this deal done. national political reporter for "politico," elena schneider, thank you as always for joining us today. thanks to all of you for getting up "way too early" with us on this tuesday morning. "morning joe" starts right now. the whole purpose and obvious effect of trump's scheme were to obstruct, 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 1,001 which makes it unlawful to knowingly

and willfully make 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 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. >> those are the four criminal charges the january 6th committee is recommending to the justice department against former president donald trump. we'll have much more on this unprecedented move by congress. plus, a last minute move by chief justice john roberts granting a request from republicans to block the biden administration from ending the covid era policy used to deter migrants from entering through

the southern border. we'll explain what is next in this immigration crisis. good morning, and welcome to "morning joe." it is tuesday, december 20th. with us, we have u.s. national editor at the financial times, ed luce, pulitzer prize winning columnist at "the washington post," eugene robinson, and presidential historian, jon meacham joins us this morning. and we'll begin right there. what a day on capitol hill. historic criminal referrals against former president donald trump from the january 6th committee. it is the first time congress has ever referred a former president for prosecution. and the committee yesterday recommended that the justice department prosecute trump on four charges for his role in the attack on the capitol. the charges are obstruction of an official proceeding of congress. conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting or assisting an insurrection.

and here's how committee chair bennie thompson and vice chair liz cheney opened the hearing. >> beyond our findings, we will also show that evidence we have gathered points to further action beyond the power of this committee or the congress to help ensure accountability on the law. accountability that can only be found in the criminal justice system. >> 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 panel also issued a criminal referral for attorney john eastman who the committee says was the architect of the plot to pressure then vice president mike pence to reject electoral votes and have fake electors submitted to congress instead. the committee's referrals do not

carry legal weight and it's unclear if the justice department will decide to pursue them. >> mika, talk about your take on what happened yesterday. >> first of all, i just felt so grateful for everybody on that committee who, you know, gave up more than a year of their lives, dedicated to this, they looked tired, dead serious, the whole hearing felt like a gut punch as to where we are in our democracy. >> even when there was a standing ovation at the end by cops who had been beaten within moments of their death. the committee showed no emotion. >> not a smile on their face. it was grim, they got up and walked off. it was something you could tell they didn't want to do. they wished they weren't there. they wished history did not require them to do this, but it's exactly what they did. >> yeah, and, you know, there's several extremely talented lawyers on that committee, and i

think it's safe to say, alex our experts might know better that what they're sending to the doj is a lot of evidence that adds up to these charges and giving them quite frankly a path to potentially prosecuting the former president and others. >> there's so much to play from yesterday, and we're going to be doing that across the whole four hours of this show. liz cheney focused as she has for some time on the 187 minutes where donald trump sat in the oval office, sat in the room beside the oval office, and watched these rioters, while his children, while his other family members, while his closest aides, while his lawyers were begging him to act and stop the riots. and donald trump refused to do it for 187 minutes.

you know, jon meacham, hunter thompson once said of richard nixon who used to be seen as the embodiment of evil. he said richard nixon was an evil man, evil in a way that those who believe in the physical reality of the devil. actually, all of these years later, after six years of donald trump, i would say that not only richard nixon but just about every president that preceded the 45th president obviously deserves a relook. this is a new level. >> absolutely. i'm glad you went back to that era. you know, the thing about richard nixon is he broke law and then he followed the law. he had a sense of shame. he believed in institutions. after he asked if there was any air in the supreme court decision that forced him to

release evidence that he had created and then refused to destroy. the supreme court said he had to hand it over, he did, and that was it. and he followed the institution and the law. the other thing i was thinking about is, you know, when congresswoman cheney talks about the 187 minutes, when she talks about a moment of genuine crisis, and remember, the origin of the word crisis comes from medical science. crisis was a moment hippocrates talked about it where a patient lived or died in the course of a disease. this was a genuine crisis. democracy, the constitution, could have lived or could have died in this moment. she knows this in her bones. because her father and her mother sat in the presidential emergency operations center on september 11th at another moment of national crisis, and she knows what leadership in those hours of absolute terror and

horror, whether it's literal in the sense of the terrorist attacks, figurative in the constitution being shredded, she understands that. the other thing to think about is what's on trial here, this is the winter in 1776 when thomas payne wrote common sense and then later the american crisis, these pamphlets that really crystallized the american revolution, gave us the system that we want to defend, he wrote that people say where is the king of america, and payne answered, in america, the law is king. and that's the test we have now. is the law still the king? >> yeah. >> by the way, we should apologize to ed luce who is in merry old england right now. is he in his parents' home? if he's in his parents' home, we apologize to him. ed, are you in your parents'

home? >> i am. no need to apologize, i was just thinking as jon was talking about thomas payne and "common sense" in 1776. thomas payne lived and did taxes. he was a tax collector about 15 miles from where i'm sitting now, and there's a pub called "the age of reason" that he used to go to that's still thriving. >> that is color you can't get anywhere else, absolutely. ed, thank you. at yesterday's hearing, the committee played new never before seen testimony from some of trump's closest advisers. listen to former white house communications director hope hicks as she describes debunked claims of election fraud and tries to get the former president to stop the violence. >> evidence of fraud on a scale that would have impacted the outcome of the election, and i

was becoming increasingly concerned that we were damaging -- we were damaging his legacy. >> what did the president say in response to what you just described? >> he said something along the lines of, you know, nobody will care about my legacy if i lose. so that won't matter. the only thing that matters is winning. >> when you wrote, i suggested it several times, and "it" presumably means 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 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? >> mr. herschmann said that he had made, you know, the same recommendation directly to the president and that he had refused. >> just so i understand, mr. herschmann said that he had already recommended to the president that the president conveyed a message that people should be peaceful on january 6th, and the president had refused to do that? >> yes. >> gene robinson, the people closest to donald trump, as i said earlier, his family members, don jr., ivanka and we see here hope hicks who was like a family member for six, seven years. everyone telling him to stand down. his lawyers telling him to stand down. everybody, there was of course -- there was his lawyer

who was asked, was there any staff member, any staff member that wanted the protests/riots to continue, and his lawyer said, no, of course not. so the president was alone and wanted his rights continued. watched for 187 minutes, and i liked what you wrote yesterday. i found it interesting. you said obviously the most sensational recommendation was that donald trump should be prosecuted for inciting insurrection. but the most perfect in terms of what we have seen with our own eyes is that trump faced justice for conspireing to defraud the united states. explain. >> well, because donald trump's entire political career, indeed, his entire life has been a fraud. grift that from the very beginning, he was a democrat who

decided to become a republican and pretend to believe in a lot of things he never believed in. pretending to try to win the support of the evangelicals, he pretended that the bible was his favorite book, but of course he didn't know any bible verses and the one verse that somebody told him to cite he said was from 2 corinthians. it was all a grift. it was all a fraud. and in the furtherance of that conspiracy to defraud the united states, he committed these other terrible serious offenses, at least i believe it's been demonstrated that he committed them and hasn't been demonstrated in a court of law, but obviously the justice department will be paying attention and they'll make their own decisions as to whether and when to prosecute. the other thing that's really

struck me yesterday was that partnership between bennie thompson and liz cheney. the chair and vice chair of that committee. you know, you could probably count on one hand the number of times that in their careers they have voted the same way on a matter of policy or spending, whatever, he's a liberal democrat, she's a conservative republican, and yet, their horror at what happened on january 6th and their faith in american democracy and their determination to -- that there be accountability joined them in this extraordinary partnership that has produced, i just can't say enough about what this committee was able to achieve. >> amazing. >> what it was able to unearth. how it was able to present it. the seriousness with which all

the members attacked this mission, the gravitas that they displayed at all times, and the impact that it is having in the country. and i think it's because of really those two. of bennie thompson and liz cheney and, you know, i think their ought to be a statute someplace in washington. >> bennie thompson did an extraordinary job. >> i was going to say one of the most effective i have seen my entire life. really, the most effective committee since the water gate hearings when i cursed the watergate hearings because we only had three channels in rural mississippi, and i couldn't watch "sesame street," so it's been a long time since there's been a committee this good, and, no, mika, i wasn't 30 watching "sesame street," i was about 7 or 8.

so yesterday, i heard john heilemann say something fascinating. he said, you know, sometimes you have great lawyers that are wonderful with the law. sometimes you have great politicians who are wonderful at being politicians. he said it is rare when you have a great lawyer and a great politician like liz cheney, the two come together and when the two come together, john said, in effect, they can bend history. let's just say it right here, everybody, including me, underestimated this committee at the beginning what they could do. what they ended up doing was not only drawing 20 million people, remember when we started getting those numbers, and they helped change an election outcome. we talked about roe a lot. this committee played a huge role in shaking the public

consciousness on the election denying liars that wanted to be elected. they shook the nation's conscience, and they stood in the gap for this constitutional republic, for this american democracy, and along with the overturning of roe, this committee played a historic role in making sure every major election denier that ran in 2022 went down to defeat. history will write it that way, and that will be the correct take. >> and i think there is more history that is going to be written as a result of the world that this committee has done. we also heard from former counselor to the president kellyanne conway. she gave new details into how trump rationalized the violence of that day. >> there's no doubt that president trump thought that the actions of the rioters were

justified. in the days of january 6th, he spoke to several different advisers, and in those conversations, he minimized the seriousness of the attack. here's new testimony from another one of the president's senior advisers, kellyanne conway. >> you said you talked to the president the next day. tell us about that conversation on the 7th. >> you know, i don't think it was very long. i just said that was just a terrible day. i'm working on a long statement. i said it's crazy. >> what did he say? >> no, these people were upset. they're very upset. >> he called them patriots, of course. and saluted them for what they did when he finally was pushed into telling them to go home. seeing kellyanne conway there, and seeing hope hicks before that really does underline the fact, does it not, that this january 6th committee, they

didn't call progressives. they didn't call left wingers. they didn't call biden supporters. we had one trump adviser after another. one trump person after another who supported him through the first impeachment, who argued for him through the second impeachment. who stood with him to the bitter end through january the 5th. every one of those people, to the bitter end, they were dead enders and then january 6th happened, and even they never imagined that donald trump was this. let me just say lacked the most basic prerequisites of being a patriotic president. isn't it remarkable that this has been a committee of two republicans and just one republican witness against trump after -- they're all trumpists

that have testified against him. >> yeah, i mean, it was amusing at the beginning when kevin mccarthy refused to cooperate with the committee, and a lot of the people, you know, he was suggesting that who belonged to the committee, correctly rejected asked trump for a pardon before january 20th, before he left office. so they're sort of declaring their guilt themselves. but mccarthy would describe this committee again and again as a partisan committee, and of course he was right. it was a partisan committee, every witness was a republican. ms. cheney, one of the most conservative voting record of any member of congress, and a lot voting for trump on the first impeachment hearing. and many of the staffers who

produced such voluminous impressive evidence that is now available to the department of justice and has been made available over the last few months to the department of justice, republican lawyers and you both know better than me that, you know, you're not a republican lawyer working on capitol hill if you're a sort of milk soap type of republican. you're a committed conservative if you're a republican lawyer working on capitol hill. and i think what they have given themselves in their personal -- in terms of their personal sense of self-respect is something they can point to to say, no, i'm a true conservative. i believe in the constitution. i believe in the peaceful transfer of power. i believe in holding people to account for their actions under the rule of law in a land where the law is king. and so i share what you have

just said, joe, and also what mika, what everybody said, which is the skepticism that i felt at the beginning of this process last june with the first committee hearing has been completely belied. this has been way more impressive than i expected and for those very reasons. >> yes. jon meacham, i'm curious. i talked before about what i thought history's read on this remarkable committee would be. i probably should let the pulitzer prize winning historian give his take so people will have a better understanding, actually, of how this -- how this will play out over time, and the impact they had on the 2022 election. >> well, people voted for democracy, i think, plus something else. so perhaps it was dobbs, perhaps it was some other form of republican extremism.

