good evening. we begin "the reidout" tonight with the final meeting of the january 6th committee, and its decision to refer the already disgraced twice impeached former president, donald j. trump, to the justice department for criminal charges. >> this is still a time of reflection and reckoning. if we are to survive as a nation of laws and democracy, this can never happen again. >> 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. >> the nine-member committee made today's announcement in the speaker nancy pelosi caucus room. an historic name change recently made in her honor. a symbolic victory for the speaker whose office was ransacked by insurrectionists. today's announcement will make donald trump the first former president ever to become the subject of a criminal referral from congress over conduct laid out in detail by committee member and congressman jamie raskin. >> the committee believes that more than sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of former president trump for assisting or aiding and comforting those at the capitol who engaged in a violent attack on the united states. the committee has developed

significant evidence that president trump intended to disrupt the peaceful transfer -- transition of power. >> today's public committee meeting came on an anniversary. it was two years ago today trump sent out this infamous tweet, big protest in d.c. on january 6th, he wrote, referring on the day congress was to formally certify joe biden's victory. going to be wild, he added. it was the tweet that in part led to his second impeachment for incitement of insurrection. and now, the house panel investigating him has referred him for four criminal charges, including engaging in an insurrection. what happened today is a very big deal. it will forever alter the way january 6th is remembered. and even shape how our democracy will survive, presuming it does. it's a culmination of the committee's intense 18-month investigation, which revealed to the public televised testimonies that were incredibly dramatic, often times horrifying.

and which made the case that trump aided and abetted those who mobbed the capitol in a desperate bid to cling to power. it was a somewhat expected conclusion, but also an historic one, and it may finally offer what chairman and congressman bennie thompson called the most important factor in preventing another january 6th. accountability. as part of that effort, the committee today summarized again in vivid detail the key evidence the investigation uncovered from trump pressures state officials to inciting a mob united by one allegiance, to keep donald trump in power. >> you're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the united states. >> mr. giuliani accused you 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 target you? >> i remember pat saying something to the effect of, mark, we need to do something more. they are literally calling for the vice president to be f'ing hung. and mark 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. >> another officer unconscious. >> joining me now is congressman jamie raskin, a member of the january 6th committee, and congressman, thank you so much for being here. and this has been a long, many, many months of investigation. lots of evidence put forward. i'm going to read to the audience the four charges, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the united states,

conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting, assisting, or aiding and comfortable an insurrection. aiding and comforting i want to ask you more about. the thing that stands out for those of us who watched this inentire time and have seen the related cases going on from the justice department, is that seditious conspiracy wound up not being a part of these referrals. can you just walk us through why that is? >> joy, first of all, thanks for having me and for being so attentive to these proceedings. would it be all right if i talk about what we did do and i think that will bring into sharper relief what we didn't do. so the first charge, 1512-c, is interference with a federal government proceeding. that was the whole purpose and the whole effect of everything that donald trump mobilized in terms of stop the steal, sending the crowd, the mob into the

capitol to obstruct the vote count, and so that one really fits like a glove. i mean, this was the whole point of what donald trump was doing. but the second charge, 371, is all about conspiracy to defraud the government, to interfere with the operations of the government through deceit and dishonesty, and of course, that also captures exactly what was going on. there were counterfeit actors. there was a fake determination that donald trump had actually won the election. and then they used that disinformation propaganda to attack the actual legitimate system of government. the third charge, 18-usc, is about filing false statements and false documents with the government, and that was these counterfeit electors they

brought in from different parts of the country knowing they were completely false, but attesting that they were true. and then finally, there is the charge of inciting, assisting, and giving aid and comfort to insurrection. here, any one of those three prongs would constitute violation of the statute, but i think that donald trump is actually culpable for all three of them. he clearly incited insurrection when he told the crowd, you gotta fight like hell. if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore and a series of other very explosive incendiary remarks like that. he assisted them at 2:42 p.m. on january 6th, when he knew that the riot had overtaken the capitol, driven us out of the house and the senate chambers, driven the vice president out, and instead of using his powers as president to try to get in touch with law enforcement or the military to shut it done, what he did instead was send out

