aloha, and namaste, i'm john heilemann in for nicolle wallace, the week before christmas, and what a week we have in store, starting today where three hours ago almost exactly on capitol hill we got one of these rarities, a

genuinely historic moment unfolding. a committee of the american congress referring a former president of the united states to the justice department. the insurrection that occurred on that day, two years ago, almost, capped off a massive information, took place over the course of the last 18 months, more than 1,200 witnesses interviewed, more than a million pages of records obtained, more than 100 subpoenas issued, not to mention a series of block buster hearings that became must see tv for millions of americans over the summer. all of that coming to a close today, a culmination on a grand scale with a vote to refer the disgraced twice impeached pathologically lying ex-president, donald trump to the doj for committing a series of crimes including the most serious one, insurrection, designed to overturn a free,

fair, and totally legitimate election. pretty much by any means necessary. here are the charges against donald trump, laid out by committee member jamie raskin. >> the whole purpose and obvious effect of trump's scheme were to obstruction influence and impede this official proceeding, the central moment for the lawful transfer of power in the united states. we believe that there's more than sufficient evidence to refer former president donald j. trump, john eastman and others for violating title 18, section 371. this statute makes it a crime to conspire to defraud the united states. third, we make a referral based on title 18 section 1001, which makes it unlawful to knowingly and willfully make the materially false statements to

the federal government. the evidence clearly suggests that president trump conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to congress and the national archives. the fourth and final statute we invoke for referral is title 18, section 2383. the statute applies to anyone who incites, assists or engages in insurrection against the united states of america, and anyone who gives aid or comfort to an insurrection. >> released just moments after the meeting, the executive summary of the committee's final report. the final report is going to go to congress two days from now. it's 150 pages that sum up every aspect of the coup plot and its case against donald trump. you may have watched the hearing today or the meeting today and thought that a lot of it seemed familiar aside from the big news of the criminal referrals against donald trump but the

executive summary is chalk full of new details uncovered by the committee. it also contains this warning for the american people. quote. president trump believed then, and continues to believe now that he is above the law. not bound by our constitution, and its explicit checks on presidential authority. president trump and the associates who assisted him in an effort to overturn the lawful outcome of the 2020 election are not held accountable under the law. their behavior may become a precedent, an invitation to danger for future elections. a failure to hold them accountable now may ultimately lead to future unlawful efforts to overturn our elections, thereby threatening the security and viability of our republic. that key point is where we start today. i asked for an all star panel to start today, instead we have a panel of first bout hall of famers, joyce vance, also with us, former senator claire

mccasino kel -- mccaskill, and andrew weissmann, i'll start with you because you're sitting here. let's fly at 30,000 feet. you know, in some ways, sometimes history comes and it's been telegraphed so clearly there's no shock or awe in it, but maybe there's not a shock, and maybe there is awe. this has been going on for a very long time. there were a lot of doubts about what this committee would ultimately do. people thought it won't matter at you will a. sitting here today, having a chance to look at the executive summary, what do you think? >> i think that the january 6th committee fundamentally changed how we and maybe more importantly in the near term, how the department of thinks about what happened on january 6th itself. the january 6th committee pulled

back the lens and saw this as a grand conspiracy with multiple parts and what they presented today was to lay out all of those different parts again, and then to say, what does this mean? it means that a former president of the united states, in their view, committed at least four felonies and not just any felonies, it's something like insurrection is, as you said, you can think that's what happened and there's something about the awe majesty that was so in-depth in its mission. a lot of people say it's only symbolic. that symbolism means something within the department. it doesn't mean they're going to charge. i've had congressional referrals, you take them really seriously. doesn't mean you're going to do what congress says, but you look

into them. there was something about the presence today that did feel historic and it wasn't just their say so. they laid out a lot of evidence, and as you said, just the executive summary is 150 pages. so this is something that, you know, the department of justice is going to scour all of this to see what additional evidence there, and donald trump and his allies are going to look for any and all holes this creates. >> another justice department veteran, and you know, i'm sitting here, here is the executive summary in print, a couple of bullet points, then a couple of hundred pages in a report. this is a hundred some-odd pages, just the executive summary. on wednesday, we'll be seeing ten times as much information. to andrew's point, picking up on that. if you're in the doj, i don't mean to go to the questions

about ego and pride, you know, andrew said they're going to scour this thing, and i'm sure that's true. are there some people in the doj who are sitting there saying, a little bit, you know, that they have been bested in some way by this committee. is there any sense in the doj that the congress is as kind of by getting their first, by getting to some of these witnesses first, by laying some of this out ahead of their investigation, is there any way they're spurred into action by embarrassment, or is it just, we're on the same team, trying to get to the bottom of it and find the truth? >> i would be careful not to overstate the persuasive influence that congress's work could have at doj. although, i tend to be in agreement with andrew on this one and inside of the building i think that they will absolutely scour the report for its factual information, for the evidence that it contains to make sure that they have all of it, and

they're viewing facts in the most aggressive way that they can as they move forward with their investigation. what they won't do, though, is except the committee's legal conclusions as their own. where doj will assert itself will be in the inferences it draws from the evidence that the committee puts in front of it. john, i looked at the executive summary, and saw my version, 161 pages in total. i, many moons ago, i'm giving away how old i am work for an iowa senator named john colber told me if you can't do it in three paragraphs, it's not a summary, and i'm not going to read it. 161 pages is a lot for a summary, but in this case, as i have done my first read through it, it's not that the committee is throwing all of the evidence up on the wall to see what sticks. it's a very nicely crafted, very carefully calculated sort of an executive summary.

maybe more of a full report, and it lays out compelling evidence. it's not all of the evidence. it's the best evidence. and it's the best evidence on these four charges. while they also make the case that had they had better access, right? are there not been obstruction by some of these witnesses, they might have more. >> joyce we're going to get to some of the stuff that's in the executive summary because i think for a lot of viewers who watch today, if they're all familiar with this committee and its work, and if they have watched the show for instance, over the last year or so. a lot of things they saw would seem familiar. in the executive summary, that actually is new, and i want to come to some of that in a second. i want to ask claire mccaskill, it's not cheap or cynical for me to say and i think you would agree with me, the congress does not always cover itself in glory, the united states congress. we more often find ourselves

frustrated with its performance than we do lauding its performance, even when we're fair minded, we want to laud it when it does good things. this seems like an exception that proves the rule, i said to andrew. this was a committee there was a lot of doubts about, skepticism about whether it would be able to move the needle. i'm curious what you think it says about the ability of the congress to function in at least a semibipartisan way to do what the committee has accomplished and what you think it says about the constitutional health and the limits of constitutional health. the committee as joyce was saying wasn't able to get everyone to come on board and pay attention to the subpoenas. it's not been fully successful in efforts. give us the overview about what it says about the congress. >> i think this committee schooled congress on the right way to do a long-term investigation into something that's incredibly important in our government.

and here's what my thought was when i looked at the executive summary. to me, and i don't know if joyce and andrew would agree with me, it read like an opening statement in a criminal trial. you know, you want to tell the story in your opening statement to the jury. you want to lay out the narrative of the crime and you want to fill in the evidence that the jury will see. it is very clear to me that the prosecutors, the federal prosecutors, primarily, that were part of the staff were very focused on making sure they assembled the information in two ways. one that told a story and that 12 minute video was incredibly powerful in terms of the evidence it presented. and then the written words, really do lay out just mountains of evidence. now, not all of that evidence is admissible in the way it came in in the committee. some of it was hearsay, but i

really do think this is an example of when the committee thought the purpose of their invest was more important than any of them individually, and you don't see that very often in congress. usually everybody is elbowing each other to get the sound bite of the hearing, that will be -- go viral that day or they are trying to, you know, do whatever they need to do to be the star of the hearing. that wasn't the case with this committee, and if other committees will learn from it, it will do our country a great service because i think what they did is historic. i think it's very powerful, and i think it's going to be very hard for the justice department to walk away from this evidence. >> i want to play sound, andrew and get to, you know, there was no question in these hearings there was a star, and the star was liz cheney, and i think as a matter of politics, the important of being a bipartisan committee, bennie thompson did a great job as chairman. liz cheney not just another

partisan witch hunt, and gave it the reality of having bipartisan support along with adam kinzinger. let's play liz cheney, so many powerful statements over the committee's work. so many public statements that made news and so many that seemed to kind of speak to the highest aspirations and aims of the committee. she did that today. let's play that. >> among the most shameful of this committee's findings was that president trump sat in the dining room off the oval office watching the violent riot at the capitol on television. for hours he would not issue a public statement instructing his supporters to disburse and leave the capitol. despite urgent pleas from his white house staff and dozens of others to do so. members of his family, his white house lawyers, virtually all of those around him knew that this simple act was critical.