and what these hearings did, seems to me, is in a very, to date myself, a very joe friday way, very factual, john adams said facts are stubborn things, laid out what they knew, and what -- as ed says, did so with republican voices. it's interesting, there was no sort of great john dean witness when you think about it. instead, it was this accretion of detail. it was one person after another. i think cassidy hutchinson probably rises to the one person who was surprising and that had a lot to do with the ketchup on the wall. it was just these people who were willing to say, and you could see how reluctantly or how, you know, it was difficult. they knew, their consciences

were telling them that they weren't dealing with a rational actor, and they weren't dealing with -- and i think this is something that's interesting for the conservative movement which i'm sure is wildly uninterested in my views on what they might do, but it is an interesting thing, and joe, you grew up with these folks. you know, people didn't pre trump go into politics, come to washington to tear down the constitution. right? there was -- most people have a kind of romance about politics, a kind of commitment to playing a part in this unfolding trauma. but they fell under the spell and may still be, so let's be clear. again, we're probably at the end of the beginning to bring one of ed's guys in for a second as opposed to the beginning of the end, but, you know, we're still in a middle chapter here. as someone who took over the

republican party, who wasn't interested in the unfolding story, he was interested in his own unfolding ambition, and the reason the constitution has endured the way it has is because the founders understood that there would be people like this. lincoln understood in his first major speech. he talked about if the republic falls it will not be from a foreign foe. it will be from someone rising here and capitalizing on the passions of the people and the point of this whole system is that reason at least gets a fighting chance against passion. law gets a fighting chance against ambition, and that's what we have to struggle for and i think that in this moment, just enough of us, right, it wasn't a landslide in the midterm. just enough of us said you know

what, we want to try to keep this more perfect union going. we don't want to become a wholly owned subsidiary of one person. >> and when we look at the battle between the rule of law and the ambition of one man, the rule of law doing pretty damn well right now. >> moving slowly for a reason. >> for a reason, and i want to say, following up on what jon said, he's right. people like liz cheney, people like me, people with conservative views that, you know a lot of people watching this show disagree with, i'm very grateful that you watched the show regardless of that. liz and i, i think, have 95 lifetime acu rating in congress. i think liz is at 94, 95. it's a hell of a lot higher than most of the yahoos running around calling people rhinos

because they aren't craven followers of donald trump, but yeah, we have a romantic view of the constitution. there's a reason why i talk about madison democracy on this show. the beautiful of divided government, the beauty of checks and balances, the extraordinary system that we have inherited from extraordinary founders who were deeply flawed human beings but created documents that freed more people than anybody else in the history of this planet, so, yeah, yeah, we carried constitutions around. people made fun of us. there was a reason why we did. we actually believed in the rule of law. liz cheney actually believes in the rule of law, and she's going home. she got defeated because of that where you have a long list of

people that have shown nothing but contempt, contempt for madisonian democracy, contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the foundations of this constitutional republic. they will still be in washington and many of them, mika, just decided to ignore subpoenas from a congressional committee. lots of luck with that precedent because now if the people who are actually running congress over the next two years had contempt, showed contempt for subpoenas from a congressional committee, why should anybody else ever, ever respond to any subpoena. they can't. >> so that's the break down. >> everything you just said just shows also how precious our democracy is. and how easily things can unravel. the criminal referrals recommended by the january 6th

house committee do not carry legal weight, but represent a significant symbolic rebuke of former president trump, and it remains unclear just how closely the special counsel's office in charge of the doj's own investigation will follow the path mapped out by the january 6th committee or whether trump or others will face any criminal charges at all. "the new york times" points out that not much is publicly known about any specific charges the special counsel jack smith might be considering in a criminal prosecution and the department is under no obligation to adopt the committee's conclusions. joining us now, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. given what i just said, chuck, what do you think the options are here for the doj, and just what's your gut on how this material will or will not be

used? >> well, mika, understand that the department of justice had a long, ongoing investigation. you made the point earlier, and you're exactly right, the law moves slowly, and between slowly and recklessly, i'll take slowly every time. this work is ongoing. i don't know that -- look, on one hand, the referral is of great symbolic and historical importance. no question about that. no committee of congress has referred a former president for prosecution. if you look at it from the vantage point of the committee, it has great meaning. if you look at it from the vantage point of the department of justice where i used to work, it is almost literally meaningless. it doesn't have any presidential value, no substantive value, no procedural value, the department of justice has great investigators, great agents, they have been doing this work. they know which statutes would be applicable. if the committee really wants to

help the department of justice, and i presume they do, there are a couple of ways to do that. telling the department of justice what charges it ought to bring, isn't all that helpful. giving the department of justice all of the testimony and transcripts could be very helpful. that's, you know, the one thing, mika, that the department of justice had wanted all along. the transcripts of the testimony from the various witnesses with whom the committee spoke. so there's a large ongoing investigation. the department of justice, i believe, and i'm biassed, but i believe they'll make principled decisions, it doesn't need the committee's recommendation. that's not to say the committee didn't do a good job. they did. but proving something in a hearing room is very different than proving something in federal court. the first thing is easier, the second thing is much much harder. >> chuck, i take what you say as

100%, because you obviously know the justice department and how they're thinking. nonetheless, they're not sequestered like a jury in a hotel room someplace. the justice department did hear and see what happened yesterday, and they did take in at least the committee's view on what the president, the former president should be charged with. would you agree with my assessment that perhaps the least likely of those charges to actually be brought by justice would be the insurrection charge or do you have a different view? >> you know, eugene, that's a great question. so, you know, you and i independently, i think, have come up with a list in our own heads of which charges pertain, and which might not. here's the problem with trying to make that assessment now, and i hate to be a wet blanket, but

so be it. here's the problem, the committee spoke to over a thousand people, and if you do a simple math equation, if each person spoke with the committee for let's say six hours or eight hours, that's 8,000 hours worth of testimony and deposition. we saw in ten hearings about 20 hours worth of stuff. that's not a criticism of the committee. i think they made an outstanding presentation. it was compelling and linear and logical. it was terrific. but it's not all of the stuff that prosecutors would need in order to make a determination. so to your question, do i think insurrection is the least likely charge or the most likely charge, i don't know. it seems to me that lots of folks committed lots of crimes. in order to prove it in federal court, you need to convince the jury with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's

awfully hard to do, particularly given we only have a small amount of evidence in the public. >> well put. >> chuck, ed luce here, thanks for that sort of caveat, we tend to get carried away by what constitutes proof versus what constitutes proof in the media sphere. nevertheless, what's come out from this committee, and from reporting elsewhere seems to the average person, you know, without a law degree and not working in the department of justice, seems to be conclusive. i would imagine if you're jack smith, evaluating whether a grand jury can accept beyond all reasonable doubt, they're very different at the end of weeks and weeks of hearings to the average person, nevertheless, it does seem really conclusive. could you just explain the difference between the two and how important that will be to

jack smith's decision on whether to indict trump and his cohorts with. >> great question. to win a case in federal court, you need to convince the jury unanimously with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. the hearing was terrific. there was no judge, no defense attorney, no cross-examination, no rules of evidence, no criminal procedure that applied in that forum. so jack smith and his team are going to have to make principled decisions understanding that everything they introduce in court will be challenged. that every story that they tell will have someone else telling an opposite story. it's not just indicting the case in grand jury where you need probably cause. it's convicting in court where you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. it's not impossible. it happens all the time. it's difficult. i think it's important for people to keep those differences in mind. >> yeah, chuck, i'm so glad you pointed that out because i was about to ask you, and here's

why, i hear frustration from time to time that the doj, merrick garland's not moved enough to indict. in the words of what sports star who got indicted but afterwards he said in the 1980, you can indict a great troupe, good luck convicting me. he's right. getting that indictment from a grand jury, not a massive legal hurdle, it seems to me, with the evidence that we've seen. but taking the former president of the united states to jury, and understanding that if you don't prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, then that former president will spend the rest of his life, instead of saying every member of the jury did not find me guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, will spend the

rest of his life saying, see, i'm innocent. see, it was a scam. see, it was a set up. and i would guess and help me out here, if you're going after a former president of the united states, you may know that the indictment's a slam dunk. but do you really want to take it to trial where you've got to convince every member beyond a reasonable doubt or else this person is going to be able to spend the rest of his life saying, it was a setup. it was a scam. they tried me, and where do i go now to get my reputation back. >> yeah, joe, so it's such a good point. one of the lowest standards in law is probable cause, and that's the amount, the threshold that you need to indict a case to your point. the highest standard in the criminal law is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that's the quantum of proof you

need to convict at trial. that delta, that gulf between probably cause to indict and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, that's where the difficulties lie. and so mika mentioned this earlier, and we spoke about it, but if it's a choice between going slowly or carefully, i'll take carefully and so sometimes when you're in the justice department, you can't talk publicly about what you're doing. you can't explain why it's taking a long time. but you really only have one shot at this. you really only have one shot to get it right. and so let's take our time. let's be really careful, and if and when we put a case in front of a jury, let's convict because that legacy will have lasting import. to your point, joe, an acquittal could be devastating here. >> former u.s. attorney, chuck rosenberg, thank you very much for your insight this morning. and. >> by the way, the famous quote also from a judge in new york

was you can indict a ham sandwich. >> that can be done. >> still ahead on "morning joe," we'll have much more on yesterday's hearing and the criminal referrals for former president donald trump and those recommendations are not the only headline story for the former president as lawmakers could take action on his tax returns later today. plus, the supreme court gets involved in the humanitarian crisis at the southern border. we'll explain what the ruling means for thousands of migrants. you're watching "morning joe." we will be right back. orning jo" we will be right back. at the heart of our republic is the guarantee of the peaceful transfer of power. members of congress are reminded of this every day as we pass through the capitol rotunda. there eight magnificent paintings detail the earliest days of our republic. one, painted by john trumble, depicts the moment in 1793 when

george washington resigned his commission, handing control of the continental army back to congress. trumble called this quote one of the highest moral lessons ever given the world. with this noble act, george washington established the indispensable example of the peaceful transfer of power in our nation. january 6th, 2021, was the first time one american president refused his constitutional duty to transfer power peacefully to the next. in our work over the last 18 months, the select committee has recognized our obligation to do everything we can to ensure this never happens again. r happens a. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. wow! what'd you get, ryan? it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual!!! what does it do, bud? it customizes our home insurance

so we only pay for what we need! and what did you get, mike? i got a bike. ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ 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. why are 93% of sleep number sleepers satisfied with their bed? maybe it's because you can gently raise your partner's head to help relieve snoring. go to getrefunds.com to get started. so, you can both stay comfortable all night. save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, queen now only $1,999. ends thursday.

