♪♪ namaste, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york city. i'm in for nicolle wallace. second day of what is chipping up to be a very big week. at this very moment, the house ways and means committee is meeting behind closed doors debating whether to release six years of trump's personal income tax returns from the moment he became the presidential candidate in 2015 to the moment he left office in 2021 there will be conscious and wild and righteous demands from democrats and even, occasionally, some members of the republican party.

trump release his tax returns a long-standing tradition between candidates and those who win the oval office to remind us how frequent this refrain has been heard. let's take a little listen to this. >> for 40 years, everyone running for president has released their tax returns. you can go and see nearly, i think 30, 40 years of our tax returns but everyone has done it. we know the irs has made clear there is no prohibition on releasing it when you're under audit. you got to ask yourself, why won't he release his tax returns? >> when we win this election and we have a new president of the united states in january, and we have a new secretary of the treasury and richie neal asks for the president's returns, then the world will see what the president has been hiding all of this time. >> i paid millions of dollars in taxes. millions of dollars of income tax. and let me just tell you, there was a story in one of the

papers -- >> where is your tax return? >> i paid $38 million one year. i paid 27 million -- >> show us your tax returns. >> as soon as it's finished, you'll see it. >> joe biden saying show us your tax returns. show us your tax returns, been saying is it more than seven years. these demands has been consistently met by trump's adamant refusal to release the tax returns to anyone for any reason. yet, this whole drama came close to an apparent end last month when the united states supreme court rejected trump's hail mary bid to release the tax returns to the public. it's been years in the making and it couldn't come at a worse time for trump, battered as he is by the january 6 select committee, multiple federal and

state investigations into his conduct, not to mention the humiliating, high-profile string of losses by his hand picked candidates in the midterms as well as the pervasive standing since he entered the fray back in 2015. for democrats time is of the essence. democrats on the ways and means committee before republicans take over the house in january. here's some of what we know right now about trump's taxes thanks to stellar reporting by "the new york times." back in 2020 the "times" reported that, quote, mr. trump paid no federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years that the "times" examined. . in 2017, after he became president, his tax bill was only $750. he's reduced his tax bill with questionable measures including a $72.9 million tax refund. that was the audit.

and many large businesses reported large amounts of money helped with the taxes. as president he's received more money from foreign sources than u.s. interest groups than previously known. the records do not reveal any previous connections to russia. even after all of this reporting, years of trump's tax records, the "times" notes today that, quote, the full scope of his tax history has remained shrouded in secrecy. the larger narrative is one that everyone in politics left and right is obsessed with after years of trump's political death were invariably greatly exaggerated. we may be, may be in fact witnessing the beginning of the end of the trump politics. that's the story we'll be talking for the next two hours, we've got to start with the major question from ways and means committee. for that, susanne craig from

"the new york times." and donna edwards. bloomberg opinion senior executive editor and msnbc contributor, tim ryan. tim is one of the few democrats who has seen some of trump's tax returns, and last but not least on the hill, nbc news congressional correspondent garrett haake. garrett, you know, i like the reporters, doing the deep dives but it's the man on the scene that i always like to start with. tell us what it's like up there as the ways and means committee is still in session, what do we expect to hear from them? what's the word? >> reporter: i appreciate that, john, the committee has gone behind closed doors and kicked everybody else out of the room for a little over an hour now. interestingly enough, because the secrecy rules are so tight on the tax returns, this

meeting, this mock-up is the first that the members can confirm what they're talking about. even before the supreme court decision a month ago, richie neal, the chairman has to be very cautious what he could say about the tax records only telling me, repeatedly, that he was going to see this through so that's what we're seeing today. we're seeing the executive session, that the committee will hold a vote to release all or part of the tax returns today. they wouldn't be bothering to meet on the issues if they were going to leave the thing behind closed doors. what they come out with, news to all of us, especially leaky house of representatives, has been much tighter on this again because of those secrecy rules. and we're seeing right now the political jockeying around this issue in which the great irony is both parties are positioning themselves as defenders of the norms here. you've got house democrats really making the case this is