a tweet which said, mike pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done. in other words, he added fuel to the fire right there. he gave further sustenance to the riot and to the insurrection, and also, he gave aid and comfort all along that day and for weeks before and for weeks indeed months after leading up all the way to today, to the insurrectionists when he said he loved them, they're very special, always remember this day. promising, you know, the possibility of pardons and mass pardon for all of the violent insurrectionists, talking about how unfairly they're being treated in the justice system and so on. all of that continues this pattern of aiding, assisting, and giving aid and comfort to the insurrectionists. so the one charge that you're talking about that has been brought against the oath keepers and the proud boys of seditious conspiracy, a conspiracy to put

down or overthrow the government of the united states, is a charge certainly that was talked about, and it's one that undoubtedly the department of justice will assemble a lot more evidence than we were able to get because so many people refused to testify to us, either they just blew off our subpoenas or they came in and took the fifth amendment. what we would need to show there is that there was intent by donald trump himself or eastman himself to engage in violence. and we took a very cautious approach. the committee feels unanimously there's abundant evidence of all these other charges but given the constraints put on us by people refusing to testify, we were not able to agree that this was a charge that was fully made, and we decided to stick with what we thought seemed to us certain. >> thank you for explaining that. i think that the john eastman, you talked about john eastman, he's the person who in all of these hearings seemed to have had the longest standing plan,

whether it was his true belief, because it wasn't always clear whether he thought what he was planning was legal, but you can go back to the year 2000, him having this theory that the vice president could simply decide what electors he wanted to certify and not certify those of the actual winner. and there's definitely a sense that there was a methodical plan that involved at least trying to pressure mike pence to do what donald trump wanted done. and then the violence seems to have been added on top of it and the question is whether donald trump knew the violence would be added. is that fair to say? >> i think that's fair to say. and look, there's one basic way to conduct an honest election, which is to allow everybody to vote, to count all the votes, and then to honestly implement the victor of the election as the winner. there are a lot of ways, as donald trump showed, to try to overthrow and undermine a fair

election. he went to the legislatures. he went to the election officials, he went to the department of justice, they even talked about having the military take over the election machinery and rerun the election because everybody knows that provision in the constitution. and then finally, they wanted to inflate the powers of the vice president to the size of a goodyear blimp, something that simply had never been noticed apparently for more than two centuries allowing the vice president essentially to choose the next president. but all of these were ways to try to destroy a fair election. and they pursued all of them. we think that this array of charges captures what took place over a series of many weeks by donald trump in trying to subvert and destroy our election and seize the presidency. >> i have to ask you, just as somebody who is serving with some members who participated in or supported the idea of overturning the results of the election, who will remain in

congress, you did refer four members for ethics, you know, charges or at least an ethics investigation. what do you make of the fact, this isn't like the civil war. where those members who joined the confederacy were rooted out of government. they are here. and what do you make of the fact that you have ongoing conspirators who are going to serve in the majority in the very house in which you serve? >> well, we have decided to make a referral of these members the ethics committee for one reason, which is we asked them to come tell us about what they knew about the plot to subvert the election, and they didn't come, so we issued subpoenas against them, and they basically blew off the subpoenas. and we saw that steve bannon, for example, was someone who was criminally convicted for violating the subpoena of the

u.s. congress. so i don't recommend that to anyone. under the speech or debate clause, we don't really have the authority to take members of congress outside of congress in order to enforce a subpoena which is why we have to deal with it internally and we sent it to the ethics committee. the ethics committee will have to think long and hard about what to do because what they're doing is creating a precedent going forward for how members of congress should respond in the event that they are subpoenaed by congress itself. and especially in an egregious case like this, dealing with a violent insurrection against the government itself. >> let me read a little bit from the executive summary. this seems to be a very salient point. if donald trump and the associates who assisted him in an effort to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election are not held accountable under the law, their behavior may become a precedent, an invitation to danger. failure to hold them accountable may lead to future unlawful

