he's not 100% familiar with that concept, if allen made that statement to the jury, it is a lie. if he turned around and he continues to make the allegations that donald did not have direct knowledge of every one of these transactions, it is an absolute lie. and he's putting himself at risk. if in fact, the d.a. calls him on it. >> he learned it from the stormy daniels hush money payment. that is an incredible little foot note of history. thank you for that. >> you're welcome. >> thank you all so much. when we come back. a grim reminder of what republicans are aiming to do in a post-roe america. how an indiana doctor to lose her medical license after providing an abortion to a 10-year-old victim of rape. that story is next. r-old ctviime that story is next two new ihop lunch and dinner menu items for twice the goodness, twice the flavor,

and twice the choice. sirloin salisbury steak and all-natural salmon. perfect for lunch or dinner. only at ihop. download the app and earn free food with every purchase. get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds.

trying to control my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ enough was enough. i talked to an asthma specialist and found out my severe asthma is driven by eosinophils, a type of asthma nucala can help control. now, fewer asthma attacks and less oral steroids that's my nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. nucala is not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of

face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. talk to your asthma specialist to see if once-monthly nucala may be right for you. and learn about savings at nucala.com there's more to your life than asthma. find your nunormal with nucala.

i'm sure you remember, it was one of those post roe horror stories in the early days after the supreme court decision a 10-year-old girl from ohio, a victim of rape was forced to fleeler home in her home state in order to be treated at an abortion clinic in indiana. out of respect of her privacy, her story ends here. but over the past few months the

indiana attorney general todd rokita, an anti-abortion elected republican official has targeted dr. caitlin bernard. he began an investigation into her, tried to subpoena her patient's medical records and now this. mr. rokita is asking the state medical board to discipline dr. bernard. her punishment is up to the board. and the sought include to suspending or permanently revoking her license. joining us now, katty kay correspondent for bbc students and mary gay, "new york times" board member, both are msnbc contributors. we have all had this conversation pretty regularly since dobbs was on the horizon and since texas enacted the vigilante abortion law. i don't know that an incident more wrenching and illustrating of the pain that the republican

extremism causes young girls has come about other than this case. and to now see the doctor, the health care provider punished is -- is maybe not surprising but extraordinary, mara. >> there is a lot of thoughts that go through your mind, both as a reporter and as a woman. and a citizen. there is a level of meanness and vindictiveness that is behind that kind of policy making. if you could even call it that. knowing as someone who works in politics that that decision is -- is being made to prosecutor to go after this doctor. you know, most likely to score political points. you know, so using two lives now that we have, you know, this young girl and now the doctor, for political purposes is in and of itself disgusting. you have to think about the chilling effect that this is

going to have on physicians across the country who are simply trying to do the right thing by their patients and uphold their hippocratic oath. you also have the fear that -- for this individual doctor, the target that this puts on that person's back. and then, you know, i just think in general that the other thing that really makes me angry, personally is i think this hyper focus on abortion itself, as opposed to women's health in general, and so, you know, the debate over abortion could be had in good faith on both sides and though i am firmly pro-choice and i believe in a woman's right to choose, i have plenty of friends who are religious who feel differently. i understand that. what i have a problem with is we have a huge marternal challenge in this country and you don't hear about that because i don't believe this movement is about protecting lives, you know, it

is really about punishing women and about politics. and that laz no place in a hospital setting. it has no place deciding what happens to a 10-year-old girl. and it has no place ruining a doctor's life for trying to do the right thing. so all the way around, it is a dark, dark moment. >> yeah, i mean, look to mara's point, catty, the movement doesn't ever get into child poverty, child hunger, you know, child nutrition, child education, child housing. it is just about a woman not having a right to make a choice about her own body and her own pregnancy. and this, while it is the obvious extension of gop politics around this extreme version of anti-choice politics, that they are completely hostage to, despite the electoral catastrophe it has brought about for them, there are real people and this -- i've spoken to the

attorney for dr. bernard, the physicians children have been threatened, she's been threatened. there are real consequences to these extreme politics. >> yeah, and she has said that herself in an interview recently that she feels under threat and that not just when it comes to abortion care, but this will limit this kind of intimidation of physicians will limit their ability to treat things like complications with miscarriages, ivf treatment, complications in early pregnancy, all of that is unintended potentially consequence of the dobbs ruling, but which physicians are feeling in realtime as they have to use the kinds of procedures they might use in a surgical apportion on somebody who has a fetus that is mal formed for example. but your right to point out the issues around children. because on many of the issues that you pointed out, nicolle, america fares much worse than many other countries and if you