information that should have been made public years ago. should have been made public when donald trump was a presidential candidate or at least when he was president. and the supreme court has cleared the way, this is well within their legal rights to make at least some of this information public for the good of the american house. the ways and means republicans held a press conference before going into executive session saying releasing this information now in this way would be a dangerous new political weapon, as they described it and would open the door for any private citizen, anybody who could be perceived as an enemy of the party in power, having their own tax information weaponized against them. and they're arguing that this would make the future congress even more divisive and more nasty. although i should point out that those same republicans did not commit to not using this tactics themselves in the new congress. but at any rant, john, we expect the executive session to go perhaps as much as another hour. and then we will hear from the chairman what they're going to do next. it will be good old-fashioned

breaking news when they come out of this closed-door session. >> garrett, i share my amusement with the republicans saying they'll be even more divisive. the first thing they did is start talking about hunter biden and impeaching joe biden almost immediately after the poor performance in the midterms. it's going to see division is on had the menu, no matter what happens here. but i want to ask you, not to speculate wildly. but i'll ask is this in the realm of possibility. is there a possibility that we'll see some of donald trump's tax records tonight? or is it just the wheels of process in the house even if they released all of it tonight, it's going to take days before we actually see the digital versions of them? >> reporter: yeah, i think it's unlikely before we see any hard data tonight, john. as you see, it's too voluminous, these are six years of returns, not like yours and mine that we

do on turbotax in 15 minutes, right? this is donald trump's returns. under the personal/professional combo umbrella here. this is complicated stuff. and the committee, again, by their own rules and the laws that they're working under, under the tax code, couldn't really confirm what they were doing with these records until today but as you pointed out in the intro here, the committee goes out of control, they have no grip on this after january 3rd. so time is of the essence here. there's going to be ways and mean staffers working a lot through what the rest of us would enjoy as a holiday break. trying to get at least hard data or some kind of a staff report, could be another thing we see, there's precedent for that going back to the 1970s with richard nixon's practice. some formatting issues have to be solved here. again, the big question today, what they do with this more broadly, a decision to be made to make this public within the bounds of secrecy laws that's going to be the headlines. >> garrett, the next hour and 15

minutes, obviously if an announcement happens we'll come back to you. but if you hear anything in the hallways if a little bird shows up and tweets in your ear, anything you have to report, come back to the camera. we'll take you on to start things off. sue craig, let me ask you this question to start here, the six years that the committee has, why is that important? what are we going to learn from it, ostensibly, and why is it significant, the six years they have tell us, an overview, of what's at stake here. >> right. the six years that they have, it's going back to the year they got into office it covers the time he was president. and i think this issue is so important because we're going to have more transparency into the pressures that were on him as president. you know, we just -- you know, "the new york times" has gotten some of his taxes, so we know some of the answers. we have three of the years that are coming out. but we're going to have a more complete picture of his finances in office. you know, what his businesses

were losing. you know, potential conflicts that could come out of that. and i think, really, importantly, we're going to potentially get more information about this audit that he is under. he is under an audit. it is a very serious audit. if it goes against him it could cost more than $100 million to him. that's not chunk change. we could find if that's still ongoing. more information about it. maybe it could be closed and more audits eventually going on. there could be a lot of information coming out and we're going to have three years of new information. "the new york times" has obtained the information that the committee up to 2018. we're going to now get 2019, 2020 and parts of 2018 that we don't have. and that's going to show just what happened even during the pandemic, the businesses and how hard hit they were. >> donna, obviously, this is high public interest, i think that goes without saying in the

sense that the president of the united states says he wants to try to become the future president of the united states. he's already announced candidacy for presidency in 2024. some of the things he did in office, what kind of money he was making, as sue just said is highly germane to that is there anything that what garrett said, either release them in toto or release a summary and give us some greater step to give us greater. transparency into trump's financial affairs? >> well, i think it might be some combination of those things, both releasing the returns so it's seen by the public in transparency. perhaps an addendum in say report that might accompany them. look, let's just say we know the hard deadline is january 3rd because that's when republicans take over. so there is still some time here. you know, republicans' complaints that this is kind of a witch hunt.