efforts to overturn our elections threatening the security and viability of our republic. if the justice department chooses not to act on these referrals and donald trump is the nominee of the republican party again, one must presume the vast majority of republicans will support him again. what is your fear, that he will just do this again if the justice department doesn't do it? you guys are saying that's the reason you're doing this. are you concerned the justice department doesn't see it that way? >> well, let me look at it from an historical angle and a constitutional angle. i mean, the historians and political scientists we have spoken to have been very clear about this. the surest sign of a successful coup coming is a recently failed coup where the coup plotters and insurrectionists got to diagram the weaknesses in the existing structure. and so if there's impunity, if they think they can operate with

immunity and under the cover of darkness, then they are undoubtedly going to come back again. so i think that everything we know about what's taken place around the world with coups and what's taken place historically tells us that there must be consequences, and not just for the hundreds of foot soldiers who are already facing the music and many of whom have already been convicted or pled guilty, but also for people all the way at the top, the masterminds and the ringleaders. constitutionally, the answer to your question is right there in section 3 of the 14th amendment. after the civil war, during the reconstruction, it was the republican party which insisted that anyone who has sworn an oath to support the constitution but who violates that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion may never hold federal or state office again. that's a constitutional disqualification from office. so my colleague liz cheney today

said that, you know, donald trump was ethically unqualified, which is absolutely true. but he's also constitutionally disqualified from holding office, having participated in insurrection. i hope that is a discussion that america is ready to have. >> i think we are absolutely ready to have it. we must have it if we're going to remain a republic. congressman jamie raskin, thank you very much. >> up next on "the reidout," more on today's serious legal implications for trump and his most rabid supporters. "the reidout" continues after this. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic. you know where to go.

get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds.

we propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of the 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 masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass. >> question of whether or not to pursue criminal charges against donald trump is now in the hands of the department of justice. in addition to the ongoing prosecutions of numerous who did trump's bidding. as the final committee meeting was under way so was jury selection in the seditious conspiracy hearing of five members of the proud boys.

enrico tarrio is charged with four other defendants, ethan nordean, joseph biggs, zachary rail, and dominic petzola. it opens less than a month after elmer stewart rhodes was convicted along with one of his lieutenants of seditious conspiracy. more than 900 people have been criminally charged in the justice department's largest investigation in u.s. history. the question now is, what does the doj do about the man at the center of it all. joining me is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst and maya wiley, president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights and former assistant u.s. attorney. thank you both for being here. i'm going to go to you first barbara since you have the disadvantage of not sitting with us at the table. these are the four things, obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to make false statement, inciting, assisting, or giving aid to an insurrection.

these seem open and shut to me. they sound like what was described as donald trump's conduct. i did ask congressman raskin about the kind of dog that didn't bark here. the dog that didn't hunt or whatever the saying is. that's is seditious conspiracy. we have seen it's not easy to convict on that either, apparently, but we have seen a conviction on that. i just want to read you a little bit of the executive summary about the violence that took place. that's the connection that would need to be made. secret service confiscated a haul of weapons from the people who passed through the magnetometers. 269 knives or blades, 18 brass knuckles, six pieces of body armor, 30 batons or blunt instruments and miscellaneous items and thousands of others possibly left outside. we know there was cassidy hutchinson testimony that donald trump was demanding the mags be open and that, quote, his people be allowed through. they were armed. talk to us about the justice department's decision making here. because they have already