for hours he would not do it. during this time, law enforcement agents were attacked and seriously injured. the capitol was invaded, the electoral count was halted and the lives of those put in the capitol were at risk. in addition to being unlawful as described in our report. this was an utter moral failure, and a clear dereliction of duty. evidence of this can be seen in the testimony of president trump's own white house counsel and several other white house witnesses. no man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation again. he is unfit for any office. >> she was the center in some ways again today for that ind of statement, the way she

combines the prosecutor's decision with the moral clarity that has been present throughout her entire crusade, her entire mission on this topic. talk to me about what you think as someone who understands that prosecutors are just prosecutors, politicians are just politicians, the ones who could combine the best qualities of both in a forum like this. how they can move the needle and why she was so important over this entire committee's trajectory. >> one thing i thought was fascinating the way she sort of opened her statement and talking about president washington, and, you know, basically that he gave up power, understanding that we don't have monarchy, that is the fundamental precept of what this country is about. that you don't have a monarchy, that you give up power if you lose. in many ways, she in a different way is emblematic of that. she is somebody who acted out of principle. you couldn't get a sort of greater, sort of personal story that's different than donald

trump who doesn't really understand this idea of acting out of principle, that people have a moral fiber that they will do something based on their own sense of right and wrong, and so in many ways, she spoke in her words, and she's an emblem of somebody that could have, as she said, she could have stayed in office, but she would have had to swallow why she was a public servant. i thought her example and words were powerful. in terms of relating that to the department of justice, people in the department of justice think they are doing something that is righteous, and people speak to their better angels, and you can be sure everyone was watching this, and it does sort of have a call to doing your job and doing what's necessary and not thinking about what the personal ramifications are to you. and what is necessary is not bringing charges, you'll do it, if it is what seems increasingly likely that it is to bring some of these charges.

particularly in mar-a-lago, then you're going to do it regardless of what the consequences to you might be personally. >> because this case was so politically charged, i think about liz cheney, one of the things that she was able to do is go and have conversations. the witnesses are almost entirely republican. they brought few partisan witnesses into the room. it was a political strategy and legal strategy, and liz cheney being able to talk to cassidy hutchinson. we would never have seen cassidy hutchinson appear before the committee, someone who could have a conversation as a republican and a woman, that would never happen. someone who has talked about, these are kinds of things you think about when you're building a case. they're not necessarily the way we think about them. we watch these things on television, and law school. it turns out that things like this matter, especially when you're talking about a case with this kind of political profile where a witness is suffering

consequences in their professional life, personal life, and years to come. i think it did in this case, another thing that liz cheney brought to the committee that can't be overstated in terms of its value. >> sure. andrew knows this like i do. a lot of what goes on in prosecutions and investigations is very personal, and whether it's an investigator, an fbi agent or a prosecutor who's building a relationship with a witness who you'd really like to have as a cooperator in your case, that can often be a very finely edged sort of a proposition, and so by all reports, liz cheney was very important in bringing cassidy hutchinson to the table here, and extracting her testimony. you'll remember, john, that was a week where committee meetings were hurriedly scheduled and rescheduled. it was clear there was something in the works.

and we heard hutchinson's testimony which gave added impetus to the committee's process. she brought into focus conversations that she had had where the former president was directly implicated on january 6th. his outrage, for instance, when he wasn't permitted to go to the capitol. most of her testimony is hearsay. that's the sort of testimony that's not admissible at a trial. she is none the less a very important witness. she shakes loose the path of the other witness whose testimony is admissible. that's a big part of what the doj has to do today. what we'll read in the report, it's powerful. we need to remain mindful that doj, if it decides to indict will have a case to win. it will need evidence that's admissible in court. it will have to think carefully about the potential defendant's side of the story. defenses that they could raise, none of which we heard today.

but ultimately, it may be liz cheney's work in bringing many of the republican witness who is we heard from, giving them a comfort zone. in the recordings you could often hear the rapport that she had with them when she was doing part of the questioning. that's an forms service she performed for the committee. >> it's not all that often i find myself citing donald trump as a legal authority. in this case i will say that when the man said way back when that, you know, made that reference about, you know, if you're not guilty of something, you don't take the fifth. a lot of people said, yeah, that's probably right. taking the fifth is a little hinky, and the reason i raise that is because of one of the things i discovered, i want to get a full screen up here. one of the things we discovered in the executive summary, the number of people that pleaded the fifth, more than 30 witnesses before the select committee issued the fifth amendment privilege, and refused on that basis to provide testimony.

they included individuals central to the investigation, such as john eastman, jeffrey clark, roger stone, and others. you know, again, can't convict him on that basis. what does it say to you. so many people, more than 30. maybe if we had been paying attention, to see it laid out in the executive summary. what does it say there's that many people at that high a level who invoke the fifth in this investigation. >> it certainly is a signal there's stuff they don't want to talk about in public or anywhere. it also is important to remember how many of really important witnesses refuse to honor subpoenas, and they have been referred to the house ethics committee, members of congress who refused to recognize a legal subpoena from the body they serve in. that is stunning, and the other thing we haven't mentioned yet, john, which i find very very

interesting. we have not really had any realtime pushback this afternoon. you know, it's interesting to me that republicans didn't have a war room pushing out, you know, things to try to counter this powerful story that was echoing through the halls of congress this afternoon. but if you look at the twitter accounts of the republican leaders, all they're talking about today and all the right wing media is talking about is probably just hunter biden's laptop. no one is stepping up to defend donald trump in light of this powerful, powerful report that came out. now, they're going to investigate the security around the capitol. okay. great. so what? are you going to investigate my private security around my home if it gets burglarized. what about the burglar? and that's really all they've got, and that tells you a lot about these political leaders are want to go get as far away

from this as they possibly can, and maybe they're no longer interested in defending donald trump. >> everybody sticking around here. my magic johnson, larry bird, michael jordan, the whole dream team is sticking around. we'll be talking about the new evidence released by the committee. one of donald trump's closest personal aides, her concern about violence, and as claire mentioned, those who participated in the insurrection are running in congress free like gazelles, no cages around them. we'll talk to one longer governing alongside the free range insurrectionists. after thousands and thousands of video evidence, from that day, the evidence the january 6th committee wants us to remember, we'll play it all for you today in full as deadline white house continues.

after this. do not go anywhere. continues after this do n goto anywhere my dad was a hard worker. he used to do side jobs installing windows, charging something like a hundred bucks a window when other guys were charging four to five-hundred bucks. he just didn't wanna do that. he was proud of the price he was charging. ♪♪ my dad instilled in me, always put the people before the money. be proud of offering a good product at a fair price. i think he'd be extremely proud of me, yeah. ♪♪ ♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us.

it's nice to unwind after a long week of telling people how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! (limu squawks) he's a natural. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ millions have made the switch from the big three only pay for what you need. to the best kept secret in wireless: xfinity mobile that means millions are saving hundreds a year with the fastest mobile service. and now, introducing, the best price for two lines of unlimited. just $30 per line there are millions of happy campers out there. and this is the perfect time to join them... save hundreds a year over t-mobile, verizon, and at&t with xfinity mobile, and for a limited time get $400 off a new eligible 5g phone.