♪ ♪

well would you look at that? ♪ ♪ jerry, you've got to see this. seen it. trust me, after 15 walks it gets a little old. i really should be retired by now. wish i'd invested when i had the chance... to the moon! [golf ball bounces off rover] unbelievable. ugh. [ding] a must in your medicine cabinet! less sick days! cold coming on? zicam is the number one cold shortening brand! highly recommend it! zifans love zicam's unique zinc formula. it shortens colds! zicam. zinc that cold! 44 past the hour. >> beautiful shot. of west palm. i hear it's nice there this time

of year. that's what the kids say. we are actually going to be going to -- we have a reporter there, mr. vaughn hillyard. >> oh, because of mar-a-lago. >> ross duthat has a column in the "new york times" entitled the end of the trump era will be unsatisfying. he reads in part, if it's the end of the trump era. that's pretty satisfying. since the 2022 midterm elections -- >> i don't need lasers, right -- >> in american politics has become a 50/50 proposition. while ron desantis surges in multiple national polls, the former president has busied himself shilling $99 digital training cards to his most devoted fans. there will be no walk where trump exits the white house in handcuffs, though he still could face indictment.

that hope lives, no revelations of putinist treason forcing the trumps into a middle east exile. no aaron sorkin driving him in shame from the public square. this desire for vindication is completely understandable, how else can you ensure that serious mistakes won't be repeated or that an awful demagogue won't just slip into sleep's clothing and return. the answer, however, and this is tough medicine, is that the way to avert that kind of repetition is to make certain you have a strategy for winning the next election, and the ones after that on the public's terms, rather than your own. >> it's pretty great. let's bring in the host of "way too early," white house bureau chief at "politico," jonathan lemire, and also former white house press secretary now msnbc host, jen psaki. jen, i read this op-ed, and i wanted to disagree with it because i was thinking, you know, the thing is i don't need

lasers. living in the trump era means democracy has survived this six-year challenge, but he brings up such a great point there. it's one of the reasons we're doing it today. the morning after the election i texted my children who was idealogically on different parts of the spectrum, and i texted all four of them and i said, you know what, democracy, madisonian democracy had a great night, every election denier lost. whether you're a republican or democrat, america wins. that happened, as we say, excuse me me for being a guy here, blocking and tackling. getting the people out -- >> women like football too. >> i know you do. so you understand you don't win by practicing the bombs and the wonderful speeches, it's the blocking and tackling. and i will say, i have been critical of democrats. like going, doesn't anybody know

how to play this game. at times they seemed hapless, and you look, every time it matters in '18, blocking and tackling. in '20, blocking and tackling. in '22, blocking and tackling. they got the people out to the polls, whether it was a coalition of people of color or when those numbers went down a little bit, it was white people in the suburbs that used to vote republican, they got the people out. and ross is right. it's the blocking and tackling that will save democracy, not the floor and speeches. >> yep, that's so true, and i thought the op-ed was excellent too. winning elections and defeats election deniers, and defeating trump as you said, and as he said in his op-ed, it's not always going to be sexy work. it's going to be running on an agenda as many democrats did over the course of the last few years, and turning people out to

vote, which they did in droves as we know but have more work to do. now the question is what happens in january, what happens in february, how are you keeping those coalitions together. are you staying true to the agenda you're running on, that won in 2022, but that's the only way. elections have consequences and elections in 2024 could be the end of trump, but it requires doing all of those things. >> and jonathan lemire, one of the reasons donald trump had so much trouble excepting the election results, first of all, he wasn't going to accept them. he told chris christie in the spring he wasn't going to accept them. he started lying in the spring about a rigged election. that said, i talked to people on trump's campaign team throughout the election, like you did. they sat down. they showed me the data. they showed me the numbers. they said we're going to pull this many people out. this is how we're going to get reelected. they pulled that many people out. what trump still can't come to

terms with is the democrats and the biden campaign did a better job at bringing out historic numbers. it's crazy. and again, this goes back to ross's op-ed, it's the blocking and tackling. it's the getting people out. it's the making history, not with an extraordinary speech, on the top of mount olympus, by knocking on doors, making phone calls, driving people to the polls, winning. >> yeah, it's about blocking and tackling and not whatever it was the patriots tried in that last play of sunday's game. that's the exact opposite of the fundamental, two days later, i still can't talk about it. >> and by the way, speaking of the word of the year being dude, jack and i looking and i turned to him while this was happening, i go dude. he said to me, dude. >> dude. >> jack never actually said dude but i do say it too much. >> that's not fundamentals, the

democrats took care of fundamentals. and in 2020, they took care of fundamentals in a pandemic, and that was harder but they do it. the door knocking to get people out, they pulled it off just fine. and you are right, the republicans, and this is what trump is obsessed with. to this day, he says so publicly, people around him say he says so privately. the issue is joe biden got that much more because the democrats who were enthusiastic to turn out against trump and because democrats did a great job of getting them to the polls. we saw it this year, even though trump wasn't on the ballot, he hovered over it. it was a lot of his hand picked candidates, and democrats motivated by the supreme court decision. motivated by the threats to democracy, motivated by because they were in favor of a lot of joe biden's policies, particularly on the economy, came out to vote, and republicans, that combined with

the poor candidates that trump saddled his party with led to those defeats and have put trump in such a perilous place today. yes, there's the legal peril. yes, there is the dinner with the white supremacists, the threats against the constitution and the nfts. why donald trump is in trouble is he lost, and his candidates lost and he's talking about the past and republicans realize that's a losing strategy going forward. >> as president trump, who still is the de facto leader of the republican party faces negative headline after negative headline, and there is one a week at least. usually a week like this, it's multiple, it's one of the worst weeks ever for him. democrats have shown that they are able to do more than one thing at a time. as these hearings were, you know, forging ahead with the work being done in the bipartisan committee and the midterms and working on getting out the vote and people like

stacey abrams, and others working on making sure democrats are heard. the president staying focused on a sharp message for the democrats before the midterms. plus if you just put up on the screen, all the wins for the biden administration, showing they can get things done. i sound honestly like a commercial but this is what they have been able to do. it's reality. >> actually you don't sound like a commercial. you sound like somebody that's been actually looking at the news instead of listening to talking points on some far right pro trump show. i will say, there's blocking and tackling. there was roe. there was the january 6th committee. but also you have the inflation reduction act, the chips act, extraordinarily important, the pact act, bipartisan, the chips act so many things that you see

up there, bipartisan, the al qaeda leader eliminated, gas prices falling, low unemployment. go down the list. >> he's running a war in ukraine along with partners of nato, and quite frankly, very admirably and the president at least on this side of the pond hasn't gotten enough recognition for what has happened there. >> but i will say, though, gene, and you have colleagues that are very conservative that were very supportive of donald trump, that were very supportive of republicans who have written kind things in the "washington post," and laudatory things. you can take that down because that does look like a commercial. very laudatory things about how joe biden is running perhaps the most important, well, the most important european war since world war ii. >> yes. >> yeah, and one of the

narratives that i think we can put to bed right now is democrats are horribly, eternally, terribly at messaging. in fact, the democrats' message got through to voters this time. not saying they absolutely are as good as republicans usually are at messaging, but they were quite good in this cycle. and you're right about the blocking and tackle. there was very good and effective coordination between the white house and democratic national committee and the various candidates in the states, those campaigns work together well. they deployed their money, their resources smartly and well. so, yeah, the fundamentals, they got the fundamentals right, and the fundamentals are in the end, what wins football games, and elections. >> so, jen, ed luce here, nice

to see you. clearly donald trump's herschel walker kind of candidates played a role in the midterm disappointment for republicans. my question to you is looking ahead a little bit, if the polls are correct, and ron desantis, who is a trumpian without being trump is air apparent or air unapparent because they're so different, but if this more disciplined, competent trumpian becomes the republican nominee, and doesn't endorse whacko candidates, how will we block and tackle, how will the democrats block and tackle that kind of disciplined trumpianism. >> i think the reality is ron desantis could either be at his peak right now or he could be the future savior of the republican party. we don't know. it's not just about being disciplined.

it's about moving people, either through an evil message or a positive, proactive message, and i think we don't know that yet. if ron desantis is the opponent, i think what joe biden, if he's the nominee, if he runs, all of those things will do is kind of lay out the choice for the public, and that was effective last year, and i think could still be effective in 2024. >> jen, still ahead, one of our next guests has spent a lot of time speaking with the former president. "the washington post's" bob woodward who has conducted at least 20 interviews with donald trump. he'll be here to weigh in on the historic criminal referrals from the january 6th select committee. plus a member of the house panel, congressman jamie raskin will be our guest. "morning joe" is coming right back. be our guest. "morning joe" is coming right back