that it's going after a president, is really not true. i mean, we should be clear about this. this is about releasing tax returns that have been released for 45-plus years by other presidents and candidates. and is in the public interest. so, i look forward to seeing what it is assembled. and i think it's important for the public to know what any potential conflicts or pressures there are on a president of the united states. and that's why we look at the tax returns. not just for purulent interest. >> tim, with "the new york times," we talked about he's never going to release the tax returns. never going to happen. but asked him a lot of questions and we've heard all kinds of things. i want to play one example, chuck todd on 2016, trump goes on "meet the press" and chuck presses him on when he's going

to release his taxes. let's take a stroll down memory lane. >> i have everything all approved and very beautiful. we'll be working on that over the next period of time, chuck. absolutely. >> what's a period of time? i don't know. >> before voting begins. >> this is not like a normal tax return. >> i understand that. >> and i want to say this, i'm very proud to say it, i think the country is run horribly, i hate what they do with our money. >> tim, he has very big -- very big, very big and very beautiful returns and not like normal returns. talk about the various excuses that trump has given over the time for not doing what every other presidential candidate, serious one elected one has done for a very long time in american politics? >> well, the primary crutch he's leaned on he's said because he's understand audit he can't release the returns. but, of course, he's allowed to release them on his own volition anytime he wants. an audit wouldn't prevent him

from doing that, john so it begs the obvious question of why he doesn't want to release his big and beautiful tax returns. and i think it's a very straightforward set of reasons. i think, you know, and the most minor reason, i think, is these have never been charitable as he's claimed to be. i think it will also reveal that his businesses have not been as successful as he's claimed and, therefore, he's not as wealthy as he's claimed. he's lied or desensed on both of those points. the more salient issues which donna flagged we should no who the president whether republican or democrat, they're beholden to a power, to a financial institute and donald trump since

gerald ford is the first president not to release his tax returns. particularly with foreign powers, i think the russia issue remains unresolved. he got money from eastern europe and eastern european entities when he was a partner in the trump soho development. his son-in-law and his former treasury secretary both got billions of dollars from the saudis, after they left office, for their investment firms. there's an issue as to whether or not donald trump took classified information out of the white house with an intent to sell it on the open market, after he left the presidency. we know that china -- a major chinese insurance group and other chinese interests exerted influence on him and his family, up to and during the early part of his presidency. and the tax returns would offer a window on that. i also think it's unfortunate that we may only get six years of these. because i think the years prior

to him becoming president involves some of his most significant financial deals. and i think parsing the financial intricacies of those and the identities of people behind him of whom he may owe financial favors remains ver important and unanswered. >> sue, as you pointed out with "the new york times" and you've gotten a chance to look at some of donald trump's tax returns, you have seen three of the six that might be released here. tim is alluding to -- in some way you can look at all of these as very important as prospective president, we want to know what they have before they assume the oval office, these pertaining to time as president, a lot have a lot of questions about the phrase that it's not a technical accounting phrase, grifter, i've heard cpas use that, we all say

he was a great grifter, of all time. on the basis of what you know, what do you think that animates trump -- that adamant -- just that he's fought over this tooth and nail, as anything he's ever fought over. what's heal afraid of? >> i mean, this is just his krypto kryptonite. he doesn't want it exposed how he is as a businessman. very few of his businesses make money. tim has raised areas that a lot of people are worried about, did he get money overseas, did he get money from russians? we're not going to see that in my view in the tax returns. we didn't see it in the tax return time slot which is not the same years but a much larger universe. if you're getting money from russians, maybe they're going into condominiums but they're

not accountable on a way that shows up on a tax return. if he's getting money under the table there's no 1099 or w-2 issued for that that would show up on the tax return. and the grift -- you know, you could see something in 2020 where he maybe got money from something and a 1099 was issued. i'd actually love to see his tax returns this year. we learned, for example, how much he got from those crazy nfts that he's doing and he looks like superman. that's the sort of thing, since he's left office, he's been doing a lot of things like that, that would be fascinating. but i don't think we're going to learn a big reveal about him getting money from russia in the tax return that might come out from the ways and means committee. i think we might see more information about his charitable giving, we already know from the tax information most of his charitable giving comes from land donations. i think most importantly, his charitable is not what he's said

it is. and we learned that from the information that we had but we'll learn a little bit more on that. and we'll be able to see how much income tax he paid. i have to say one of the big numbers on the story we ran on the taxes that we got, he paid $750 in the first two years he was in office. and he never -- he wasn't required to pay any. and we just think he paid $750 so he could tell people he paid federal income tax. we may see other things like that come out. but that always made me laugh when he saw that because he wasn't even required in those years to pay federal income tax, but he does. >> you got to wonder, 750? why 750, if you're doing a token thing -- >> right. and the other thing i just think about this, if he had just released his taxes back when he was returning, and he released something, we probably wouldn't be sitting here today. this is so classic donald trump.