switch today. i tried everything to remove fabric odors, but my clothes still smelled. until i finally found new downy rinse and refresh! it doesn't just cover odors, it helps remove them up to 3 times better than detergent alone! find new downy rinse & refresh

in the fabric softener aisle. you're watching msnbc. when you wrote, i suggested it several times, and it presumably means the president saying something about being nonviolent. i suggested it several times monday and tuesday and he refused. tell us what happened. >> sure. i didn't speak to the president about this directly, but i communicated to people like eric herschmann that it was my view that it was important that the president put out some kind of

message in advance of the event. >> and what was mr. herschmann's response. >> he said that he had made the same, you know, recommendation directly to the president. and that he had refused. >> just so i understand, mr. herschmann said that he had already recommended that the president convey a message that people should be peaceful on january 6th and the president had refused to do that? >> yes. >> that was long time and exceedingly trusted trump aide hope hicks speaking to the january 6th select committee on how she talked to white house lawyer eric herschmann about asking donald trump to issue a call for nonviolence on january 6th. we're back with joyce and claire and andrew, michael and larry and magic, you can decide who's who. we were talking on the break a little bit about what a hard

core prosecutor is looking for in what is in the executive summary already, and what is to come on wednesday when they this giant batch of documents comes out. and you, consistent with your reputation and with what i know you to be, i'm looking for people to flip. that's what matters. it all matters, but tactically and strategically, where can i get a toe hold on some information here that i can use to flip someone. talk about that. >> yeah, so this is a good example because you have hope hicks saying, you know, i didn't speak directly to the president, but i spoke to eric herschmann and there was an illusion to the fact that eric herschmann may not have said the same thing. that could be a failure of recollection. two people can say things that are different but what you're looking for is can you jam somebody up who is being less than candid, where they give you a little but not everything. because most people don't just walk in and say, here's the

truth. as claire and joy and i know, like the way you get people to flip is you build a criminal case on them, and top of the list for any prosecutor has got to be mark meadows, now, there's an illusion in the report that he may in fact be cooperating with doj, but if he's not, that is the person that you are looking to build a case on, and then if you can't make it on him, you look for people below that, like tony ornato from the secret service. he seems to be in a whole lot of hot water. that's somebody again you're going to build a case and flip him so he needs to tell the truth. >> we're going to come back to the mark meadows thing that andrew mentioned because it's deep in the executive summary that would not have approved of. we're going to get to it because it's really interesting, the question of whether meadows might be cooperating with the doj if the case, it doesn't say

that in the report, but it alludes to it, would be obviously important. tony ornato, not mentioned in the hearing, at the end of last week, people were like, pay attention to what they say about tony ornato. he is mentioned in the executive summary, and is he, as andrew said just now, if you were in maine justice, is tony ornato at the top of your list of someone you might want to flip. who's -- >> tony ornato is a curious figure in this whole story. he's a career secret service agent, and suddenly he goes over to the white house in a political position. i can't tell you how unheard of that is. he doesn't have to resign from the secret service. he takes a leave of absence, and goes, and that's something that really doesn't happen for a lot of obvious reasons. we're seeing them all play out

here. so if, in fact, as the committee suggests he has had more than a tragic failure of memory and actually resorted to covering up the truth, he is definitely someone that you would want to have a conversation with as a prosecutor. because of his access to the former president, what you're really looking for in your cooperators are people who had conversations with trump, who can get you straight into what was going on inside of his mind, what he knew. when he knew it. you know, all of those cliches about investigating a president hold very true here, and there's something else percolating here john, involving everything with hope hicks, which is that she is having conversations with trump ahead of january 6th about let's not have any violence. you need to tell people not to engage in violence, and we need to zoom out and think about that. this is an american president

gathering his faithful for one last political rally. why were people worried there was going to be violence. that's not really an expectation we have surrounding our president. i know hope hicks has been something of an enigma here. she's trying to testify just enough perhaps of troubles of her. who had said what to her, what did she know about what was going on, perhaps about some of the organization, some of the plans ahead of january 6th. a lot of these witness inquiries will be dead ends, every prosecutor knows that, but inevitably some of them bear fruit. with trump, he has had this almost knack for avoiding having cooperators from his inner circle surface. we've seen that recently in the manhattan d.a.'s criminal prosecution of the trump organization where trump avoids indictment in large part because his cfo would not testify against him. here doj is going to have to crack that nut and find a good

cooperator or two. >> claire, this program known as dwh today with an executive summary this big, we're changing the name to tldr. to get to that, andrew weissmann mentioned this portion of the report, the executive summary where the committee talks about mark meadows, and alludes to the possibility he might be cooperating already with the doj. i'm going to read that portion and get your take on it as another prosecutor on the panel. although the justice department has taken the position in litigation that a former high level white house staffer for a former president is not entoit ld to absolute immunity, and that any interests in the confidentiality. the justice department declined to prosecute mark meadows for criminal contempt. the reasons are not apparent to the committee.

commentators speculated that meadows may be cooperating in the january 6th investigation, and the same may be true for president trump's white house deputy chief of staff, who the house voted to keep in contempt. the words on their own seem harmless. they're in this executive summary. for those of us who have been around the block a few times, indicates the committee put that in there of the tip of the hand to the notion they believe or know that both of those people are in fact cooperating. does that make sense to you or do you think this is a stretch on my part? >> it may be a little bit of a stretch on your part, but since i'm one of those players you referred to, i'm not going to be critical of you for stretching a bit. here's the thing, the people that andrew and joyce have talked about in terms of flipping, what we're really talking about are people who

overheard trump's admissions. because, remember, admissions are not hearsay. if someone says something against their own interests, it's admissible in evidence. when donald trump said no i don't want to put out something about being nonviolent or refused to do anything to stop the violent when it was ongoing, the people who witnessed that, who saw that behavior, that goes to his intent, which goes to the premeditation that they talked about in the hearing today. the premeditation is very very important. even if you're not required to prove state of mind in a given crime, when there are a few of those, the jury always wants to know why, what was going on in the defendant's head. the premeditation is a big deal on the simple four things. they confuse him with premeditation, ones that people like meadows would know about,

the big lie, pressuring state officials, false electors, and instigating the mob and cheering the mob on while it was committing crimes at the capitol. those are the things you need admissions around, and the people closest to him are going to have those and it looks like to me those people are fl trouble based on the executive summary and the lies they have told in this investigation. >> claire, for suggesting i may have stretched a little. >> i think she meant me. >> she becomes the larry bird. you're magic johnson. you think meadows is cooperating. >> i think i can't say he is. i find it curious that that line is in there if they didn't have some inkling that that's what's going on. >> had a spidey sense of what was going on in the court. you have that sense now. >> right. >> i want to read to you one other thing that popped out to me from the testimony, which

goes to something that joyce was talking about related to hope hicks. a contradiction in testimony. the full screen from the report where the committee says ivanka trump's chief of staff contradicted her testimony. here it is, the committee staff writes this, it's been reported that you ultimately decided to attend the rally because you hoped you would calm the president. she said no, i don't know who said that or where that came from. however, this is what julie radford said about her bos, what was concerning about why her father was attempt or agitated in relation to rally? why did he have to be calmed down. >> radford replies, well, she

shared that he had called the vice president an expletive word. i think that bothered her. whether she used it or not. i think that bothered her, meaning ivanka. i think she could tell based on the conversations and what was going on in the office that he was angry and upset, and people were providing misinformation and she felt like she might be able to calm the situation down, at least before she went on stage. all of these people doing things, why was there a command center at the willard. what was there to command if this was going to be a peaceful rally. that's one of the questions one has hacked. of course ivanka trump is freaked out about what's going to happen. is this contradiction meaningful from a prosecutor's standpoint, you read that, and is that a seam i can work, can i flip

ivanka trump. is there something there that would be a deuce, a value to our prosecutor? >> the answer is yes, you look for all contradictions. it's natural for people not to remember the same way. you have to be careful you're not thinking there's perjury everywhere you look. on the other hand, if you look at what's reported in the executive summary. there were a whole bunch of trump world lawyers coaching these witnesses to say things like you know what, just say you don't recall, even if you do recall. now, that is actually a no no for all the lawyers out there, that is dust -- you can't say you don't recall when you do recall. if you're the government where this kind of obstruction goes on all the time in political corruption cases as it does in mob cases, you want the people on the other side of the table, the witness and the lawyers to

actually worry and sit there and say you know what, we have to veer closer to the truth. you know, they're a story that we have said before is not going to fly, and we are risking going to get prosecuted. one of the reason to bring false statement cases, obstruction cases, you want to send a message to the witnesses and maybe even more importantly their lawyers that you're willing to prosecute that so you get the truth out of people sfl there's potentially a price to pay for lying. again, no one on the dream team going anywhere. up next, we're going to also have former impeachment manager ted lou is going to join us with what happened on capitol hill on this historic day in our news. wn this historic day in our news. (singing )i'll be home for christmas.

you can plan on me. please have snow and mistletoe. and presents on the tree. right now all over the country kids at shriners hospitals for children are able to go home and be with their families for the holidays. and that's only possible because of the monthly donations from people like you. thanks to a generous donor every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. with your gift of just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as a thank you. and a reminder of the care you'll be providing so kids can be with their families.

(singing) christmas eve will find me. where the love light gleams. it only takes a moment to call the number on your screen. or you can visit loveshriners.org. thanks to a generous donor your gift will go twice as far and help more kids like me. because every child just wants to be home for the holidays, and your gift makes that possible. your call is the best gift of all. your gift will be my favorite christmas present this year. thank you for giving. please call the number on your screen or go to loveshriners.org to give whatever you can. and when you do, your gift will have two times the impact.