convicted some people on seditious conspiracy. they now have a referral on four other charges. if you're in the doj right now, which way do you go? >> well, joy, i think it's really important to determine whether they have evidence that links donald trump and his inner circle, you know, the willard hotel war room, with the planning for the physical attack. so far, we are seen some hints of it, some circumstantial evidence of it, we have roger stone and mike flynn photographed with some members of the groups on january 5th. to this day, we do not have that direct link saying donald trump planned in advance this physical attack. it may be that the justice department is able to do that. they have some investigative tools not available to the january 6th committee. like search warrants and the grand jury, they can immunize witnesses. they can offer cooperation credit. they may be able to develop that yet. i thought the committee actually did a very good job here in not overcharging. i think if they had included seditious conspiracy without the

direct link of evidence, they would have been accused of overcharging. instead what they present is something that's restrained, the obstruction of an official proceeding is a 20-year felony. same as seditious conspiracy. i don't think they're giving anything up. the one thing they did include that surprised me and is an aggressive charge is inciting insurrection. i always framed that in the view of the january 6th speech on the ellipse, and i thought that was probably a bridge too far, only because the supreme court has set such a high bar when it comes to giving fiery political speeches. but they focused on that, but in addition, they focused on the 2:24 p.m. tweet where he tweets about mike pence not having the courage to do the right thing, and usa demands the truth. he did that while he had been watching for hours the attack unfold at the capitol. so in that instance, i think they do meet the very high bar of inciting imminent lawless action with a likelihood that that attack would result. so i think that this is the kind

of charge that the justice department will take and consider seriously. >> maya, what sort of fascinating about the way they laid this out, mostly with republicans testifying here, is that donald trump was unhappy with the official advice he's getting from the justice department. they're telling him, there's no there there. you lost, and that's it. and so he starts hunting for other people. he finds rudy giuliani who is willing to do and john eastman who he says is a brilliant guy. he's going to get me what i need. and then there is this part of the executive summary that says whatever then happened, he wanted to be a part of it. the committee principle concern was that the president intended to participate personally in the january 6th efforts at the capitol, leading the attempt to overturn the election, either from inside the house chamber, from a stage outside the capitol, or otherwise. no question from all the evident assembled that trump did have that intent. so he wants to go and supervise or sort of preside over the chaos that is taking place there. what does that tell you and what do you think doj does with that?

>> it certainly tells you, one, that donald trump is responsible for what we saw on january 6th. that it's critically important we hold him accountable and the question for doj is, do they have enough for that particular charge. i mean, because look, here's the thing. and i think barbara is absolutely right. there is evidence here, and a lot of it is circumstantial, important because circumstantial evidence is still evidence. but at the end of the day, the reason they got the oath keepers, the reason they got stewart rhodes, the reason they got kelly megs is they had people flipped on them and testified against them who would say and point them to what they said and how they understood that they were going to be engaged in violence. and there was no question about it. i think here, what we have is certainly a lot of evidence, whether or not they will deem it sufficient to win over a jury is the real question here. but not whether or not there's evidence and not whether or not

donald trump's responsible. >> prosecutors are only going to charge what they can convict on. let's play really quick, this is hope hicks, which we hadn't heard before, and former white house lawyer discussing the idea of violence at the capitol. >> when you wrote, it presumably means that the president said something about being nonviolent. you wrote, i suggested it several times monday and tuesday, and he refused. >> mr. hirschmann said he had made the same recommendation directly to the president. and that he had refused. >> so i understand, mr. hirschmann said he had already recommended to the president that the president convey a message that people should be peaceful on january 6th and the president had refused to do that? >> yes. >> barbara, what does that say to you? it it seemed clear at minimum, donald trump had no desire to help stop the violence until the