he just tried to fight and fight and fight this. and now here we are, after six years -- i've been doing this for six years trying to get information for the public to bring transparency to this. and if he had just at the outset released some of his tax return information, i would argue that none of this, or very little of this, would ever have happened. >> tim, i'm going to come back to you, and donna, i'm going to save you for the end of this block to give the report on what's at stake here. but, tim, you are one of the people that have seen donald trump's tax returns. back in 2016, you wrote a piece for bloomberg the head line was i saw trump's tax returns. you should, too. i'm going to read a little bit. you say here are some general questions a full release of several years of trump's tax returns might answer, one, income, trump has made it a centerpiece of his campaign, i would add now his presidency. implying it's a measure of his success as a businessman. two, trump's activities, showing

how his businesses are globally and show the size and scope of his business. three, generous giving. some say he's a generous giving, war veterans, even though it's hard to find concrete evidence of that. and tax planning, there's been global attention focused on the issue of how politicians and the wealthy use tax havens. and number 5, transparency and accountability. trump is seeking the most powerful office in the world, some of the potential conflicts of interest or financial pressures that may arise if he reaches the white house an early release of his tax returns. tim, you know, so much of that was prescient, i'll answer the question of what held up really well -- those questions hovered over trump, as sue just said, the last four years. my question, i know you feel as though these questions are more prescient than ever. if there's one thing you wanted to know, you mentioned, for example, the notion of trump and mar-a-lagole classified

documents. and the possibility that he was going to shop those secrets on the open market. that's something that people have discussed, a huge consequence of that. is that the kind of think, a., we get, and b., at least get a picture of who the foreign entities are, is that the kind of thing we should focus on if we get the tax returns out in public through the ways and means committee tonight? >> well, john, i do think it's one of the key things and i would disagree with sue on that issue, in that, the tax returns, i do think actually can be a window on some of the relationships. if you remember, paul manafort got in trouble for not disclosing foreign bank holdings as sources of income in his tax returns. real estate partnerships are delivered through the tax return. you would get a window on who his real estate partners are.

he's had partnerships with middle eastern governments and entities in the past. i think full and right disclosure in all of those partnerships would get us toward who he does business with. and who he gets money from, pure and simply. and i still think that, again, that remains an unknown quantity in assessing why trump did things during his presidency that people wrote off as simply driven by his need for attention, love letters to kim jong-un or overtures to xi. or overtures to putin. that you know, it was simply him acting out and then it being a gaudio. but at the end of the day, the answer about what motivates donald trump most of the time is a big fat bag of money. and so, i think the tax returns are important threads at looking

at what motivates him and why. and who might be lurking behind him in the shadows. >> donna, i owe you a big question. but i've got to get to a break right now. i'm going to come back on the other side and let you have the last word. susanne craig, thank you. when we come back, the ex-president may be at his weakest point yet. the grip appears to be loosening. but the maga american remains. the american economy in tatters. plus, who is santos? who is that guy? turns out not who we thought he was. no one actually does, after a report uncovered almost a complete fabrication of his bio, there are questions and calls into the investigation into the republican congressman-elect before he's even been sworn into office. more trouble brewing not just for him but for his party as a result of him. and later in the show, the january 6th select committee will drop its final report

tomorrow. committee member pete aguilar on what we can expect and what the doj's are, or should be, when "deadline: white house" continues right after this. don't leave, really, don't. y, dt i promise to serve, not sell. i promise our relationship will be one of partnership and trust. i am a fiduciary, not just some of the time, but all of the time. charles schwab is proud to support the independent financial advisors who are passionately dedicated to helping people achieve their financial goals. visit findyourindependentadvisor.com ♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with

the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us. did you know if you turn to cold with tide you can save up to $150 a year on your energy bill? how? the lower the temp, the lower your bill. tide cleans great in cold and saves money? i am so in. save $150 when you turn to cold with tide. bye, bye cough. later chest congestion. hello 12 hours of relief. 12 hours!! not coughing? hashtag still not coughing?! mucinex dm gives you 12 hours of relief from chest congestion and any type of cough, day or night. mucinex dm. it's comeback season.