- [narrator] every day, our lives are filled with choices, both simple and life-changing. what's not a choice? addiction to opioids like fentanyl. but even with opioid use disorder, you still have a choice. by choosing treatment, you choose family, your career and your life on your terms. choose change, california, and find medically proven treatment options at choosechangeca.org.

once upon a time, at the magical everly estate, landscaper larry and his trusty crew... were delayed when the new kid totaled his truck. timber... fortunately, they were covered by progressive, so it was a happy ending... for almost everyone. the january 6th committee has referred the former president of the united states, twice impeached, utterly disgraced pathological liar, to the department of justice. there are massive gaps in accountability, for his coconspirators, especially the ones still sitting in congress. those who continue the serve the free range insurrectionists on the house side, while four of them including the man who would like to be the next speaker of the house, second in the line of

succession, kevin mccarthy were referred for ethics violations. those will likely nowhere, republicans taking control. not much chance of anything happening there. many many more were participants or knew what he was planning to do and said nothing to law enforcement. as the committee's executive summary puts it, the risk for violence and what was known ahead of time was not fully understood. certain republican members of congress who was working with trump and the giuliani team may have had insight on this particular risk but none appear to have alerted the capitol police or any other law enforcement authorities. so to discuss that obvious breach of not just protocol and ethics and morality but maybe of the law, let's bring in democratic congressman ted lieu. he served as an impeachment manager during the second impeachment of donald trump. the question on everybody's mind

here is what happens now, as these ethics referrals get over. what happens to these free range insurrectionists that you have to work with every day? is there no accountability for them? do they get off scot-free? >> the ethics committee is one of the most bipartisan committees in congress. i would let them do their job and see what happens. what i'm concerned about is when kevin mccarthy and incoming chair of the judiciary committee jim jordan blow off bipartisan congressional subpoenas that makes it difficult for them to subpoena next term. witnesses will blow off the subpoenas as well. citing mccarthy and jim jordan's actions. that's damaging to the credibility of the house of representatives. >> am i overstating it, you're about to have a house controlled by republicans, if kevin mccarthy is the speaker and the leadership ranks are made up of

people like jim jordan and the shadow leadership ranks are made up of people like marjorie taylor greene. a house of representatives run by people who are at least complicit, if not active participants. in some case active participants in. even in the most modest cases, complicit in what the committee has declared an insurrection by the former president of the united states. isn't that what we're seeing, one house of congress is controlled by insurrectionists. >> you're accurate, and it's clear that donald trump could not have pulled off this attack on the capitol by himself. he had help. now, whether there's enough evidence to prosecute all the people who helped donald trump do this insurrection, that's something the department of justice is going to have to look into. >> i'm going to read a little bit from the executive summary about debbie lasko. on january 5th, after promoting unfounded objections to election

results, debbie lesko recommends the danger. i asked leadership to come up with a safety plan for members. we have quite honestly trump supporters who believe we're going to overturn the election. when that doesn't happen, most likely will not happen, they are going to go nuts. congressman, you know, these -- we say that that he is criminal referrals are symbolic. they don't have the force of law. i have to say that just, again, as a person who watched all of this stuff and paid attention carefully, the notion that all of these congress people, some of who had so much knowledge of what was going on and did nothing. the fact that what they're getting is an ethics committee referral, even if you accept your point of view that the ethics committee is bipartisan, strikes me as pretty weak beer. >> i think one of their problems is a number of these members of congress basically ignored the

bipartisan congressional subpoenas. so the january 6th was not able to get the same amount of evidence that they could with some of the other witnesses who did comply and talk about what happened on january 6th and what led up to january 6th. part of the problem is a lack of evidence the committee itself might have. the department of justice won't have the same problem. they have the power to subpoena witnesses and have what it complies with the subpoenas and we'll see what the department of justice does. >> congressman ted lieu, thank you so much for your time. cassidy hutchinson said mo brooks, marjorie taylor greene of georgia, and scott perry of pennsylvania sought pardons from trump related to their actions around january 6th. it doesn't mean they're guilty but stinks to high heaven. turning to another important finding, law enforcement committees were informed over and over and over again about the potential for violence on

january 6th. here is january 6th committee member congresswoman stephanie murphy talking about those warnings in the final committee meeting today. >> these included warnings like the following. their plan is to literally kill people, please, please, take this tip seriously, and investigate further. president trump supporters have proposed a movement to occupy capitol hill. alert regarding the vp being a deadman walking if he doesn't do the right thing. >> let's bring in fbi former intelligence, peter strzok. it was not a day for questions about the long-term policy implications of what happened, the failure of intelligence, the failure of law enforcement, the failures that stephanie murphy was talking about today. as of wednesday, we're going to have a much larger report,

policy recommendations. i'm curious what sood out to you today, from what you did hear, and what you want to hear, what you want to read, and this committee report, the full committee report on wednesday, and where do you think what we've learned, where it should carry. we want to make sure this doesn't happen again. >> that's a great question. i think clearly the committee has made a decision that they want to focus on former president trump. law enforcement, not the fbi, cap it will police, they dent cause people to march on the cap l to. having said that, there are real issues. i would recommend always read the footnotes, in the material that is released at bay, they are detailed footnotes, talking about the volume of material seized at the mag tom ters. brass knuckles, tasers, batons, on and on, including huge stacks of backpacks that people were dumping on the ground before

they went in and people staying behind to watch equipment. what's in the backpacks that wouldn't have made it through . resulting in convictions up to and including seditious conspiracy. trials for the proud boys started. i think it's a very reasonable question for congress the inspector general and others to say there were these warnings. not to beat up on anybody in law enforcement. but to understand where things went wrong. these threats haven't gone away. donald trump is the presumptive nominee. we need to take a hard, honest look to figure out what went wrong, what needs to be fixed if anything, and make sure we're making progress to do that as we move forward. >> i'm going it ask you the most basic every man question. when the attack happened on january 6th, i think for a lot

of people they looked, but i couldn't imagine this happened. how is this facility not secure. how can we have the certification of a presidential election. it's washington, d.c., there's federal agents, state agents, maryland, virginia, you know, the most secure place in america, the capitol building. this could never happen. then it happened. i ask two years later, whether you think the united states capitol and places in washington, d.c. are any more or less or the same level of security as we learned them to be which is to say shockingly unsecure. are we in a better position today than then? >> i think we are. when they want to secure the capitol, it does a good job of it. if you're forced to conceal the

capitol in the state of the union address or the inauguration itself. the u.s. and government and law enforcement at the federal and local level does a good job of securing the capitol. as we sat there on january 6th, including me, current and former fbi agents and a lot of other folks i have spoken to, surprises and frankly a little bit of anger watching wapd on -- on tv. there were a clear set of warnings, very straightforward. come to the capitol, there's going to be violence. i don't think the function is whether or not the government can secure the capitol. it can. the question is why it didn't, the days leading up to january 6th, and whether or not we have made the adjustments we need to do to prevent the unexpected from happening again. >> i'll say this time later, having watched these committee hearings unfold, and learning what we learned, as scan lsu as

donald trump's behavior is, this is to me one of the great scandals is that this was allowed to happen. we can secure the buildings. we didn't. why it was allowed to happen and what we need to do to make sure it never happens again is paramount. my thanks to peter strzok. and my all star panel, joyce vance, who do you want to be, joist? she wants to be mookie blaylock. and claire mccaskill didn't blink when i called her larry bird. that's pretty good comparison. thank you for being with me today to start this thing auch. another hour chalk full of news and more 1/6 discussion coming up, including the evidence presented by the committee in

the final public meeting. the whole thing, what they wanted you to hear after a year and a half of investigation. we'll be back with that and more. don't go anywhere. not going to want to miss it. re don't go anywhere. not going to want to miss it , we tide ultra-oxi with odor eliminators. between stains and odors, it can handle double trouble. for the #1 stain fighter and odor remover, it's got to be tide. ♪ well, the stock is bubbling in the pot ♪ ♪ just till they taste what we've got ♪ [ tires squeal, crash ] when owning a small business gets real, progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we? [ cheering ] hi, i'm kaleb. i was born with, osteogenesis imperfecta or brittle bone disease. i have broken my bones almost 200 times and i have had 11 surgeries. but i didn't let that stop me. i love the bike ride, climb, race and i'm learning how to stand and walk. well, i can only do all this because of

generous people like you and shriners hospitals for children. because of people like you shriners hospitals for children has helped more than 1.3 million kids just like me, regardless of their families ability to pay. because of you, i can ride my bike. i can play basketball. when you go to loveshriners.org right now and give just $0.63 a day. you're helping kids just like me. thank you. thank you. please call or go online now. if operators are busy, please call again or give right away at loveshriners.org. ugh, this rental car is so boring to drive. let's be honest. the rent-a-car industry is the definition of boring. and the reason can be found in the name itself. rent - a - car? you don't want a friend. you want the friend. you don't want a job. you want the job. the is always over a. that's why we don't offer a car.