absolute last minute. this is an implication that he didn't even want to include in his speech that people should be nonviolent. >> yeah, and that's a pretty interesting insight right there because remember, he did include the word peacefully, which i thought was an important word that could actually help him a lot because it gives him some deniability that when he said we're going to march down to the capitol, he meant it literally, we're going to bust down the doors and bust inside. so really interesting about his intent. i don't know that this makes his speech more or less criminal, but i do think it is important information about his intent, that he was intent on riling up the crowd as much as he was. so i think that is important, but as i said before, i think the real key to this, and it's a genius move, is including that 2:24 p.m. tweet in addition to the speech at the ellipse, because i think the ellipse

speech sounds a lock like real traditional stump speeches even though it gets a little hot. but the tweet where the battle is under way, and you know what's going on. you know they're chanting hang mike pence, and then he throws that fuel on the fire. that one is really the one that could cause him some serious challenges. >> speaking of tweet, this is the tweet anniversary of the december 9th tweet, it's going to be wild. thank you both. >> still ahead, the wider conspiracy, what the committee's referral could mean for the likes of john eastman, mark meadows, jeffrey clark, and rudy giuliani. we'll be right back. ack. 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.♪ for back pain, i've always been a take two and call in the morning guy. but my new doctor recommended salonpas. without another pill upsetting my stomach, i get powerful, effective and safe relief.

salonpas. it's good medicine. when you're through with powering through, it's time for theraflu hot liquid medicine. powerful relief so you can restore and recover. theraflu hot beats cold.

("this little light of mine") - [narrator] in the world's poorest places, children with cleft conditions live in darkness and shame. they're shunned, outcast, living in pain.

you can reach out and change the life of a suffering child right now. a surgery that takes as little as 45 minutes and your act of love can change a child's life forever. please call or visit operationsmile.org now. thousands of children are waiting. so small, so smart. hearing aids that i can personalize to each ear right from here. brilliant.

- [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. donald trump lit the flame, poured gasoline on the fire, and sat by in the white house watching as the fire burned, as the committee said today, he had many willing coconspirators. top of that list was disgraced lawyer john eastman, who provided trump with a dubious legal argument to steal the election, including the idea that pence could just declare that trump was re-elected. in its report, the committee noted that eastman, prior to 2020, acknowledged that pence had no legal authority to do that. and he had told trump as much. that is key to the committee's referral of eastman to the department of justice for impeding an official proceeding and conspiring to defraud the united states. eastman was not alone. while he was tasked with creating the legal framework for stealing the election, it was

people like chief of staff mark meadows, personal counsel rudy giuliani, and others who were tasked with making sure it actually happened. remember steve bannon and peter navarro had an official plan in place called the green bay sweep, which involved getting key congressional players to delay and debate the election results, plunging the house into chaos, and allowing republicans to declare trump the winner. the committee voted to make criminal referrals to the justice department for former president donald trump, lawyer john eastman and unspecified others. joining me now is eugene robinson, columnist at "the washington post" and an msnbc analyst. hugo lowell, and kurt bardella, democratic strategist and former spokesman for the republicans on the house oversight committee from 2009 to 2013 before he left the party. eugene, i want to start with you because the eastman piece is so key. he's the guy who for 20 years had this cockamamie idea that you don't have to worry about

the voters. you can just have congress pick the electors. and so here is donald trump praising him as a great intellect for that. >> john is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, what an absolute disgrace that this could be happening to our constitution. and he looked at mike pence, and i hope mike is going to do the right thing. i hope so. i hope so. because if mike pence does the right thing, we win the election. >> when he came before the january 6th committee he pleaded the fifth a bunch of times and this is the advice he got from eric hershmen. >> i said to him are you out of your f'ing mind? i said, i only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on. orderly transition. eventually, he said orderly transition. i said, good, john.