look at the statistics surrounding child pregnancy in this country, it is something like, i looked them up before we came on air. one in nine girls suffer sexual abuse in this country. three in ten teenage girls will have at least one pregnancy. and pregnancy is the main reason that teen girls are dropping out of school in america. that is not true in other developed western nations. and in america it is lagging behind on those fronts and the dobbs ruling potentially and the treatment of doctors like dr. bernard if they were not able to perform the kind of procedure they have to perform, this awful tragic case of this 10-year-old, we're going to see that replicated with 13-year-old, 15-year-old, 16-year-olds, who may not have access to abortion in this country and more likely therefore to drop out of school saz a result of that and their lives will be changed and they won't have the kind of education and economic prospects they might have done. so for a whole range of reasons,

this chilling. this is intimidation of physicians. >> i hate to do this. there has been some breaking news since we've come back from the break. donald trump special mast ser no more. the 11th circuit has ruled that the trump case challenging the mar-a-lago search warrant should be dismissed it vacates the lower court order appointing a special master and enjoying the government from using classified documents in its investigation. it is a major win for the justice department. dismissing trump's albeit bogus are request, it did succeed in delays for a while the criminal investigation into the classified documents he seized and stowed and lied about returning. let me read some of the ruling to you. it said this. p the law is clear, we could not write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. nor can we write a rule that

allows only former presidents to do so. as stern of a rebuke as we've heard in this case, katty kay. >> yeah, i was just looking it up myself because this is just coming in. look, the special master was something that donald trump had wanted and the trump appointed judge had awarded him. it was seen as a big victory for him at that particular time. as a way of managing to put limitations on the justice department, but now that it looks like the justice department is going to have -- not have to deal with this road block. the justice department already had the documents and time to go through the documents but this was one more hurdle they won't have to face any more. >> mara, michael cohen knows of what he speaks because he was part of it. and that is a complicated thing about michael cohen. but he was part of the efforts to jam up investigations, to styme transparency of trump organization when he turn served

as trump's lawyer. but his point that justice is always delayed when it comes to trump and because the delay tactics can be successful, because the normal systems don't take into account such a corrupt actor like donald trump. it proves true over and over again. and in this case, he succeeded in slowing what felt like an incredibly accelerated investigation coming out of the court approved search of mar-a-lago at the end of the summer. what do you make of this final legal road block being cleared today by the 11th circuit? >> yeah, it is encouraging for exactly the reason that you described. which is that, insiders like michael cohen and colleagues of mine covering donald trump since the '80s, now the context is important here. this is donald trump's go-to way to evade accountability whether it is not paying taxes, or any potential criminal activity here that we are looking at.

he likes to jam things up. and hope that, you know, well i'll just forget about it or get so exhausted or frustrated that he'll get away with this again and i think it is extremely important to the preservation of our democracy that whatever was, if there was a crime committed, that we see that prosecuted. that is a really important goal. it is good to keep your eyes on prize. and so this is a win for -- for the country in general. we have to keep this moving forward. and see what is what. >> joining our coverage, andrew weissmann, former justice department prosecutor and also former general counsel to the fbi, now an msnbc legal analyst. after the week we had we're going to make you an official co-anchor because news keeps breaking. this seems like a very clear victory for doj. >> yeah. this couldn't be clearer and to

the point that you were just discussing, that is exactly what the court held which was the court said, as they frankly said at the oral arguments, that there is no separate different rule for somebody who is a former president. the courts are not allowed for anybody who is under investigation to enjoin another branch of government. so on separation of powers, just to be a legal nerd here, the court was saying we have to bud out, we won't do it for a former president, we won't do it for anyone, it is not within the purview of the courts to enjoin a ongoing criminal investigation. and they're quite pointed that donald trump is not entitled to any extra protection. if you recall, judge cannon who is now been reversed twice, did say that. she said there was extra protection being given to donald

trump. so i completely agree that this is a very good opinion for the rule of law. and again, shows that we're seeing judges regardless of who appointed them, and regardless of whether they're democrats or republicans, understanding the point of a judicial system and sort of the founding principles that this country is founded on, that it doesn't matter what party you're in, that the rules apply equally to everyone. that is not always the case. but i think this opinion is really rock solid in upholding that principle. it means that the matter before the jury is now over. and the role of judge cannon is now over. and all of the documents that the government needs to see and use can now be used so that is really from their perspective should be full steam ahead.

>> so what is full steam ahead look like inside of the fbi. ? is there a file cabinet locked under the 11th circuit rules and someone is unlocking it and getting back to work. tell me what is happening? >> yeah. absolutely. so, what it meant was that with respect to all of the documents that were not classified, not marked classified, the government was prohibited from using those and what that means is you couldn't show them to witnesses and see if this were would refresh their recollection. you couldn't have the trial team see them and the way that we could show that donald trump knew his classified documents war there was because they were intermingled with his personal documents including notes that he took after he left the white house, for instance. so there is a lot of evidentiary ways in which this could be important to the government to ultimately show knowledge and intent.