we offer the car. ( ♪♪ ) sixt. rent the car. - [narrator] every day, our lives are filled with choices, both simple and life-changing. what's not a choice? addiction to opioids like fentanyl. but even with opioid use disorder, you still have a choice. by choosing treatment, you choose family, your career and your life on your terms.

choose change, california, and find medically proven treatment options at choosechangeca.org. we propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of this specific offense, the severity of its actual harm and the centrality of the offender to the overall design of the unlawful scheme to overthrow the election compel us to speak. ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail

and the master minds and ring leaders get a free pass. >> aloha and namaste again, everyone. it is 5:00 p.m. here in new york city. i'm john heilemann in for nicolle wallace today and for the rest of the week. buckle your seat belts. it's a big news week, and today kicked it off. a moment for the history books. the first time that a congressional committee has ever referred a former president of the united states for criminal prosecution by the united states justice department. almost four hours ago, that very house select committee investigating january 6th voted to send those very criminal referrals, four of them against former president trump. several of his allies, to the doj. the referrals for trump, separate criminal charges for obstruction of an official proceeding. conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to make a false statement and the last one, for inciting, assisting or providing aid and comfort to an

insurrection. while the criminal referrals do not carry any legal weight on their own, they represent a significant symbolic, political, rebuke, the man who remains the most influential republican in the country, the man who is already launched a bid for the presidency in 2024. these referrals now make their way to the department of justice where special counsel jack smith will decide whether to act on them. jamie raskin noted that there may be other individuals worthy of prosecution, and that is the work the doj can pursue as it continues its own ongoing investigation into the efforts to overturn the free, fair and totally legitimate 2020 presidential election. after the public meeting, another member of the committee, congressman adam schiff spoke to the task at hand for the doj now. >> we believe, as we indicated

in our criminal referral that donald j. trump, that there was evidence that he violated multiple criminal laws. if the justice department concurs with that assessment and with the evidence, then he should be prosecuted like any other american. no one should get a pass. and i think the day we start giving passes to presidents or former presidents or people of power and influence is the day we can say that this was the beginning of the end of our democracy. >> and that is where we start at this hour, joining us now, "washington post" congressional investigations reporter at msnbc contributor, jackie alemany, mary mccord, top official in the justice department's national security division and ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser to president barack obama and an msnbc contributor. mary, i want to start with you. because of your history in the justice department, and the consequences, the historic nature of what happened today, i

guess my question is what you saw from 30,000 feet, where your main take aways were, it's a day that's historic. the question is whether it will have meaningful consequences. what are your thoughts? >> a criminal referral is not binding on the justice department. the justice department makes its own prosecutorial decisions independent from anyone on capitol hill, anyone in the white house. i do think it's pretty significant that this committee saw fit to actually include in its final report these recommendations, these referrals. they wanted to say, we spent 18 months investigate, here's how we see this fit into criminal offenses and a number are lawyers, and some have prosecutorial experience such as adam schiff. here's a package we're giving you we know you're going to do

with it what you wish, but here's how we see it. the other thing that's significant about these charges is it seems to me that they have tried to match up the recommended charges with the different phases of this multiphase conspiracy, right, so it's the obstruction of a proceeding offense and the conspiracy to defraud the u.s. government, and even the conspiracy to make false statements, all relate to a lot of different things that were going on in the lead up to january 6th. the pressure campaigns, the big lie, the orchestrating of the fake elector scheme and the signing of these fake electoral ballots. then the insurrection recommendation really relates to what happened on january 6th. and i think even though there was a lot of stuff before that, there was the tweet on december 19th, be there, be wild, et cetera, on january 6th, we had, you know, the president and the former president's speech at the ellipse. we had him sitting by for 187 minutes while he knew what he

was watching the violence, his top aides and really everyone around him was imploring him to do something, and he stood by, and worse, at 2:24, he tweeted a very insightful tweet about vice president mike pence. i think that recommendation relates to kind of the culmination of all of these things on january 6th. >> mary, i know when you said insightful, you did not mean full of insight. hard to imagine donald trump being full of insight on any occasion. >> you're quite right. >> ben, i want to ask you this, mary just listed all of these things that trump was involved in. the committee that he did on those days, all of them still kind of below your mind, right? i would say if you look back over the 18 months they were doing the investigation, one of the things that was most stunning and shocking to most of us, right, was that trump wanted to participate in this thing. for most people, it was like,

when trump said i'll be there with you, i'll walk with you, we saw him say that, and he went to the white house. that's trump, of course he's sending his followers off to do the dirty work but the committee says in this executive summary that i keep waving around up here, 160-page executive summary, they point out very pointedly, they say this. the committee's principle concern was that the president actually spended to participate personally in the january 6th efforts of the capitol, leading the attempt to overturn the election from inside the house chamber, a stage outsides capitol or otherwise. there's no question that president trump did have that intent. i got to say, not what i thought we would end up with here, and makes it seem that the man was more bat crap crazy than i thought. tell me what you think about this, again, from your 30,000 foot, your big take aways from the day are, and specifically on this question. why does it matter so much, and why would it be a principle

concern of the committee to establish that trump had every intention to go up there and take part in this insurrection himself? >> well, i think one of the central questions of the trump presidency and this entire era of american politics is whether donald trump was a kind of unfit loose cannon who presided over a kind of rowdy collection of the republican party's base. and that he himself didn't necessarily reflect the worst elements of that base. he just kind of set them loose in some manner. and that would have led to the idea that some of the worst excesses of the trump presidency, including and most importantly january 6th, happened because of the nature of his supporters, and not necessarily because of trump himself. what the january 6th committee has methodically done has shown that, you know, donald trump actually was the worst version of his supporters, that donald trump, there's a direct line between him and the most repellant images that we saw on january 6th.

that he orchestrated it, empowered people to establish a conspiracy theory, and he himself wanted to be a part of that crowd, that he did not see himself as closer to, you know, his buddies and the republican establishment like lindsey graham. he saw himself as one of the people storming the capitol, and that was something that he incited and was a part of. and i think this is a really important question for the future of our democracy, the future of trump and above all, the future of the republican party. if you just say, well, there's some bad apples, people that went too far on january 6th. trump never really was the author of these things. he was kind of a showman, and things got a little out of hands. there's not the soul searching that needs to take place. what the committee is trying to do is force everybody from the department of justice to the republican party to the american electorate, that look at the bold, hard truth, that this is who trump was, the logical end

point of politics, unless we take decisive action, there's no reason to believe this would happen again. it's a central decision by the committee and evidence based to say this is what happened, this is who was behind it, and if we don't deal with this, there's no reason to think it might not happen again. >> jackie alemany, we have been going through this executive summary, and looking at it, and trying to do the version of it for people who don't have time to read. 160 pages in the executive summary. wednesday, we have 2,000 pages, whatever it's going to be. one of the things that stands out in the executive atmosphere summary is about john eastman, an obstruction of an official proceeding. i'm going to read this to you. you had reporting from john eastman, you have been all over the john eastman story. i'm going to get your take on this. it says in the executive summary, the committee believes sufficient evidence exists for a referral for john eastman, and

associates. others share in eastman's culpability. you know, when we talk about eastman, he has been the person who was highest on the list of people who thought, of someone -- highest on the list of those observers thought were likely to get a criminal referral along with donald trump, and he has gotten one. talk to us about john eastman and his role in this, and what happens now for him? >> that's exactly right, and that's also because as the committee references in their report, these criminal referrals were in part rooted in three legal opinions that had previously been issued by federal court judges, but before i get further into that, i want to correct the record. i misspoke last week on wednesday and then on friday when i said that john eastman had already been disbarred. what i had intended to convey is there are a number of nonprofits and voting rights groups that have made ethics referrals to the supreme court and the