now i'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life. get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer. you're going to need it. >> you know, eugene, i miss the days when conservative scholars and intellectuals sat around debating ephemera about the constitution. now it appears they're forming legal frameworks and it's not clear if they believe them or not on how presidents can win elections without them being legal. >> it's clear that john eastman didn't really believe this was going to work, but he thought it was plausible enough to try to get it through. and steal an election. i mean, and so conspiracy to defraud the united states. i would say that's defrauding the united states. i would add that president trump's entire political career was an exercise in defrauding the united states. but i digress. just to your point, it is -- you know, remember when judge luttig

testified before the panel, and there you heard a genuine conservative jurist, i don't agree with a lot of his views about the law, but a principled man who wanted to follow the constitution and follow the law. and there seemed to be very few of his kind left. >> and you know, kurt, it does feel like there's been a sea change in the republican party from that sort of old school type of republican who just constantly claimed we care most about the constitution and reading it as the founders intended it, and that sort of thing, to this newer class of republicans who they're outcome driven. you have donald trump fishing for people who will tell him what he wants to hear. he goes to giuliani, we're willing to convince members of congress to throw chaos into the election cycle and decide it inside congress, but they seem to be fishing for an intellectual basis to get the outcome they wanted because they know they didn't win and can't

win. >> yeah, it's a far cry, i remember when i worked in republican politics and in congress, the republicans always made a big show of having those pocket sized constitutions that they carry with them and would use really as a prop and a device, and they leaned on that and came up with that phrase, constitutional conservative to describe their idealogical core. and here we are, even since january 6th, since all this happened, we have a guy who still is the leader of the republican party in my opinion who just recently said he wanted to literally shred the constitution. let's tear it up and throw it out, that the circumstances of today call for such an extraordinary act. and no one really spoke up about that. no one really has gone after donald trump for that in the republican party. i can only imagine the venom and fear that we would have seen from republicans if barack obama or hillary clinton or joe biden made a similar statement. they would lose their minds. yet, when donald trump does it, they're quiet.

they're hiding from it. they're trying to ignore it, pretend like it didn't happen. that tells you how far the republican party has strayed from the days when they carried the pocket sized constitutions. >> it does feel, hugo, i don't know as you're talking with republicans on capitol hill, like the john eastman, who has always been pretty far out there on his ideas about the way elections ought to work, and the roger stones of the world are now the sort of intellectual center of the party and that the old intellectual center, they have no power whatsoever, and that's this new crew is who is going to be in charge in the house. >> yeah, i mean, look no further than the current republican conference and kevin mccarthy's struggle to be speaker in the next congress. i mean, he's really being held hostage by the freedom caucus, and even though he has all the establishment republican figures on his side, that has proven to be insufficient in order to lead the entire house republican conference. i think that's particularly

evident to trump but even now in the post trump era, you're seeing republicans still tied to this maga far right ideology and it's really now the core of the republican party. at least i think in the house. and it did start, i think, with trump pushing republicans and his aides and his lawyers and allies to this new level where they want to win at any cost or they want to try to make themselves win at any cost. and that was always the fundamental part of eastman's plan for january 6th. he admitted in e-mails to the vice president's counsel that he knew what he was doing was illee and he still wanted pence to go through it. >> it strikes me the unsaid thing here is going back to 2000, this crew understood that demographically, they were doing to have challenges winning the presidency again. ever. and they understood that winning majorities in the popular vote was going to become harder and harder and harder as demographic

change happened. and trump is the demographic change rage candidate who comes in and says here's the solution. we won't count anybody's votes. we'll just decide on our own. it feels like that's the thing that the republicans aren't facing. that's what they're not addressing. they have got a demographic problem and they can't fix it just by stealing elections. >> exactly. and so we have had at least 20-year campaign of voter suppression, of voter i.d. and other laws implemented almost coast to coast to make it harder for black people and brown people and young people and, you know, women to vote. simply, to make it harder for them to vote. we have had an elevation of the science of gerrymandering to the point where they get to pick their voters, and so the result is the republican party has, a, more power than it should have

demographically, and b, you essentially have two republican parties in power right now, the party in the house that is in gerrymandered districts and the republican party in the senate which has to run state wide and has to at least be within sight of reason. they can't just go completely marjorie taylor greene. and expect to win state-wide. as we saw. >> it is interesting, so you get to the point where their answer is to say that the long dead president of venezuela is using heat lamps in italy to flip the elections and convinces millions of people that is actually true. okay -- >> jewish space lasers. >> eugene, hugo, and kurt are sticking around. the january 6th committee made another referral for the house ethics panel to discipline kevin mccarthy and three other members of his caucus over their refusal to cooperate. we're back after this.