♪ my name is austin james. as a musician living with diabetes, fingersticks can be a real challenge. that's why i use the freestyle libre 2 system. with a painless, one-second scan, i know my glucose numbers without fingersticks. now, i'm managing my diabetes better, and i've lowered my a1c from 8.2 to 6.7. take the mystery out of managing your diabetes and lower your a1c. now you know. try it for free at freestylelibre.us

if you run a small business, now you know. you need the most from every investment. that's why comcast business gives you more. more innovation... with our new gig-speed wi-fi, plus unlimited data. more speed... from the largest, fastest, reliable network... and more savings- up to 60% a year on comcast business mobile. all from the company that powers more businesses than any other provider. get started with fast speeds and advanced security for $69.99 a month for 12 months. plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

we've never had a president of the united states stir up a violent attempt to block the transfer of power. i believe nearly two years later this is still a time of

reflection and reckoning. >> at the heart of our republic is a guarantee of the peaceful transfer of power. every president in our history has defended this orderly transfer of authority except one. in our work over the last 18 months, the select committee has recognized our obligation to do everything we can to ensure this never happens again. the january 6th committee holds its final hearing into the capitol insurrection by recommending former president trump, donald trump to the justice department for criminal prosecution. welcome back to "morning joe." it is tuesday, december 20th, jonathan lemire is still with us. and joining the conversation we have msnbc contributor, mike barnicle, editor of the new yorker, pulitzer prize winning author, david remnick and author and nbc news presidential historian, michael beschloss, former u.s. senator, now a nbc

news and msnbc political analyst, claire mccaskill is with us and pulitzer prize winning associate editor for "the washington post," bob wood ward, his audio book is entitled "the trump tapes bob woodward's 20 interviews with president trump." >> it's remarkable. obviously you have extraordinary perspective with richard nixon, watergate, we quoted off the top of the show, saying richard nixon was the embodiment of evil. looking a little more gauzy around the edges now in comparison to donald trump. i'm curious, after seeing the january 6th committee conclude their work yesterday, your thoughts, your perspective. >> well, first of all, it's clearly an important investigation.

i guess i would position myself somewhere between chuck rosenberg who kind of says the committee's work is going to have little if any impact on the justice department investigation, and the view that this is changed history. i think what it's done is change the climate of opinion. you go back 50 years in the nixon case, it was drip, drip, drip. and enough things happen and enough people were kind of, well, what about that dirty trick, what about all of the hidden money, what about this. and then that committee has been a spectacular success. it's moved the conversation, and i think it's opened lots of republicans. let's look again at the legacy

of trump, and do we want this really criminal mismanagement of the presidency again. >> we begin there with the historic criminal referrals against former president donald trump from the january 6th committee. it is the first time congress has ever referred a former president for prosecution. and the committee yesterday recommended that the justice department prosecute trump on four charges for his role in the attack on the capitol. the charges are obstruction of an official proceeding of congress. conspiracy to defraud the united states. conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting or assisting an insurrection. standing on the west front of the capitol in 1981, president ronald reagan described it this way, the orderly transfer of authority as called for in the constitution routinely takes place as it has

for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. in the eyes of many in the world, this every four-year ceremony that we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle. every president in our history has defended this orderly transfer of authority except one. >> the dangerous assault on american constitutional democracy that took place on january 6th, 2021, consists of hundreds of individual criminal offenses. most such crimes are already being prosecuted by the department of justice. we proposed 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 master mind's and ring leaders get a free pass. >> what an absolute powerful moment from yesterday, foot soldiers go to jail, the ring leaders get a free pass, no. no, and i love how we said it compels us to speak. nobody was celebrating at the end of that hearing. >> no. >> they were compelling by their love of america to speak. liz cheney talking about the orderly transfer of authority. nothing short of a miracle. that's what we were taught in grade school. at least that's what i was taught in grade school. >> we have jamie raskin coming up. >> david, the new yorker thankfully is going to be publishing this. putting the work of the january 6th committee all together. i'm going to go back to something you wrote an hour or two after donald trump was elected president of the united states. extraordinarily precedent, you predicted all of this, and you

said this is basically where we're going to end up and here we are. >> i have never been sadder to be right. i have been wrong about a lot of things, i have never been sadder to be right. think about the last few weeks before this report, and the level of a shamelessness knows know no bounds, even after he suffers terrible losses in the midterm elections he decides to run for president. despite the contrary events, evidence and advice of everybody around him, he has dinner with a fascist. and then he has a big announcement, an enormous announcement, and then he shamelessly hawks for 99 bucks a piece, superhero trading cards of himself. he is a shrivelled, deluded figure. the work of the committee which was methodical and extraordinary, i was up until late last night reading this 150

page summary. the report will be much longer, is astonishing and it spilled over into the last day when you had a figure like hope hicks. who could not have been a more loyal to donald trump, admitting that even in the days before january 6th, he was dismissing any notion that he tell his followers to be nonviolent at the demonstration. he knew this was going to happen and he welcomed it and when it came, he held back. the report's methodical analysis of this will stand for history. what merrick garland does remains an open question. and what the core of trumpist voters do over time is an open question, which is very troubling too. there are still millions of people who are his followers. but i think he is a shrivelled diminished figure on the political scene, and one has to hope that this is at least the beginning of the end of his

story. >> a shrivelled diminished deluded figure, which is exactly what you see when reading "the washington post" extraordinary look at mar-a-lago right now, claire mccaskill, we're talking about ordinary transfer of authority being a miracle. i must say for most observers of this january 6th committee, for me, you said it so right, i hate these committees for the most part, it's five minutes, and somebody grand standing for five minutes, and the next person grand stands for five minutes. everybody wants to get their viral sound bite for the day. what i complained about committees, why don't they do it this way, i'll be dammed if the january 6th committee didn't do it the way that you said yesterday they should have and the way i have always thought they should have done it.

it's a bit of a miracle that that actually happened in congress. >> the egos in congress get in the way of telling a cohesive story to the american people. the partisanship and the egos and what was really miraculous about this committee was it's the first time i've ever seen a committee in congress that wasn't about individual members of the committee. it was about the investigation. that was the main character in the committee. and everyone absolutely showed loyalty to that investigation. and not to elbowing somebody else out of the room, not to grand stand. not to take cheap shots. they were very, as you said earlier, they were very solemn. they were very serious. they were very focused. and they used pictures and video to tell an astounding story.

i mean, if somebody just was given that 150 page summary in hollywood and was told, you know, this is the script i've written, i think a lot of producers of movies would say it's just too unrealistic, too unbelievable. they laid it out. as a member of congress, i was totally impressed with what this committee managed to do. as a prosecutor, i was in awe of how they laid out the case with an executive summary that was in fact an opening statement in a criminal trial. >> michael beschloss, claire mccaskill, her points are actually very accurate, but i think she underestimates the hunger in hollywood for a story. and this is an incredible story. as i read that report last night, it had a cinematic quality to me, and i was wondering in terms of history,

it's hard to match, it's hard to match. for instance, one scene in particular among many scenes that's in this incredible report that i wish every american would take the time to read, one scene just jumped out at me early on, and the scene that took place in mid december after the supreme court had rejected the texas, state of texas's appeal to overturn the election. and it's donald trump in the oval office. talking to his then chief of staff, and he says, i don't want people to know we lost, mark. this is embarrassing. figure it out. we need to figure it out. i don't want people to know we lost. the level of delusion married to the level of danger that we just confronted and was thwarted by the wall of democracy, is there any match in history to this? >> well, before i answer, mike,

i just want to remind our audience for the three people who may not know that what mike is saying is informed by his own experiences, you may remember that wonderful film the candidate, early 1970s. some remember robert redford starring in the candidate. i remember mike barnicle. sort of the high point of the film. his own role in cinematic history. but i think this is the way i would look at it. you know, we all live through january 6th, 2021. and the trump people and people who are like them tried to say that was just some tourist visiting the capitol or indignant citizens, patriots expressing themselves, trying to overturn a stolen election. that was one view of reality. what this committee, what we've seen the last few months is i think making sure that most americans understand what this really was on the 6th of

january. it was an attempted effort to destroy our democracy by stealing an election for donald trump who didn't win it. it was a near assassination. what did the committee say, those mobs were 40 yards away from a crowd crying hang mike pence. there also could have been a hostage taking. you know, they might have taken the speaker of the house, god forbid and say we're not going to let her out until donald trump is assured that he will be president for a second term. what the committee has done is said to americans, this was not just some expression of outrage, this was a freakish thing that's in a category of its own. you know, it's ahistorical, it's un-american. donald trump is unlike every other president, just as liz cheney was saying, and the result of that should be whatever happens to trump himself, that americans will say this must never happen again. if the committee had not been successful in doing that, then,

you know, years from now, if a candidate loses the presidential election, that person might try to do this again. stage his own, you know, effort to besiege congress and they at that time win. the same could even happen with governorships. >> bob woodward, you are of course perhaps the definitive chronicler of the presidency, and we have never been here before, these criminal referrals for a former president. talk to us, you know trump, you've spoken to him, hours upon hours. is there anything here in this final hearing that surprised you in terms of learning about trump. more than that, talk to us about these possible criminal referrals. we know department of justice doesn't have to abide by them. they're doing their own thing. which of these strikes stands out to you as presenting the most legal peril to the former president. >> i think the one about the subversion of a function of government, of course on january

6th the congress had to decide and count the electoral votes and it was clear that joe biden won, and the attack on that as a fundamental issue. i'm very struck by what david remnick said that trump is a shrivelled figure. i think that's absolutely right, but i think it also the erosion of moral authority that everyone expects the president to represent. but trump has lost that in so many ways, and i think this committee's work kind of assembled it in a way that my wife always talks about emotional truth. there is a lot of emotional

truth. >> it's interesting as the committee has done its work as these legal challenges have begun piling up on donald trump, things like the documents, where people can see the obvious right and wrong to that. there's some clarity that might even be penetrating the trump base. >> right. >> and then you add and this is where i really saw something happening, the people who visited mar-a-lago, kanye west, the white supremacists, nick fuentes, and no joke here, i'm not joking, the nfts. people look at that and know it is a complete fraud, and even people who are all bought in think about the contrast they are seeing right now between what's going on in washington, the accomplishments that are happening in washington with democrats and republicans working together. and those that are hanging out with donald trump or hanging out with kanye. >> and what we're also hearing again is "the washington post" report from a couple of days ago that there are people now who

used to go have dinner with him who are now avoiding the calls or hoping he won't call. hoping he won't invite them there because as david remnick said, he is a shrivelled, deluded. >> the nft commercial was strange in his delivery but also a scam. >> we have a mike pence clip here, let's take a look. >> i would hope that they would not bring charges against the former president. look, as i wrote in my book, i think the president's actions and words on january 6th were reckless. but i don't know that it's criminal to take bad advice from lawyers. i hope the justice department understands the magnitude or the very idea of indicting a former president of the united states. i think that would be terribly divisive in the country at a time when the american people want to see us heal.