california state bar recommending that he be disbarred and suspended for practice. i apologize for that error, but i think what we're seeing today is most likely and potentially worse for john eastman's future career which is this referral to the department of justice, and as you noted, john eastman is at the top of the list after former president donald trump, for charges of obstructing an official proceeding. that is the criminal referral the committee is recommending and as you also read, a handful of other players, kenneth chestboro, jeffrey clark, rudy giuliani, and white house chief of staff, mark meadows in the conglomerate of the top allies assisting him in what the committee consistently calls conspiracy. jeffrey clark is someone else that they also call out explicitly in the way they call out john eastman as aiding the

former president to corrupt the department of justice. they mention a few things specifically and repeatedly which was john eastman's pressure campaign on former vice president mike pence to disrupt the electoral certification as a part of this broader scheme to overturn the results of this election, and then jeffrey clark's efforts to try to implement the false slate of electors by drafting this all together fake letter from the department of justice to state officials that essentially falsely made the case for them to replace their state electors. >> jackie, thanks for that clarification about last week and eastman. i will say the world is different than when i was a young man growing up. at least back in the old days, getting a criminal referral from a department of congress would not do a lot for your law career. he will have difficulty in practicing law and operating in the most effective way in front of judges around the country

with this hanging over his head depending on what the doj wants to do. we want to bring in denver riggleman, former adviser to the house january 6th committee. good to see you, bud. you know, this is a big day, you know, the culmination of the work on a committee that you worked really hard on for a really long time. i'm curious as you saw them lay out what they laid out today, what they put in the executive summary, what they decided to put on tv, what's going to be in the full report which we haven't yet seen. what are your reactions to where this committee has landed at the end of this long road that they have been on? >> after the first eight hearings, i thought it was impressive as far as how they defined trump. his legal strategies, the idiots, the fact that he wanted to go with team crazy. sort of his, i would say propensity to not only

intimidate through social media but incite. i think they did a fantastic job with that. i was surprised they talked about the money line on this, and i think you can say, we are dealing with maybe the best notice of all time, you know, the grifter of the united states. not even a potus, and looking at the money lines, the things that have been done. i think they did an effective job. i think as we go forward, the gold team has taken the mantle of pushing this. i think the other teams are more important for the future. when you look at red, green, blue and purple, day of command and control with right wing extremist groups, the state of security that day with law enforcement and the national security posture and when you look at follow the money, which i think is the most important thing, what i'm looking for in this, you know, report is really the way, how do we stop january 6th in the future. what did it look like? what is that going to look like. that's something in my 20 years of counter terrorism experience,

that's why i got called up in this. looking at the gotus was a surprise to me. that will be one of the most important things we look at when we try to prevent this in the future. >> denver, i want to stick with you. last week, there was some reporting about the full trench of mark meadows texts. hunter walker who worked with you on your book "the breach, the untold story of the investigation of january 6th" hunter walker was out in tpm. mark meadows, exchanged texts with 34 members of congress. if i remember correctly from your book and other conversations you've had, you were instrumental in bringing marks meadows' texts to light. a little of the back of this. meadows exchanged text messages with 34 republican members of congress. let's put up the full screen. these are some of the bullet points here. representative ralph norman texted meadows about invoking

martial law, second lawmaker to put that in writing after marjorie taylor greene. congressman perry became consumed with conspiracies theories related to the election. he wrote about his efforts to set up a cyber team, i put quotes around that, that would seize voting machines around the country and put them under quote lock and key. a big proponent of installing jeffrey clark as attorney general. that would be mark meadows, i mean. also became fixated on italygate that italian satellites zapped voting machines and stole the election for joe biden. and mixing requests for presidential pardon, helping on the election efforts. and congressman bigs quote whatever happens, no one can concede. so, i mean, it's literally inside the mind of a maniac, like a crazy person, you read these text messages. i'm not exaggerating here,

right. you don't read these and say in the history of the united states, the second most powerful job, the white house chief of staff. and very serious people have held that job in past white houses. these text messages reading them make you think that mark meadows is literally out of his mind, indulging in these conversations. not just indulging but participating in an active way. i want to know if you think i'm over characterizing or dramatizing. we know donald trump not fit for the presidency, and not fit for public office as liz cheney said today. reading the meadows texts makes you think that man was wildly unfit to be in the white house chief of staff, am i right or over stating it? >> you're under stating it. imagine this, imagine i'm the first person to see the text with the names attached to it after my team found them, right, and imagine you're sitting there

reading the first text from a ginni thomas or scott perry who wants to go to encrypted apps, and they're saying things that are so nuts, you can't hardly do t. the first thing you do is go into your liquor cabinet. you're trying to actually process the insanity. these are truly the bourbon texts. you have to try to, you know, take the edge off to read them. you don't know whether to laugh or cry, and hunter's incredible work. he started calling people and getting more than i could do based on the authorities on the committee when you look as an act of journalism, he got representatives to answer. we can look at trump, we can look at what he did and the great job the committee did but we have to look at the disease, right, that's conspiracy theories, and we have to recognize in those 2,319 texts,

we saw the saturation of qanon to the highest levels of the gop. not only that, january 6th was a fantasy based insurrection. it was no different than those who think the lord of the rings is a documentary. there's a digital radicalization, and their ability to plan this based on complete fantasy is what we should fear in the future. the fact that they could have this mass type of decentralized coordination, across multiple platforms to force this into action, and that's the thing that scares the hell out of me. this crazy is still out there. i was listening to someone else, and it looked like the election deniers lost. are you kidding me, how many of the 139 in congress actually lost. when you look at it, it's still republican majority and you have crazy things being talked about, and individuals who want to concentrate on hunter biden nld instead of looking at exactly

what's happening on the ground in january 6th. the data says that fantasies and crazy were the main driver of january 6th. and you had the guy at the top who was inciting and even tweeting on the day of about pence not doing the right thing, and putting that man's life in danger, and we still can't get people to get out of their hole, be actual human beings and have courage and say this individual is nuts and unfit to serve. >> denver, i'm just going to read one text message for the sake of it, here. this is one from congressman ralph norman. i mentioned it before. congressman from south carolina, not just a congressman from south carolina, a net worth according to wikipedia, $18.3 million. 28th wealthiest member of congress, according to wikipedia. mark, it says in seeing what's happening so quickly and reading about the dominion lawsuits and attempting to stop any meaningful investigation, we are at a point of no return in saving our republic with two

exclamation points. using the trump punctuation. our last hope all caps, is invoking martial law. please urge to president to do so. i think he means the president. that's 1/17/2021. sitting member of congress. >> it's about the same day marjorie taylor greene might have sent a text like that. when you look at it from a counter terrorism, martial law, the way they spelled it should give you an indication. other people were spelling it like that in the texts also, that's what i want to tell people. when you have individuals like this, and you have a marjorie taylor greene, other congressional representatives also want to have martial law, people need to read that in the chats. what were they on signal chat, so they go encrypted. do you have members of congress on encrypted messaging and why

are they spelling it the same. why when you go through the text, because they're coordinating their message, like they coordinating the antifa false flag, an interference, whether it's satellites or chavez or ukraine or romania. just the text messages, not in the 28 million lines of data we probably have in call detail records of the stuff that the technical and product teams have on the committee. that road map showed you when eastman was recruited, jeff clark. it showed you all of that in one fell swoop and the martial law thing is another indication that of these individuals were messaging together. >> these guys are many of them still sitting members of congress. they're the free range insurrectionists that roam the halls up there. one of the things you're pointing out, some of it is so scary and bizarre that you have to laugh, on the other hand, it's the reality that it's just

a terrifying reality that these people are elected members of congress, and they're still allowed to operate in plain sight and not face consequences whatsoever. >> it's too -- to be made up. >> we'll see what happens with mark meadows. they are an incredible road map, and as andrew weissmann suggested looking in the executive summary, it might be that mark meadows realizes how much trouble he is in and cooperating with the doj. we need to fit in this break because we have been talking too long. when we come back, for viewers of this program, a lot of it is not new, but it is important. the evidence that the january 6th committee wants us all to remember. their work is over, 18 months millions of documents, all of the hours of testimony, the stuff you've seen and haven't seen. the committee boiled it all down today and played it in a relatively brief bite. we're going to play it in full.