so you only pay for what you need. contestants ready? go! only pay for what you need. jingle: liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. announcer: type 2 diabetes? only pay for what you need. discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction.

serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

age comes with wisdom. and wisdom comes with benefits. dryer's broken okay... you want a socket.... that's especially true when it comes to medicare. so make the wise call and learn more about cigna medicare plans in your area. their tools and resources make it simple and easy. bears can smell wifi. visit cignawisecall.com today. you want to flip it. flu symptoms hit harder than the common cold. so it takes the right tool for the job... to keep it together. now there's new theraflu flu relief with a max strength fever fighting formula. the right tool for long lasting flu symptom relief. hot beats flu. i remember the gift, and it was one of those gifts that it just hit.

it just landed perfectly. we talked with my mom and was like, “hey do you think that we should do something like that for dad?” and she was like “you know what i think that would be actually really cool.” ♪ i figured this is a great holiday present since i won't be with him for christmas. ♪ it was the best gift that i ever received, in my entire life. because it opened up my life. unwrap your family story, with ancestrydna. ♪ none of the subpoenaed members complied. we're now referring four members of congress for appropriate sanction by the house ethics committee for failure to comply with lawful subpoenas. >> those four republicans the committee referred to the house ethics committee are notably still sitting members of congress, and will exercise real power when republicans assume the majority starting in january. there is scott perry, one of the members who sought a pardon from

the former president for his role in overturning the election. andy biggs who currently sits on the oversight and judiciary committees who styled himself a candidate for speaker. jim jordan who is expected to become the chair of the judiciary committee when republicans take control of the house next year. and kevin mccarthy, potentially the future house speaker if he manages to survive the republican hunger games. eugene robinson, hugo lowell, and kurt bardella are back with me. hugo, i'm going to go to you. what is the chatter around these four who will be exercising power, particularly kevin mccarthy, given the fact they have now been>> i think they ara sigh of relief they weren't -- that was the one thing that a lot of these members were worried about. house, referring to the health exit committee, it's nothing either. let's see what the house -- limited in what they can do in terms of holding members accountable they can recommend a censure, or some sort of

other action in the next congress, potentially. it does raise this interesting point about if, in the republican majority house, the chairman of the house ethics committee is referring the potential speaker for censure, it does put the republican party in a difficult position. because it makes them look like they're doing wrong and criminal activity. this is a lawfully issued a subpoena and even though they don't get referred to the justice department, not complying with a subpoena as the american public knows this technically a crime. >> i mean, how is this going to work at all, kurt? sort of, as house oversight, for instance, this is why they are being referred, the ignored subpoenas. on house oversight, one presumes they're going to be issuing subpoenas to do all of their silly investigations of hunter biden, and whatever, and then should people just ignore them? they've set the precedent to ignore them. >> yeah, i mean, it's the

hypocrisy run amok here. jim jordan and kevin mccarthy made it no secret that their entire agenda for 2023 is to launch investigation after investigation targeting the biden administration. i'm not entirely sure how you could issue a subpoena with any credibility when you've spent the last year ignoring congressional subpoenas, going to court, suing to try and prevent even compliance with congressional subpoenas, doing everything you can to obstruct a congressional investigation. how in the world to do expect anybody to take seriously your oversight inquiries, when this is how you have treated oversight ever since donald trump came onto the scene? we've heard this entire time them winding, complaining everything but closer depositions, and not legitimate subpoenas, and all of this bellyaching, and now they want everyone to turn around and take them seriously. what they are counting on, joy, they're counting on the fact the media won't hold them to that standard, that the media won't point out that context when they launched their investigations, and they will get away with it. we have to make sure that