>> you know, david remnick, and i can't wait to hear from claire on this either. i'll tell you, david, i think one of the worst things that can happen, i really do, is for political parties to go after former presidents for justice departments in the hands of another party to indict former presidents, have warned against it when democrats were talking about doing it to bush. i've warned against it when republicans were talking about doing it to obama. it is horrific. and i will tell you yesterday, though i walked away from that hearing saying we have no choice. i wish we had a choice, but i'm afraid this is the last bitter legacy that donald trump is going to force us to do. he's going to force us to cross

a line as a nation that we have no choice crossing, because if we did not do that, then the precedent would be crossing a line far more grave for american democracy. your thoughts? >> richard nixon spared us this when he resigned. after a horrific and dishonest presidency to say the least, he at least spared us that. not only are we going to face this problem, but i think the republican party leadership in the house certainly is bent on revenge, and you're going to see come the new term, the new congress, the possibility of revenge hearings in which there is an attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the actions of the trump presidency, which not just january 6th but the trump presidency, with all the

things that you're going to expect. hunter biden and all the rest. and this is going to make it all the more difficult to solve tremendous problems that this country and this world faces. and on and on it goes, so the damage inflicted by donald trump is so profound and so long lasting, that it will certainly keep historians in business and this country twisted for a very long time to come. even if his presidential candidacy turns out to be nothing more than a joke. >> even a joke to me seems the republicans are putting themselves in a position where they do this, going after hunter biden's laptop, doing a lot of other really stupid things of once again, painting themselves in a sports analogy with the washington generals. you actually have james comer talking about shutting down the

government over the hunter biden conspiracy theory. and, again, it's one self-own after another by the republicans so if you want to keep losing, guys, and gals, keep losing. >> joe, the biggest self-own of all time in this drama was the decision of the republican party leadership in the house, not to take these hearings seriously and put forth only the most radical voices, and nancy pelosi rejected it, and then we said we're going to have nothing to do with this. that allowed the committee to do its work without the horrific distraction of all kinds of stunts day after day. that was a self-own of all time. >> it has been one self-own after another, and i would like to say that there's a democrat playing the role of meadowlark

lemon against the washington generals, but often they just get the basketball and aim at their face, and throw it at themselves because you're so right. they had an opportunity to participate in the house. the senate had an opportunity to have a bipartisan, bicameral investigation. they refused to do that. the stupidity on the republicans' part, it just is extraordinary. it was a self-own. claire, let's go back to the question mike pence talking like it's 2012, 2013, pretending that donald trump didn't try to get him and his family killed saying, oh, well, jeepers, maybe he just made some bad judgment. mike knows donald trump committed crimes. i'm curious your thoughts. the consequences of bringing charges, the doj bringing charges against donald trump,

and the consequences of not bringing charges against donald trump, how does that balance out? >> watching that mike pence clip made me think of the adam kinzinger quote when he said liz cheney and i aren't brave. we're just surrounded by cowards. mike pence was recognized in the hearings appropriately for following the constitution. i'm not sure that's the act of a hero. i think everybody there took an oath to uphold the constitution. so he followed his oath, and good for him. i'm not putting him down for that. but he has no self-awareness at this point. he's done. i mean, stick a fork in it. he's got nowhere to go. he is busy trying to crawl out of a hole, and he's got dirt underneath his finger nails, trying to, you know, somehow get to the top of this hole, and the nor he tries to dig out, the deeper the hole gets. his unwillingness to take a spot in the spotlight like liz cheney

has done has cost him his political career, and he's done. and you can kind of smell it on him. trump may be shrivelled, but pence is politically stinky. >> that's one way to put it. >> there's a lots of imagery there. >> i'll give you some more imagery. mike barnicle, this is a scene out of the sixth sense, i have seen it in politics for decades, you've seen it too, people are politically dead, and like the sixth sense, they don't know they're politically dead. mike pence is finished. donald trump is finished, but i see it time and again, they just don't know it, so they can't start planning for a graceful exit strategy, and both of these people are going down, one politically, one criminally. and they still don't know it. >> mike pence is a nice man. we all know that.

mike pence is also a dead man walking. his failure to recognize the truth that's right in front of his face is incredible. one thing we haven't discussed, the country will be discussing it for some time, historians will be discussing it forever, is the damage this one man, donald trump, did to the institutions of this country is both vivid and long lasting, i'm sorry to report. and we're all talking here today about a potential trial for a former president of the united states. let's shift the focus to the reality. the reality is that everything we've discussed today, everything that was in the report yesterday, everything that will become public within the next few days, his tax returns, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, is not the focus of a potential trial against the former president. it's a potential trial about a career criminal. >> yeah, bob woodward, final thoughts on what you've seen and

also obviously what you've learned in all the years talking to donald trump. >> well, i ask the question, what's driving this with trump in doing books, and spending all of these hours talking to him, and i think there's a really ugly answer, and that is the lust for political power. this is the problem nixon had. this idea that it's mine. everything is mine, and i remember too well in july of -- when trump is running for reelection, talking to him, and the virus had killed 140,000 people in the country, and just asked, well, what's the plan, and trump said, well, if i put out a plan, people won't

remember, and i'll put it out in 104 days, and i went, oh, that's election day. this is all about reelection. this is that ugly lust for political power. >> bob woodward, thank you so much. and david remnick, before we let you go, tell us again about the new yorker and what you all are doing with the january 6th report. >> yeah, "the new yorker" are collaborating to publish the document of the full report that comes out on wednesday, and i'm writing a preface, but more important, jamie raskin who's at the center of this investigation is publishing a really quite brilliant epilogue along with it. i think it's a document for history, and extraordinarily important for our times. >> we'll be talking to jamie raskin later in the show. bob woodward, michael beschloss,

claire mccaskill, thank you very much for being on this morning. >> an extraordinary panel. thank you, guys. >> we're going to take a quick moment to take a look at other stories making headlines. turning to the developing issue at the southern border. supreme court justice john roberts has placed a temporary hold on the lower court ruling that would allow title 42 to expire tomorrow. roberts' order follows the request of 19 attorneys general asking for a stay to keep title 42 in place. first implemented during the pandemic, title 42 has allowed the u.s. to expel more than 2 million migrants to enter the u.s. at the southern border. he's asked the biden administration and the groups challenging the policy to file a response to the state's request by this afternoon. >> and the biden administration

obviously is going to have some pressure to have this move on the lifting of title 42. if he talks to democratic governors, if he talks to democratic mayors, especially democratic mayors on the border, there's a historic influx of migrants, those democratic mayors, those democratic leaders, even the mayor of new york city would ask him to ask for title 42 to remain in place. >> well, in other news, cbs and walgreens are now limiting how much children's pain relief medicine people can buy amid this year's tripledemic of respiratory viruses. in statements yesterday, the company's revealed their new restrictions. cvs is limiting shoppers to two fever reducers per purchase, both online and in store. while walgreens says instore shoppers are limited to six per

purchase, but did not settle a limit for online orders. both drugstore giants say increased demand led to those limits. and still ahead on "morning joe,". >> we understand the gravity of each and every referral we are making today. just as we understand the magnitude of the crime against democracy that we describe in our report. but we have gone where the facts and the law lead us and inescapably, they lead us here. >> as we mentioned, congressman and select committee member jamie raskin joins us on the heels of the panel's new criminal referrals. plus, nbc's vaughn hillyard joins us from west palm beach with more on how former president trump is reacting to yesterday's news. you're watching "morning joe," we will be right back. news you're watching "morning joe," we will be right back. over the last 100 years, lincoln's witnessed a good bit of history.

even made some themselves. makes you wonder... what will they do for an encore? ♪♪

i look back with great satisfaction on my 32 years of active duty. what will they do for an encore? i understand the veteran mentality. these are people who have served, they'e been in leadership positions, they're willing to put their life on the line if necessary and they come to us and they say, "i need some financial help at this point in time." they're not looking for a hand out, they're looking for a little hand up. my team at newday usa is going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that veteran gets that loan. had tweets put out that were

fantastic. i don't know if you saw that. but we had on twitter, i put out statements and i put out other statements that were so beautiful, and nobody uses them. nobody brings it up. and they were well read. i even did a documentary more or less, i did a statement from the lawn on camera that was deleted, and it was, you know, go home and go peacefully, and all of the things, you know that. it wasn't even talked about. essentially we have all democrats and republicans in very poor standing, two of them. the whole thing. it's a kangaroo court. what can i say. >> a kangaroo court where every witness is from his kangaroo white house. every single witness that came in there that provided the most important evidence were all people that weren't for donald trump. >> your people. >> hey, donald, they were your people. >> they were your people. >> yesterday -- >> they didn't want to do it,

some of them, but they said it. >> this is like romp room at the end. you see that in there. i see hope, and i see kellyanne, and i see all of your lawyers, and i see your vice president. and i see your children, donald, we see everybody. we see cassidy. we see cassidy. oh, kangaroo court. if you're talking about every single person that you hired, every single person that was around on january 6th. >> the ones that were left. >> every single person in your white house was begging you to do the right thing, and, donald, for 187 minutes, you just couldn't do it. >> couldn't do it. >> what you hear was former president trump reacting to the select committee's criminal referrals. so let's bring in nbc news

correspondent vaughn hillyard who joins us live from west palm beach, florida. what more can you add? did he watch or golf? >> reporter: well, that's a good question. all i know is he has only left our awareness, mar-a-lago, his private club here ever since announcing his run for the presidency more than a month ago two times. so he was here at mar-a-lago yesterday as that hearing unfolded. we heard little from him besides a truth social post in which i'll read you in part he says quote, these folks don't get it, when they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me. it strengthens me. what doesn't kill me makes me stronger, and you heard in the radio interview, him reference his message when he said go home. i can tell you i was on the west lawn of the capitol looking around, and there was no law enforcement, no national guard, no military response for hours, and it was exasperation as to where the back up was.