those are the critical things that the government would have to show if they were to charge donald trump. did he know that the documents that were there, did he intend to keep them and not return those documents? now i know it seems obvious to all of us that we're like of course that is the case. but what seems obvious has to require proof in court beyond a reasonable doubt. so that is a very high standard. so, the government needs to see the full picture of exactly what was found at mar-a-lago, where was each and every document and what was it next to. that is something they could not do until today. >> so the 11th circuit as you said has -- judge cannon errored, cannon erred. is there any recourse or examination of why she was so pro-trumpy, and whether or not his appointment of her and her unique and novel legal analysis

came about at the time that it did? >> the answer to that is no. you know, unless there is gross misconduct that is provable, judges have extraordinary powers and discretion, and they are by design not checked by the other branches of government. you know, we've seen that most recently when people have talked about ethics rules in the supreme court of the united states, whether it's justice thomas not recusing himself or the current issue of enormous access to various justices, whether or not they were leaking to those people. all of that is something that's very much left to the judicial

branch, and it's unfortunately -- it requires judicial branch to police itself because the harm of having another branch police them is considered too great because you do want this independence. and frankly, what we're seeing today in the 11th circuit decision is a sign of that independence when the court says this is not about donald trump. this is about equal justice where we wouldn't do this for anyone in your former position of being president or not being president is irrelevant to the principal here, and part of the reason they can do that is because the judiciary is independent, isn't tied to the election system, and they can make those kinds of decisions. >> and, andrew, i only ask because the three judges on the panel which rendered this decision today was so strong and a real rebuke of judge cannon were appointed by george bush,

and donald trump. the opinion, dissolving the special master and process. the law is clear, we cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. either approach would be a radical reordering of our case law, limiting the federal court's involvement in criminal investigations, and both would violate bedrock separation of power limitations, accordingly we agree with the government that the district court improperly exercises equitable jurisdiction and that dismissal, the entire proceeding is required. andrew, as someone who has been up close and personal with trump, and the people around him, when they're under this kind of criminal scrutiny, what do you expect his reaction to be? >> i expect that we're going to get the equivalent of the sort of meltdown and maybe tweets of, you know, where he attacks. anybody who is opposing him who

has any sort of -- exerts any power, whether it's the media, whether it's prosecutors, whether it's at times mitch mcconnell or mike pence. i mean, anybody who stands up to him, he denigrates usually not in any way that is thoughtful or he articulates a reason, but it's usually by invective, which, you know, apparently, you know, he thinks works and god knows i'm hardly the person to say it doesn't work, but it's a shame that it does. nicolle, one thing that i would point out just another, just to be nerdy with respect to the decision, one thing the court says that is just so strong, it ends with to create a special exception here would defy our nation's foundational principle that our law applies quote to all without regard to numbers, wealth or rank.

i mean, you couldn't get a more -- a stronger opinion that is saying there are no special rules in this country, and it frankly sounds a lot like what merrick garland has repeatedly said which is no person is above the law and everyone should be held to account. so at the end of the day, this is, you know, quite a week for the rule of law and the justice department with the oath keepers verdict, the press conference by attorney general merrick garland, and now this decision where a separate branch of government is very much now for the second time docking the government in its appeal of judge cannon, and now they don't have to deal with her anymore. it's -- they basically have, you know, they have taken some bold steps in appealing and, you know, it's great to see the

courts responding this this way, in an apolitical manner. so andrew, we talked about the oath keepers verdict sort of, i think you used the word still in the spine, i think joyce used the word wind in the sails. this sort of affirmation that the rule of law is alive and well from two trump appointed justices, one george w. bush justice, does that send everyone out for red bull and say let's get to work, let's get to the bottom. what is the sort of piece that we can't see? what is the tangible effect of the week that was for the rule of law inside doj? >> well, my analogy is when i -- years ago, this was 20 years ago now, was assigned to the enron task force, when we saw one of the top ten companies in america dissolve in a matter of weeks and there were just enormous number of victims, the real issue was that we felt this

internal pressure to bring everyone who was responsible to justice and to make sure we didn't make any mistakes. and i can really assure you that is exactly what's going on in the justice department right now. the sense of internal pressure to make sure they act as fast as possible, and they're as thorough as possible. >> andrew weissmann, thank you again for popping up and helping us through two hours on the air. katty kay and mara gay, thank you so much for being with us. a quick break for us, and we'll be right back. we'll be right back. confident on nights like these. depend silhouette. the only thing stronger than us, is you. teeth sensitivity is so common. it immediately feels like somebody's poking directly on the nerve. i recommend sensodyne. sensodyne toothpaste goes inside the tooth and calms the nerve down. and my patents say: “you know doc, it really works." 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. all it takes is eight minutes to find out. then work with highly qualified professionals to fill out your forms and submit the application. go to innovationrefunds.com to learn more.

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. to fill out your forms and submit the application. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to 60% a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

. we love when news breaks while we're on the air. we had hoped to talk to our good friend rick stengle about his exciting new project. a brand new podcast called "mandela" the lost tapes. it features hours of audio tapes of nelson mandela that rick recorded while he helped mandela write his acclaimed