doesn't happen in the democratic party. >> some of us will, they will ask every single day, and every time the issue one. eugene, this isn't friday, we're not doing the week, but if i was, i'd say, speaker pelosi, not only is the hearing room where this hearing took place today called the nancy pelosi, speaker nancy pelosi here room, first time a woman had that, but she formed this committee in good faith. it was kevin mccarthy, the potential future speaker, if you survives the vote, who said, no, no, i want to put obstructionists on. she said, you can't do that, sir. he took the folks off the committee who could have been, sort of, a reasonable counter, something that maybe would have been satisfying to republicans. he wants it with kinzinger and liz cheney. that was his fault. she winds up with a committee that had an incredible success at presenting republican witnesses against the former president. your thoughts? s against >> another one of kevn mccarthy's really smooth political moves. it was really dumb.

speaker pelosi rejected two of, i believe, five nominees that kevin mccarthy put out because they were people who were potentially involved in the conspiracy. they shouldn't serve on the committee. instead of replacing them, mccarthy said, oh, i will cripple the committee by taking all the members off. then i could call it partisan. it ended up being bipartisan because adam kinzinger and liz cheney became members of the committee, and it did, and a better job, certainly, than kevin mccarthy expected, and frankly, then, anyone i expected in bringing this investigation to life, and presenting it to the american people in a way that was impactful, digestible, it wasn't, you know, just a bunch of people going blah, blah blah,

for hours on end. they used video, the used testimony, they used video of the actual insurrection, they -- very effectively, produced this presentation for a maximum impact. it did have impact. people did watch it and pay attention. no, there were no dissenting voices in the room. kevin mccarthy didn't want any dissenting voices in the room, didn't allow any in the room. it's really on him. >> kurt, one of the people he wanted to put on the committee was one of the people who was involved, jim jordan. jim jordan, who is now being referred on ethics charges because he ignored subpoenas. that's one of the people he wanted to have on the january 6th committee. >> yeah, this entire thing, and jean's right here, it is, in part, thanks to kevin mccarthy and his political brilliance of deciding not to seat members of

his own choosing. let's be clear, i've been a part of a lot of investigations and oversight inquiries. this is the most nonpartisan investigation in the united states congress history, when you consider that we have republican members, a unanimous vote to move this referral outside of the committee. you could have that most of the witnesses or all republicans. let me just say, i'm one of those guys rooting for kevin mccarthy to be speaker of the house, keep going, kevin. it's working out great. >> adam kinzinger and jimmy raskin have probably never voted for the same thing in their entire congressional careers. they agreed on this. eugene robinson, hugo, kurt, that's tonight's the reidout. stay right there, after a really quick break, i'll be joining rachel maddow, alex wagner, and ari melber for a recap special of today's committee meeting. you do not want to miss it. don't go anywhere, get some popcorn! popcorn!

the unknown is not empty. it's a storm that crashes, and consumes, replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic. you know where to go. - [female narrator] they line up by the thousands. each one with a story that breaks your heart. mayo clinic. like ravette... every step, brought her pain. their only hope: mercy ships. the largest floating civilian hospital in the world. bringing free surgeries to people who have no other hope. $19 a month will help provide urgently needed surgery for so many still suffering. so don't wait, call the number on your screen.

or donate at mercyships.org. get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds.

psoriasis really messes with you. try. hope. fail. no one should suffer like that. i started cosentyx®. five years clear. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infection, some serious and a lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reaction may occur. best move i've ever made. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx®. at booking.com, finding perfect isn't rocket science. kitchen? sorted. hot tub, why not? and of course, puppy-friendly. we don't like to say perfect, but it's pretty perfect. booking.com, booking.yeah. >> the