what the january 6th committee laid out, the president never placed a phone call to the pentagon or his vice president or attorney general for back up here, and those are the questions that potentially donald trump will have to answer to the department of justice. that statement from donald trump, it was what you guys were talking about in the last segment there about where do we go from here. because in 14 days, republicans will be taking the house of representatives, just 14 days from now. kevin mccarthy has already outlined that he tends to investigate the january 6th committee, and then there's jim jordan who's one of those house members that the january 6th committee referred to the house ethics committee. he talked to donald trump at least two times on january 6th, but he has shared scant details about what they talked about and just for how long they talked about, and for jim jordan, he is somebody that did not comply the with january 6th subpoena and yet now he's going to be taking over the reins of the house judiciary committee as the republican chairman, and just last night, after that hearing

wrapped, it was that twitter account of the house gop judiciary committee that tweeted out a video of donald trump dancing to the ymca. you add that on top of suggesting that donald trump should not be charged. there's quiet from down the road in tallahassee. you haven't heard from ron desantis. you have heard very little from republicans outside of adam kinzinger and liz cheney. after his purge campaign of 2022, eight of those ten republicans who voted to impeach donald trump will not be returning to the next session of congress. it's not just them either, it's the likes of rodney davis and david mckinley, who individuals who did not vote to impeach him. they voted for what would have been an independent january 6th commission, which drew the ire of donald trump. he successfully went and primaried them as well. for donald trump, it's another tuesday morning. one in which he is staring at potentially difficult prosecutorial fate, and at the

same time, this is a man who is intending to be the next president of the united states, and the big question is can the department of justice wrap up their work within 24 months before he gets a shot to enter the white house again. >> nbc's vaughn hillyard, live in west palm beach. thank you so much, and it really is a great point he makes about jim jordan is going to be running the committee. they're going to send out subpoenas, and all somebody has to say is, well, we're not going to comply because the guy running the committee didn't comply. the guy running the house of representatives, the speaker of the house, if kevin mccarthy ever gets his 218 votes, he didn't comply. so those subpoenas are worthless. again, another self-own. the washington generals go to washington, d.c., and they take over the house of representatives. another self-own. at some point, these people are

going to get smart. i just don't know when. joining us now, former white house director of communications to president obama, and director of communications for hillary clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. jen palmieri, good to have you back, jen. first of all, what was your reaction overall to how the january 6th select committee presented their final hearing? >> they really understood the assignment, and you could see in making the presentation yesterday they have both the public in mind but also the department of justice and putting just in the right historic context what trump and his co-insurrectionists, you know, what they actually committed. and look at how chairman thompson started the hearing talking about accountability, the need for accountability, the first person who spoke is talking about that, how we can't move forward without it, and how they have provided a road map to justice, right? i feel like that is directed right at -- that's districted

right at the justice department. you see jamie raskin who i know you have coming up later in the show to talk about the 14th amendment. there's a clause in the 14th amendment that does not allow for people who have -- someone who has committed -- who has violated the oath of office to hold another office or to even run for another office. that clause was put into the 14th amendment after this. this is part of the civil war, this is coming out of the civil war because they're trying to prevent people from, you know, people who had taken up arms, who had fought against the country for being able to run for office. you know, this is like when they remind us of the kind of history that we are actually living through now. think back to the midterms where for the first time since 1934, the party in power picked up a senate seat in the first midterms. we are now trying -- the house committee is now evoking this

clause of the 14th amendment that was put in in response to the civil war. that's the kind of fight that we are in. and you have people like liz cheney, adam kinzinger, who put their political lives on the line who neither -- adam decided not to run for reelection, liz cheney got, you know, was beat largely because of taking on this action. to show to both the public and justice department what exactly is at stake, and then just to show what a great job they have done. i was surprised to see a poll that showed 64% of respondents said that they intended, wanted to read the report that was going to come out of the committee. they have managed to put this in the right context, lay out a road map for justice and engage the american people so that people, you know, we saw what happened in the midterms. people voted around this. but for people to pay attention and understand that the threat isn't over yet. i mean, look at who's taking over the republican congress.

this is a very real, present threat. . >> so, jen, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell who has called donald trump practically and morally responsible for the events of january 6th issued this simple statement to yesterday's news, i'll read it to you. the entire nation knows who is responsible for that day. beyond that, i don't have any immediate observations. so we know where mccarthy and those in the house stand with trump. what's your read, though, on what you're getting from mitch mcconnell? >> i mean, that was a pretty remarkable statement from him. i expected that he would do what the house republicans would do, which the house republicans were pretty quiet, pretty, you know, remarkably quiet. elise stefanik put a statement out. they did what john eastman did which talked about how this was a partisan activity. that's the kind of action that i expected to hear from mitch

mcconnell, kind of along the lines of mike pence who it's so disappointing to hear continually disappointed by mike pence, but disappointed to hear mike pence to say his reaction after his own life was on the line, to say, the justice should not pursue this or should not be any indictments, for mcconnell to come out and say we know exactly who it is, it is one person. it's trump. he doesn't go that far, but we know he means it's trump. that shows a drop in trump's standing, certainly within the senate republican caucus, and you know, mcconnell is still smarting that he is not going to be the senate majority leader, and he's not going to be the senate majority leader because trump endorsed bad candidates that caused him to lose, and the american public rose for people who wanted democracy. it's a pretty striking sign of, we'll see how long it lasts or if it does last, his continued decline within, you know, trump's decline of standing within the republican party for

the senator minority leader to say that. >> hey, jen, on liz cheney, we're all aware of liz cheney's public role in the committee, impressive, vocal, very very public, but her role on the committee as a whole behind the scenes in terms of prepping and convincing republican witnesses who are about to appear or have been subpoenaed to appear before committee. what was her role in that, in just making people comfortable in coming to appear and testify. >> it's a pretty remarkable story that i learned of from -- i interviewed for the circus, i interviewed sarah matthews who you all may remember was the deputy white house press secretary that was at the white house on january 6th and testified before the committee. and i asked her, i said, you know, how did this happen, who reached out to you initially to ask you to come in and testify assuming that it was a staff

person, and she said, a mutual friend, someone that she knows, that she trusts that liz cheney knows reached out to her. smart move, and her first meeting was not with staff. she had no interaction with staff. she had a two-hour one-on one meeting that liz cheney convinced her she should testify. we learned a similar story about cassidy hutchinson, telling the same story that liz cheney got in touch with her. what i wonder about is who else did liz cheney meet with. probably wasn't just those two women. there were probably people liz cheney met with who weren't willing to do it. that's an example of how much of herself she put into this. mark leibovich has that book, thank you for your servitude about republicans that propped up trump. i interviewed him for that book, and asked him, are there characteristics of the republicans that have stood up to trump, and he said, you know, it's legacy families, the cheneys, the romneys, faith, people of faith.

military leaders, people with military service, adam kinzinger, people who understand this is about something bigger than themselves. i think cheney really embodies that in how she even started her statement yesterday talking about her own great, great grandfather, that fought for the union, which went through chickamaga, georgia, and her statements are working at several levels. she puts a lot of thought into these things. just a remarkable leader at a really critical time. coming up, congressional leaders overnight released a bipartisan bill to avoid a government shut down, and it includes election reforms to prevent another january 6th. we'll explain how the bill could

do that. also ahead, the new leader of the democrats in the house, hakeem jeffries is our guest. we'll talk to him about his new role and the final hearing from the january 6th committee. and the january 6th committee.

pst. girl. you can do better. at least with your big-name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile you can get unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, at&t, and verizon. wow. i can do better! -yes you can! i can do better, too! see how easy it is to save hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, verizon, and at&t. talk to our switch squad at your local xfinity store today.

this year we thought it was important to celebrate hanukkah with a message of significance, permanence. the hanukkah arrives amid anti-semitism at home and around the world. i recognize your fear, your hurt. you're worried this venom is becoming too normal. as your president i want to make this clear. as my dad would say and many of you would say. silence is complicity.

we must not remain silent. from the very beginning, i made no bones about it. i will and america will not be silent. >> president biden and the first lady hosted a reception at the white house last night to celebrate the second night of hanukkah marking a new tradition adding the first-ever menorah to the white house collection. it is the first jewish artifact added to the white house collection. president biden delivered remarks in which he issued that strong condemnation of anti-semitism in the u.s. and around the world. last week biden launched an effort to counter the uptick in anti-semitism and this week convened a summit to combat hate-fueled violence and secured the largest increase in federal

funding ever for the security of nonprofits including community centers and synagogues. up next, we are joined by a member of the january 6 committee. jamie raskin will be with us at the top of the hour and will look at what the justice department will do with the criminal referrals, four of them approved by the panel. "morning joe" will be right back. 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.♪ if your business kept on employees through the pandemic, getrefunds.com can see if it may qualify for a payroll tax refund of up to $26,000 per employee. all it takes is eight minutes to get started. then work with professionals to assist your business with its forms and submit the application.

go to getrefunds.com to learn more.

it is the top of the third hour of "morning joe." welcome back. a live look at white house as the sun comes up over washington on this tuesday, december 20th.

let's get straight to the final public hearing for the january 6 hearing and the criminal referrals against former president trump. it is the first time congress has ever referred a former president for prosecution. we should note the committee's referrals do not carry legal weight. it is unclear if the justice department will pursue them but they can if they choose and they have quite a road map. here are the four charges. obstruction of an official proceeding of congress. conspiracy to defraud the quite. conspiracy to make a false statement. and inciting or assisting an insurrection. while most of the focus on the former president maryland congressman jamie raskin said there may be others worthy of prosecution. >> we believe that this evidence we set forth in our report is more than sufficient for a criminal referral of former

president trump and others in connection with this offense. as before we don't try to determine all of the participants. many refused to answer our questions while under oath. we trust that the department of justice will be able to form a more complete picture through its own investigation. >> all right. joining us now member of the select committee, the man you just saw, democratic republican jamie raskin of maryland. my question to you, the four referrals are very serious charges. you and the others on the committee with legal expertise, how confident are you that the evidence is enough to inspire the doj to act? >> very confident. we only stated charges where we thought that the evidence was

abundant or overwhelming and believe the prosecutors could satisfy easily each element of the offenses. it makes common sense, as well. interference with the federal proceeding was donald trump's entire plan. stop the steal meant going in and stop the count. conspiracy to defraud the quite sums up exactly what he wanted to do which was to exchange a real presidential election with a fake one. they filed all kinds of counterfeit electoral college certificates which is filing a false statement and worked to assist an insurrection and to incubate and comfort an insurrection. >> so the other thing i noticed the "and others." why didn't you name others?