it's that important. what they think is the most important stuff they uncovered. later in the hour. how donald trump's bad week is about to get a whole lot worse, if that's imageable and possible. yeah, it's possible and imaginable. you're going to see it real soon. "deadline white house" continuing after a quick break so do not leave me, please. brek so do not leave me, please those pillars of our democracy are fragile and our rights are under attack. reproductive rights, voting rights, the right to make your own choices and to have your voice heard. we must act now to restore and protect these freedoms for us and for the future, and we can't do it without you. we are the american civil liberties union. will you join us? call or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty today. your gift of just $19 a month, only $0.63

a day, will help ensure that together we can continue to fight for free speech, liberty and justice. your support is more urgently needed than ever. reproductive rights are on the line and we are looking at going backwards. we have got to be here. we've got to be strong to protect those rights. so please join the aclu now. call or go to my aclu.org and become an aclu guardian of liberty for just $19 a month. when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special we the people t-shirt member card magazine and more to show you're part of a movement to protect the rights of all people. for over 100 years, the aclu has fought for everyone to have a voice and equal justice. and we will never stop

because we the people, means all of us. so please call or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty today.

maybe the most striking thing about the january 6th select committee presentations over the past year was the sheer volume of the evidence that they had put in front of the american people. a massive trove of video and audio, and text messages from those involved with what took place on, before and during the

day of the insurrection. today, in the committee's final public meeting, the members pulled together and a really kind of tight but also voluminous compilation of what they saw as the highlights of all the evidence they put together over the course of their investigation. to a lot of our viewers, the presentation they put on today may be familiar, other people may not have been fact attention and even for those of you who were, we think it's a public service to give you that summation in full today because of the fact that it represents what the committee members themselves felt were the most important of the truths that they learned over the course of the last 18 months, the most important of the truths they want to put in front of the public in a concise public record. let's take a look at that right now. t right now. >> there were officers on the ground. they were bleeding.

they were throwing up. i mean, i saw friend with blood all over their faces. i was slipping in people's blood. >> as i was swarmed by a violent mob, they ripped off my badge. they grabbed and stripped me of my radio. they seized ammunition that was secure to my body. they began to beat me with their fists and with what felt like hard metal objects. >> the key thing to do is to claim victory. no we won, [ bleep ] we won, [ bleep ] >> right out of the box on election night, the president claimed that there was major fraud underway. i mean, this happened as far as i could tell before there was actually any potential of looking at evidence. >> i didn't think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time. so that led to me stepping away. >> generally discussed on that topic was whether the fraud,

mall administration, abuse or irregularities if read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome determinant, and i think everyone's assessment in the room, at least amongst the staff, marc short, myself, and greg jacob was that it was not sufficient to be outcome determinant. >> i told him that i did ball three -- believe yes, that once those legal processes had been run, if fraud had not been established that affected the outcome of the election, unfortunately what i believe had to be done was concede the outcome. >> what were the chances of president trump winning the election? >> after that point? >> yes. >> none. >> so what are we going to do here, folks, i only need 11,000 votes. fellows i need 11,000 votes.

give me a break. >> the numbers are the numbers. the numbers don't lie. we had many allegations and we investigated every single one of them. >> did one of them make a comment that they didn't have evidence but they had a lot of theories. >> that was mr. giuliani. >> and what exactly did he say, and how did that come up. >> my recollection he said we have lots of theories, we don't have any evidence. you're asking me that's never been done in the history of the united states, and i'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof. >> there's a tape earlier in the day of ruby freeman, and shay freeman, and one of the gentlemen quite obviously, surreptitiously passing around usb ports as if they're viles of heroin or cocaine. >> in one of the videos we just watched, mr. giuliani accuse youd and your mother of passing some sort of usb drive to each

other. what was your mom actually handing you on that video? >> a ginger mint. >> do you know how it feels to have the president of the united states to target you, the president of the united states is supposed to represent every american. not to target one. >> i made it clear i did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff which i told the president was. [ bleep ] >> he wanted to talk about that he thought the election had been stolen or was corrupt and that there was widespread fraud. and i had told them that our reviews had not shown that to be the case. >> and i said something to the effect of, sir, we have done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews, the major allegations are not supported by the evidence

developed. >> my first thought was this is a terrible idea. jeff clark cannot be installed as acting attorney general of the united states. >> you ultimately told us that you described this meeting or not this meeting, that is an effing murder/suicide pact. do you remember using that term, murder/suicide pact? >> yes. >> was it your impression that the vice president had directly conveyed his position on these issues to the president not just to the world through a dear colleague later but directly to president trump? >> many times. >> my view was that the vice president didn't have the legal authority to do anything except what he did. >> and i said hold on a second, i want to understand what you're saying. you're saying that you believe the vice president acting as president of the senate can be

sole decision maker in your theory as to who becomes the next president of the united states. and he said yes. i said are you out of your effing mind. >> all the attention was on what mike would do or what mike wouldn't do. >> there's a telephone conversation between the president and the vice president, is that correct? >> yes. >> the conversation was pretty heated. >> i apologize for being impolite, do you remember what she said, her father called him. >> the p word. it was clear that it was escalating and escalating quickly. so then with that tweet, the mike pence tweet was sent out, i remember us saying that that was the last thing that needed to be tweeted at that moment. it felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting

that. >> gained access to the second floor, and i've got public down here below. >> copy. >> they are on the second floor, moving in now. you may want to consider getting out and leaving now, copy. >> the members of the vp detail at this time were starting to fear for their own lives. there were calls to say good-bye to family members, so on and so forth. >> approximately 40 feet, that's all there was, 40 feet between the vice president and the mob. >> donald trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to american democracy. >> we got derogatory information suggesting that some very very violent individuals were organizing to come to d.c. >> as mr. giuliani and i were walking to his vehicle that

evening, he looked at me and said something to the effect of cass are you excited for the 6th. it's going to be a great day. i remember looking at him and saying, rudy, can you explain what's happening on the 6th and he had responded something to the effect of we're going to the capitol. it's going to be great. the president is going to be there. he's going to look powerful. >> he personally asked for us to come to d.c. that day, and i thought for everything he's done for us, if this is the only thing he's going to ask of me, i'll do it. >> well, basically, you know, the president, you know, got everybody riled up, told everybody head on down. so we basically, we just following what he said. >> we won't survive. >> within 15 minutes of leaving

the stage, president trump knew that the capitol was besieged and under attack. >> so are you aware of any phone call by the president of the united states to the secretary of defense that day? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> are you aware of any phone call by the president of the united states to the attorney general of the united states that day? >> no. >> are you aware of any phone call by the president of the united states to the secretary of homeland security that day? >> i'm not aware of that, no. >> did you ever hear the president -- >> no. >> ask for -- >> no. >> did you hear the president ask for law enforcement response? >> no. >> we've got an assault going on on the capitol of the united states of america. and there's nothing. no call? nothing. zero. >> i remember pat saying something to the effect of, marc, we need to do something

more. they're literally calling for the vice president's to be effing hung, and marc had responded something to the effect of you heard it, pat, he thinks mike deserves it. he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. >> staff did not want people to leave the capitol. >> on the staff? >> and the white house. >> i can't think of anybody, you know, on that day who didn't want people to get out of the capitol and particularly once the violence started. no, i mean. >> what about the president? >> yeah. >> well, she said the staff. so i answered. >> no, i said, and the white house. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. i thought you said who else on

the staff. >> i can't reveal communications but obviously i think, you know -- yeah. >> i said, good, john, now i'm going to gif you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life. get a great effing criminal defense lawyer, you're going to need it. >> general flynn, do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power in the united states of america? >> the fifth. >> another officer unconscious.