is the hope to inspire people to come forward and show courage and say what happened? >> we stated the case where we thought the evidence was clear and undeniable. there were a lot of people who refused to testify, who took the fifth amendment. so we were cautious in how we proceeded. >> i see. okay. >> congressman, you experienced two unimaginable losses within a week of each other. of course january 6 and the week before that the loss of your beloved son. wondering yesterday, january 6 as the hearings were coming an end, what were your thoughts? did you -- joe biden always talks about feeling like beau is

with him. do you feel like this is not only for your daughter there on january 6 but what you were doing for your son? >> well, yeah. it's been a very intense couple of years for our family. i did feel that my son's spirit was with me the entire time. tommy was someone who believed deeply in democracy and wanted a lot more from democracy, not a lot less from it. i feel like we have completed a kind of journey over this congress. at this point we have turned everything over to the department of justice and the role forward is to defend democracy and freedom in the country and to make sure that they keep growing. i think about something

toteville said about america which is democracy is either shrinking or expanding and growing. we have got to get democracy back on the growth track. >> can we stop for one minute also? as you talk about this committee, we have been talking all morning about how you exceeded our wildest expectations. we know congress. this is not usually how congressional commit tees work. can you talk about how republicans and democrats worked together on your committee? i'm not just talking about, of course, liz and adam. i'm talking about the cassidy hutch i son's who came in from the cold and the trump lawyers fighting you during two impeachment trials and the people the last to be expected

to be there testifying in defense of democracy and against donald trump. what an extraordinary committee this committee has been. >> well, i appreciate that. you know, it's a magnificent glimpse of what congress would be like and how our committees could operate if we didn't have a group of people who just wanted to engage in partisan warfare and temper tantrums. imagine if we had hearings like this on gun violence and bring the country together to address it and about climate change. we could make progress in the country. the problem isn't democrat or republican. the problem is that trump's faction has taken over the republican party and interested only in obstruction. it is a rule or ruin approach to

governance. that's the issue. there were lots of disagreements and conflicts on the committee but not along partisan or ideological line. we worked it out. we had long debates and discussions and ended up with a successful process willing to engage in the discussions. >> good morning. jonathan lemire. let me say that the hearings so well done and a breath of fresh air. i want your response to something that we have heard that the criminal referrals that the committee has sent along actually may complicate matters for the department of justice trying to be independent and perhaps reluctant to be seen as following a road map that some have said the committee laid out for them. want your response to that.

do you feel these are separate entities and had to do what you had to do? >> i think they're separate entities. the department of justice is filled with professionals and they have an excellent leader in attorney general garland and they have appointed a special counsel. people said if we made no referrals it would make the impression we examined the atrocious events and resolved no crimes committed. we felt the magnitude of the offense against democracy was so great we needed to specify criminal offenses that the president and his immediate circle engaged in but the department of justice will do their own job and want the public to understand what our conclusion is after looking at this for more than a year and a half. >> congressman, it is jennifer

palmieri. it is good to see you. you talked about hope a bit ago and democracy is shrinking or expanding and every generation has to reaffirm democracy. the last generation fought the cold war and now battling a threat from within the united states. as you're doing your work on the committee, how did you see the moment in the larger scope of history, the magnitude of the threat of democracy? is it this generation being tested the way every generation is or something larger? >> democracy's a difficult thing to keep going. freedom sa difficult thing to keep going and every generation has to fashion its own response to the threats against democracy. right now democracy's under siege all over the world. you have putin in russia with

his filthy invasion and war against the people of ukraine. you have xi in china and donald trump down in mar-a-lago working with all of them and cheering them. i see it that we have a responsibility to the people of the world to make sure that america is standing strong for democracy in this century because the autocrats believe that time is on their side and we have to show that the last two centuries have not been some kind of fluke, that american style multicultural democracy works and we still have the glory of the world. >> congressman, the committee's work will be done and fold in about two week's time. as you look back, though,

perhaps as you think back in the rear-view mirror can you talk about or discuss the amount of damage that was done to this country and the institutions of governance in this country in a brief four-year span? >> well, this assault on democracy existed on a continuum. trump's team works on voter suppression, gerrymandering, use of the filibuster to shut down voting rights legislation. right wing judicial activism from the courts they packed. if none of those things work to entrench the minority rule over the vast majority of the people in the country then they showed that they're willing to turn to violence and insurrection and coup. that's why we have to defend

democracy. so much is at stake here and around the world and the crisis of the time is climate change but the autocrats are not going to address it for us. it has to be democracy that make it is response. i'm proud of the work that the biden administration has done to address the calamity of climate change which is bearing down upon us. >> member of the january 6 select committee congressman jamie raskin of maryland, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for everything done. >> we are so grateful to have you here and thank you for your service to america. >> yeah. >> thank you for everything you guys do. >> thank you. we want to bring back into the conversation presidential historian michael beschloss. >> thank you so much for being here again. you have said before that legacy

is what a president does, that impacts future generations. i have always loved that quote. i'm curious. it's now laid out before us. donald trump, what he's done. what is that legacy for future generations? >> the legacy could have been that you can almost destroy our democracy and get away with it. you can commit other crimes and what that would have been is a message to future americans and future presidents and leaders that you can do what you want. you will never be held to account. that connects with the history of urn not getting -- you had to watch the watergate hearings and didn't get to see "sesame street" but in 19 73 and '74

they brought out the truth buford pardoned nixon. the country can't stand a trial. in retrospect i would say those were bad judgments and donald trump has shown us why. nixon was pardoned. two years late every 1977 nixon went into the interviewed with david frost. what did he say? he said when the president does something that means it is not illegal. he had no -- he learned no lesson and americans said what was watergate all about? nixon said i didn't do anything that roosevelt and kennedy had not done and lbj. why was i singled out for this bad treatment? ben bradley used to say -- i think he was right. maybe nixon should not go through a whole trial but i believe he should have in 1974

and 1975 but ben brady said if you fingerprinted him and taken the mug shot that would be something that americans of that generation and later would always remember and more difficult for someone like nixon to say i didn't do something so bad. so if donald trump is not brought to account same thing is going to happen. >> yeah. so jen has a question for you. jen, i thought it was fascinating in conversation with congressman raskin how the last generation had to fight the cold war. this generation, we never really realize it but had to battle an enemy from within, an enemy who said they want to terminate the constitution of the united states. an enemy that charged capitol

hill. that beat police officers. that tried to stop the counting of a fair and free election. pretty remarkable contrast but that political battle continues, does it? >> yeah. it does. i just -- for michael, as a historian should we have seen this moment coming and seen that the next threat would be from within the united states? it is not something that -- i work in politics. follow it closely and not something that i expected. is the right way to look at this that the last time we had the threat inside our own country the civil war and every 150 years or so tested in this way from within your own boundaries that you have to reaffirm these principles of democracy? >> jen, i pray it is only every

150 years. i'm a little bit more pessimistic about that. you're absolutely right. who is jefferson davis? he waged an insurrection for four years and put in jail two years and never tried because the equivalent of the justice department wasn't sure they would get a conviction. what happened? just like donald trump and richard nixon. nixon did not one-tenth of the bad thing that is donald trump did. what jefferson davis said was we in the south did not lose the civil war. we were not conquered. we were cheated out of our victory. a lot of people especially in the south believe that 100

years. did a lot to fuel the racist movement against civil rights so the point i'm making is oftentimes people think history is facts and dates but my point is the way we see the events shapes the way we deal with politicians and fellow citizens and the democracy we will be. >> michael beschloss, thank you very much. now, joining us is the leader congressman hakeem jeffries of new york. great to have you on the show. curious your reaction to the final hearing for the january 6 select committee and what stood out to you the most. >> the january 6 committee did a tremendous job from beginning to end. certainly under the leadership of bennie thompson and vice chair liz cheney.

they were solemn, substantive and strategic. the mission from the beginning from figure out what happened, how did it happen? how do we prevent this from ever occurring again. i think as all of the members of the panel today indicated the fact that they were able to conduct this type of inquiry with such intense pressure and maintain the dignity of it all was incredible and i think will go down in history as one of the most important moments of congressional inquiry ever in the republic. >> congressman, good morning. jonathan lemire. donald trump the central character of the january 6 hearings but not the only one. yesterday we had the committee refer four republican members of house to the house ethics committee.

wanted to get your reaction there and what you think the appropriate next step should be. >> the referrals were made. the ethics committee is bipartisan in nature. i expect that they will take those referrals and address them with the seriousness that should be expected of any type of referral, particularly coming from a congressional committee bipartisan in nature on such a significant nature but the most important part of yesterday is the serious decision that the committee of a criminal referral of the former president. conspireing against the united states of america, for attempting to halt the peaceful transfer of power. radicalizing millions of americans to engage in the type of thing that we would be

shocked to have seen in the united states of america as it relates to our democracy and my hope the department of justice will take this seriously, continue to follow the facts, apply law and be guided by the constitution and let the chips fall where they may. >> the four aforementioned members of congress, one might be speaker of the house. a second probably chairman of the house judiciary committee. what happens when they are in the majority in two week's time and start the revenge hearings and issue subpoenas to democrats and perhaps in congress and elsewhere, what happens to the power of the subpoena in people's minds based upon their behavior? >> very good question. the fact that the republican colleagues are contemplating

revenge hearings tells you a lot. instead of addressing the problems of the american people, dealing with affordability throughout america as we fight for lower cost, safer communities tells you that the republican colleagues perhaps did not learn any lesson from the underperformance in the midterm elections. integrity of the hearings remains to be seen. >> you know, congressman, slow learners. they are. one cell phone after another cell phone. i can't believe. they keep losing and they never learn the lesson. anyway, so kevin mccarthy had said they're going to pick up 60

seats a year ago. four short of that. but they still because of redistricting and other things squeaked out a majority. we'll see if kevin mccarthy will be speaker but you are replacing a legend. i mean, i would not have wanted to replace bear brirnt as a football coach or john wooden as a basketball coach. i would not want to follow in the footsteps of the perhaps greatest speaker of all time, nancy pelosi. >> yeah. >> let me ask you, how are you managing that? we know speaker pelosi is going to be so helpful to you. >> she will be right there. >> are you asking john wooden to stay there? like, on the bench. help me out here, coach. what do i do here and there? >> i definitely look forward to continuing to benefit from the

wisdom of speaker pelosi but you are correct. speaker pelosi is the greatest of all time with the record track of accomplishment for the american people and an honor to serve alongside here over the last few years but taking the baton we focus on solving the problems of the american people. i want to work hard and stay focused and deliver results for every day americans building on the track record of success of nancy pelosi and leader schumer. >> we have heard some pretty great things about you for a long time. i'm sure the democratic party in the house is in great hands. congratulations. >> congressman hakeem jeffries of new york, thank you very much for being on this morning.

thank you. >> thank you! happy holidays. >> happy holidays. still ahead on "morning joe," the january 6 committee -- >> can you imagine following nancy pelosi? >> absolutely not. >> but it came -- i had people telling me about hakeem years ago. what a great leader he was. >> she will be right there making sure. the january 6 committee laid out an ambitious road -- >> what do you mean? >> she will chime in if she needs to. you know she will. he knows she will. >> okay. >> for -- so now here we go did earn. the january 6 committee laid out an ambitious road map to prosecute former president trump. what do we expect from the justice department? we'll talk to former u.s. attorney and senior official chuck rosenberg about that. the must read opinion pages and the end of the trump era will be unsatisfying.

you are watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. research shows people remember commercials with nostalgia. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. wow! what'd you get, ryan? it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual!!! what does it do, bud? it customizes our home insurance so we only pay for what we need! and what did you get, mike? i got a bike. ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

criminal referrals do not carry legal weight but represent a significant symbolic rebuke of former president trump. and it remains unclear just how closely the special counsel's office in charge of the doj's own investigation will follow the path mapped out by the january 6 commit tee or whether trump or others will face any criminal charges at all. "the new york times" points out that not much is publicly known about any specific charges the special counsel jack smith might

be considering in a criminal prosecution. and the department is under no obligation to adopt the committee's conclusions. joining us is former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official chuck rosenberg. what do you think the options are for the doj and what's your gut on how this material will or will not be used? >> understand that the department of justice had a large, complex, ongoing investigation. you made the point earlier and you are right that the law moves slowly and between slowly and recklessly i take slowly every time so the work is ongoing. i don't know that the -- look. on one hand the referral is of great symbolic and historical significance. no committee of congress referred a president for

prosecution. it has great meaning. from the vantage point of justice department where i used to work it is almost literally meaningless. no substantive value. the department of justice has great investigators, great agents. been doing this work and know the statutes to be applicable. if the committee really wants to help the department of justice, i presume they do, there are a couple ways to do that. telling the department of justice what charges it ought to bring isn't that helpful. giving the department of justice the testimony and evidence could be helpful. that's one thing they wanted all along, the transcripts of the testimony of the various witnesses with whom the committee spoke. there's a large ongoing invest.

i believe the justice department will make principle decisions. it doesn't need the committee's recommendation. that's not to say that the committee didn't do a good job. they did. but proving something in a hearing room is different than the federal court. the first thing is easier. the second thing is much harder. >> chuck, i take what you said 100% because you know the justice department and how they think. they are not sequestered like a jury in a hotel room some place. the justice department did hear and see what happened yesterday. and they did take in at least the committee's view on what the president, former president trump should be charged with. would you agree with my assessment that perhaps the least likely of the charges to actually be brought by justice

would be the insurrection charge? or, do you have a different view? >> yeah. you know, eugene, it is a great question. you and i independently i think have come up with a list of which charges pertain and which might not. here's the problem with trying to make an assessment now. i hate to be a wet blanket but so be it. the committee spoke to over a thousand people. if each person spoke with the committee for say six hours or eight hours that's 8,000 hours of testimony and hearing. we saw 20 hours worth of stuff. that is not a criticism of the committee. i think they made an outstanding presentation. it was terrific. but it is not all of the stuff

that prosecutors need to make a determination. to your question do i think insurrection is the least or most likely charge? i don't know. it seems to me that lots of folks committed lots of crimes. to prove it in criminal you need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. that's hard to do given that we have a small slice of evidence in public. >> well put. >> chuck, again, thanks for that sort of caveat about we tend to get carried away by what constitutes proof in the media-sphere. what's come out from the committee and reporting elsewhere seems to the average person without a law degree and not working at justice department seems to be conclusive and yet i imagine if

you're jack smith and evaluating whether a grand jury can accept beyond all reasonable doubt that they're very different at the end of weeks and weeks of hearings to the average person. it does seem really conclusive. can you explain the difference between the two and how important that will be to jack smith's decision whether and what to indict trump and cohorts with? >> great question. to win a case in federal court you need to convince the jury unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt. the hearings were terrific. jack smith and the team will have to have make principled decisions understanding that everything they introduce in court will be challenged. every story they tell will have someone else telling an opposite

story. it is not just indicting the case in grand jury but court where you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that's a difficult standard why not impossible. it happens all the time but difficult and important for people to keep the differences in mind. coming up, actor jesse tyler ferguson revisiting the performance of "take me out." that conversation ahead on "morning joe."

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig.

all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to 60% a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

-- has a column in "the new york times" entitled the end of the trump era will be unsatisfying. >> well, if it is the end of the trump era -- >> i this that's satisfying. >> i'm good. >> since the 2022 midterm elections -- >> i don't need lasers. right? >> become a 50-50 proposition. while ron desantis surges in multiple national polls, the former president busied himself schilling $99 digital trading cards to his most devoted fans. there will be no perp walk where trump exits the white house but could still face indictment. no scripted denunciation driving him in shame from the public square. this desire for vindication is

completely understandable. how else can you ensure that mistakes won't be repeated or an awful demagogue won't slip into sheep's clothing and return? the answer, however, and this is tough medicine, the way to avert that repetition is to make certain you have a strategy to win the next election and the ones after that on the public's terms rather than your own. >> let's bring in the host of "way too early" jonathan lemire and jen psaki. jen, i was -- i read this op-ed and i wanted to disagree with it because, you know, i don't need lasers. the end of the trump era means democracy survived the challenge. it brings up a great point there and a reason why we do it today. we had a -- the morning after

the election i texted my children who were on different parts of the spectrum and texted all four and said, you know what? democracy had a great night last night. every election denier lost. america wins. but that happened because as we say -- excuse me for being a guy here -- blocking and tackling. right? >> women like football, too. >> i know you do. so you understand you don't win by practicing the wonderful speeches. it is the blocking and the tackling. i will say i have been critical of democrats. doesn't anybody know how to play this game? at times they seem hapless. every tight the mearses blocking and tackling.

in '22 blocking and tackling. got the people to the polls whether a coalition of people of color or when the numbers went down a little bit it's white people in the suburbs that used to vote republican. they got the people out. ross is right. it is the blocking and tackling that will save democracy. not the floor and speeches. >> so true. i thought that op-ed is excellent, too. winning elections and defeating election deniers and trump is not always sexy work. right? it is running on an agenda as many democrats did over the course of the last few years and turning people out to vote which they did in droves as we know and more work to do. what happens in january? what happens in february? how are owe keeping the coalitions together? are you staying true to the agenda you're running on that won in 2022? but that's the only way.

elections have consequences and elections in 2024 could be the end of trump but requires doing all those things. coming up, dictionary.com named the word of the year for 2022. >> dude! >> no. we'll tell you the word and why it was picked. >> dude wasn't picked? >> no. >> dude! >> "morning joe" is coming right back. >> i guess it's just around our house.

now to a major victory for women in the sports world. the six-year battle for equal pay for members of the u.s. women's national soccer team has finally come to an end with a landmark settlement. >> big reaction today to the

supreme court's bombshell decision to overturn roe v. wade, leaving the abortion rights to state lawmakelawmaker. moments after the announcement, americans took to the streets. >> serena williams has all but confirmed her retirement from tennis after defeat in the third round of the u.s. open. >> good day, everyone. some sad breaking news. queen elizabeth ii has died at the age of 96. >> now to the deadly protests in iran, spreading out to some iranians around the globe. authorities cracking down in iran. all of this sparked by the murder -- death of a young woman. >> brittney griner has been released from russian prison. >> as we take a look at some of this year's big stories, women's rights have returned as a primary issue driving voters. the word woman has been selected

as the word of the year by dictionary.com. here to explain why, forbes women editor maggie mcgrath, also the driving force of the know your value and forbes annual 50 over 50 list. i guess first of all why was this word chosen as the word of the year? and what does it say about how it's shaping our national dialogue? >> well, mika, as we saw in that fabulous reel that just played, and this is what the folks at dictionary.com said, the word woman was inseparable from the story of 2022. and we see that in the numbers. dictionary.com over the course of 2022 saw the doubling in the number of searches for this word. the biggest jump came in march. there was a 1,400% surge in people looking for the word woman, and that was because of the senate confirmation hearings for judge ketanji brown jackson for the supreme court. she was asked, can you define

the word woman? and she basically said no, i can't, and then in a followup question the next day she said i know that i am a woman. i think that's what a lot of us would say. that's also what dictionary.com says. we're not the final authority on this. the word belongs to women and how they define it themselves. >> what other crucial moments involving women that happened in the last year that resulted in people searching it and choosing it as the word of the year? >> of course roe v. wade, we saw a search there and searches for autonomy, freedom and independence. we saw surges around the u.s. soccer team equal pay settlement, the $24 million settlement that was announced this year. we saw similar surges around the death of mahsa amini and the remarkable protests we've seen in iran for women's rights and human rights. and of course the death of queen

elizabeth ii which i learned from dictionary.com again, that the word has an etymology that goes back to an old eng wish word that means woman. people are searching for this word because they want to understand the experience of women, they want to understand the experience of female leaders, people running for office who may receive more abuse than their male counterparts, female founders who received lower levels of funder than their male counterparts. it's my hope in searching for this word and seeking understanding maybe we can find solutions to these problems. >> while we're at it, what other words made the short list for word of the year? >> this is funny. one of the worlds was the ukrainian flag emoji, which we can probably have a separate debate if that's a word, but we also have found inflation, quiet quitting, the phenomenon where you kind of only do what your job description requires,

democracy, and of course my favorite game, wordle. >> looking ahead, we'll be talking about these issues at the 30/50 summit on and around international women's day, but what other stories or issues do you think we'll be seeing a lot more of in the next year? >> so, i've been hearing from my sources, and i'm sure you've been hearing the same, the attack on reproductive rights is not going to end when the calendar turns to 2023. we are going to see more rollbacks, more state restrictions, we may see an attack on contraception. i think reproductive rights writ large is something to watch next year. also, looking at the quiet quitting trend or phenomenon, there's another word that's bubbling up called career cushioning, which is kind of a cute term just for looking for a job while you have a job. but as we see more layoffs in the corporate sector, more people needing to look for jobs, i think we'll see more of that word. another cushion, emergency cushion.

i was speaking to forbes contributor alona talking about if you are a woman, a person of color, you need to save more in your emergency cushion. >> editor of "forbes women," maggie mcgrath. thank you very much. for more on the story, head over to forbes.com. we'll also hear more from maggie in the weeks to come as we get ready for the forbes 30/50 summit know your value in abu dhabi. the event will have a star-studded lineup of speakers. hillary clinton, gloria steinem, malala, and more announcements coming soon. get your tickets to the summit soon. consider bringing a team or a group of mentees like i am. we're also getting ready to launch our second annual global 50 over 50 list. the europe, middle east, and africa, and the asia list,

nominations for those lists still open until december 31st. to get more details on all of this, go to forbes.com or knowyourvalue.com. still ahead, why former vice president mike pence is defending donald trump against potential criminal charges related to the attack on the capitol. and a supreme court order might have a major impact on the situation at the southern border. we'll have the latest on the pandemic-era immigration policy that was set to expire tomorrow. if you wanted to hold my hand... [ gasps ] all you had to do is ask. i am down to my last life. when you only have one life... that's what makes it special. go get 'em tiger.

it is the top of the fourth hour of "morning joe." a live look at san francisco. the airport is buzzing this morning. >> you know what, san francisco's airport has in common with miami's airport? >> no, it does not. >> absolutely nothing. you know why?

>>au