>> i don't want to say the election is over. i just want to say congress has certified the results. without saying the election is over, okay. >> we're back with jackie alemany, ben rhodes, mary mccory. i know you have to go, i'm going to ask you, when you look at what we just played here, which i think as i said when we introduced it, is what the committee's judgment is kind of this is the stuff. this is the stuff that is kind of core of what we discovered and the core of the case against trump, the core of what you need to know if you're a citizen, if you're a prosecutor, if you're a member of congress, what do you take away from those judgments that have been made about what to emphasize here, what the message the committee is trying to send out to try to get to what it obviously thinks is necessary to happen next to bring about accountability, to bring about federal charges being brought against donald trump, and others, how well do you think that makes the case to the public about where things

should go forward? >> well, you know, i can imagine it was so difficult to try to distill down to 11 minutes what has been, you know, amassed by this committee over the last 18 months, and even just distill down each of the previous ten hearings themselves of which lasted two or more hours each, and so i think what the committee did is they tried to highlight each step of the multistep conspiracy to throw this wasn't a oneoff. this wasn't sort of a one mistake or misjudgment or something like this. this was a concerted effort across many levels, from the big lie to the pressure on state legislatures, and state officials to the pressure on the department of justice to the pressure on vice president pence to the insurrection on january 6th. and so by putting this together, you know, for those who may be haven't had the time to watch all the hours of the hearings and won't have the time to read

through thousands of pages of a report or even the 161 that we have right now, 161 pages, this hopefully gives people enough to realize there does need to be accountability here, and that accountability has got to be more than just this 900 people who are being charged and prosecuted 500 of which have already been found guilty or pleaded guilty, you know, just the foot soldiers, i think, was the word that one of them used. can't be just the foot soldiers who did the dirty work on january 6th. accountability has to go up from there. >> mary, thanks for being with us today. ben, i want to ask you kind of the same question. i think that the -- there's so many congressional committees over so many years of your and my lifetime, watched them all. and some have done good work, and better work and worse work, but they have left behind large reports and all kinds of appendices and indexes and all kinds of things. and after they fade from public

view, no one goes back to them. i imagine that people will watch that sort version of what the committee learned. that will be played in college classrooms, and in high school classrooms, history classes, people will watch that for a long time. talk to me about what you think history's judgment will be given that this committee is now basically wrapped. what do you think the judgment of history will be about the work they got done here today, and is it dependent on whether or not trump gets charged. >> they understand the power of story telling in this committee, which is not always the case with congressional committees. you've heard this question of how will history judge them, and i think a lot of reason why people backed trump is they were making a bet that actually maybe history is going to go that way, tilt in the direction of reactionary politics, and i think what the committee is doing forcefully is make a statement in the presence tense of american politics about donald trump's fundamental inviability. and creating a record for history, the farther we get, and

the less people will feel compelled at a tribal interest to defend trump, the more he'll be seen as this extreme part of american history. >> there's a lot underneath it. a lot of people in the video, they knew donald trump was crazy before january 6th. and they went along with it, right? i think the committee did a service in really putting the onus on trump, the accountability on trump. that is where it ultimately belongs as the person at the top of the apparatus. that will have an immediate impact on his political standing. i think it will help shape how historians view this period. i think we all have more work to do to get at the stuff that's under the water here. that's kind of incomplete work that the committee couldn't get done with its mandate in time. jackie real quick i got my prop here, executive summary,

160 pages in my print. maybe you use smaller fonts. a couple of days from now, there's going to be a thing this much higher that the committee is going to release, going to send over to congress. up there on capitol hill are people going to dig into that thing, are they bracing for it, are they going to ignore it, what's going to happen when the full committee, when the full report comes out, over a thousand pages in less than 48 hours from now? >> well, i'm not sure it really matters what people on capitol hill do with this report. i think the committee's ultimate aim is to make sure that as many people as possible in their constituents and the american public read the report, and pick it up. and that is why they tried to make -- more concise, condensed version of their eight hearing today to catch people up to speed who missed the set of public summer hearings and are trying to play catch up, and

maybe don't have the time to sit down to watch eight to ten hours worth of congressional heards. we're going to see what the committee has been able to successfully do with the report, and whether or not people beyond reporters, media figures, lawmakers, and, you know, people who work in political circles pick this thing up, i'm actually curious as to what ben ultimately thinks. he did have a hand in the 9/11 commission. i'm wondering, we know that members of the january 6th committee reached out to people who worked on the report. which ultimately became a best selling book after its release, and whether they're ultimately going to follow the recommendations of those staffers who worked day in and day out to write a report or whether or not under, you know, the conditions and time constraints that they had, if maybe the report is a little bit rambling or loses the thread but

that is why at the end of the day, we saw people like liz cheney really try to keep the committee and their work narrowly focused on former president trump, and the big lie, and how that precipitated a lot of the events that came to follow, and led up to january 6th. jackie, ben, those questions. i will ask you them the next time we have you on the show about the 9/11 commission report. thank you for spending this time with us today. ahead, if you think that today was bad for donald trump, tomorrow is going to be another very very long day. the president has fought for years to avoid. that is next. ent has fought for years to avoid that is next but did you know downy provides 7 benefits for your clothes, like making them softer and fresher. plus, downy fights fading and stretching. make your laundry softer, fresher, and look newer longer.

♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us. 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. waiting. sometimes it's just inevitable. but if you're over 50 or live with a chronic condition, untreated covid could be deadly. got covid symptoms? get tested and get treated right away. it can't wait.

- [narrator] every day, our lives are filled with choices, both simple and life-changing. what's not a choice? addiction to opioids like fentanyl. but even with opioid use disorder, you still have a choice. by choosing treatment, you choose family, your career and your life on your terms. choose change, california, and find medically proven treatment options

at choosechangeca.org. just imagine having a week so bad that you're a former president of the united states who's had a congressional committee for the first time in history issue a formal criminal referral to the justice department aimed at you, four parts, you committed four federal crimes and that might not be the worst part of it. just imagine you could have something worse from your point of view happen than that. that is the case for the twice impeached utterly graced former president of the united states because tomorrow afternoon, the house ways and means committee will meet privately to discuss what to do with six years worth of donald j. trump's tax returns. should they vote to release that material to the public? the american people will have

its first look at what donald trump has doggedly tried to hide for as long as anyone can remember. all of the secretive financial information that's buried in his past. let us bring into this conversation political conversation matthew dowd, off in texas, i think, and here at the table my friend, democratic strategist basil and the director of public policy. bazil, how bad is it? if you're trump and the tax returns suddenly become public, how bad that is for trump in terms of your psyche but also political risk? >> his psyche would be bruised considerably because he spent his whole career building this mountain of personality based on his money. he's the guy who said trust me, buy my tape, you too can be rich. the charlatans, the fraud can be

exposed depending on what's in these taxes. i also think that there's going to be significant connections to some unseemly people that we may not have known before. case in point, there's a guy named george santos who ran for congress in new york, won that election. turns out not only is he a big trump supporter, but he fabricated most of his life going back to his teens in his financial disclosure it turns out he's received money connected to russian oligarchs. if those are the folks trump has around him, imagine the information we can glean from trump's own tax returns based on his dealings. >> matthew, i ask you this, you know, i think trump obviously cares about his legal exposure, whether he's going to get indicted, whether he's going to get charged, whether he could end up in jail. today is congress, he has no respect for people in congress. i wonder as you do the psychoanalysis that you're

famous for on the terminally demented and pathologically deranged, if you can tell me what's going on in the haunted house head of donald trump. he's saying this is not going to be a great week for me. as he looks at today and tomorrow and wednesday, how he's seeing all of this and what bothers him the most. maybe tomorrow is the worst of those days in some ways for him. >> well, i would start it a little earlier, which is what bothers donald trump the most. what happened on november 8th and what happened in georgia is probably much more important to him than what happened today in congress. i don't think he has respect for congress, but he also doesn't have respect for the legal system. he fears it to a degree but also doesn't have respect for it. but being branded a loser has caused him a huge amount of consternation. that's why i think tomorrow is

actually, as you say, may be actually more important to him than what happened today. because tomorrow is if -- and i think the congressional committee should do it. they should release it to the public and crowd source the information so everybody in the world can pare through it and find out what it is. i think what is most important to trump is that he's not as wealthy as he's been telling people for decades. and so being branded a political loser where no longer people fear you or fear you less, coupled with this brand that he built through help of mark burnett, that he's some wealthy, successful businessman, i think the tax returns will ultimately, as some of them have shown, that that isn't fundamentally true. i don't think he wants to go off into the sunset being one branded a political loser and two, you're not a wealthy man and you're not successful. so today while extremely important to our democracy is, i think, less important to donald trump than the election day and tomorrow.

>> yes. it's that big -- it's that big "l" on the forehead that's the problem. the loser politically and the loser financially. none if it's good. matthew dowd, we have to get you back on. it's always great to see you. he calls you basil, i called you smilke. it's basal -- basil smikle. >> thank you for spending your day with us. this week will be crazy. there's a lot more to say about all of this, including what's in this report in the next top of the hour. you've got "the beat" with the man, the myth, the legend, ari melber. he knows what he's talking about, so stick around and check out ar echt. ound and check out ar echt. tter? create something new? our dell technologies advisors can providi echt.u wiechth the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you.

if you still have symptoms of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis after a tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq is different and may help. stand up to your symptoms with rinvoq. rinvoq is a once-daily pill that tackles pain, stiffness, swelling. for some, rinvoq significantly reduces ra and psa fatigue. it can stop further irreversible joint damage. and rinvoq can leave skin clear or almost clear in psa. that's rinvoq relief. 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 one 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. ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq. rinvoq. make it your mission. learn how abbvie could help you save.