ugh, this rental car is so boring to drive. let's be honest. the rent-a-car industry is the definition of boring. and the reason can be found in the name itself. rent - a - car? you don't want a friend. you want the friend. you don't want a job. you want the job. the is always over a.

that's why we don't offer a car. we offer the car. ( ♪♪ ) sixt. rent the car. we asked this question before many times, and almost always the answers turned out to be no, leaving some of us looking foolish but the question is presenting itself again in a pretty forceful way, could this, might this, just may this be the beginning of the end of donald trump's political dominance in

american politics and the american public in particular. when he got the expected release of the tax returns that he fought like crazy for the last six years to keep under seal. the tax fraud conviction that has essentially taken down his family business. there are those four criminal referrals and the colorful story telling from the january 6th committee that we got yesterday, and we're going to get tomorrow. the big misdeeds that trumped is alleged to have committed. take your pick. it's a panof problems. the man who shots of himself claiming to be nfts, whatever those are. and he's chosen -- for whatever reason, well, i don't want to get into that, the holocaust denier kanye west. and his legal woes who pledged

to a party of desperate disarray. on maggie haberman on the guy, quote, mr. trump has significantly diminished a shrunken presence on the political landscape. his fade is a function of political missteps in recent months. she goes on to write, for many members of a party that would like to recover from three bruising election cycles, mr. trump has never felt more like a product of the past, in other words, maybe he's just yesterday's news. joining the conversation for the bulwark, msnbc contributor tim miller. donna is back as well. donna, i said i was going to come back to you. here's how i want to frame the question for you, as you go through the litany of things, donald trump's no good, bad week here. the taxes where does that fit for you, among the woes that he's currently confronting, on the legal front, the political

front, you know all of the stuff that i just rattled through. how big are they on trump's political demise? >> i don't know, i think in this long list, clearly, the criminal referrals have to be at the top of the list, but i'm not really sure what can take donald trump down. i think the book has yet to be written on that, and, frankly, the criticism that you're hearing from republican, o a lot of republicans other than mitch mcconnell are people who have either left the party or on the outs with the party. so it's not really clear yet that the tax woes are going to be the thing that is, you know, the nail in the coffin. i think that he's like a vampire. he will indeed rise. >> tim, at the end of the election, in november, in that period thereafter, i think the last place i saw you was arizona where you spent a lot of time during election week, helping us with show time circus. now you're back there, you

texted me and blamed me for letting you back in arizona. you're reporting on some maga-related fest in arizona. is that on the ground reporting that you're famous for, and i want to know how it forms your view of the large question, the question is, is this finally curtains for donald trump? >> yeah, it's certainly not curtains, right? you know, walking around this conference which had all of the fox prime time lineup, josh hawley, lauren boebert who almost lost. there's not a lot of reflection going on there. i'm sure in d.c., my colleagues and former republican consultant class circles they would be happy for donald trump to go away, but that's been true the whole seven years, right? the question is, do republican voters ready for him to go away? and what i went to the fest to find out about. there are definitely some people that retain an affection for donald trump are tired of all of

the losing to borrow the phrase and might be able to move on to somebody like ron desantis but they're not over him. they would gladly get back on board for a third ride of trump 2024 if it came to that. there were trump sexiest man alive shirts here. there are plenty of trump 2024 hats here. there's no one on the stage who suggested that they move on from donald trump. and kari lake suggested we need to bring trump back in 2024 with big cheers. i think a bit weaker, with a stranglehold, it looked like he was well positioned to easily win nomination again. i don't think that's the case anymore. there's some people looking around, but certainly, it's not curtains. >> i'm going to speak with you, tim, i want to make you promise, if i promise not to send you a trump nft for christmas, will you promise not to send me a trump sexiest man alive t-shirt? can we get that on the record? >> i can't make that promise

because i already - it's already to fedex. the recent "wall street journal" poll, one of many you just mentioned trump and desantis. i just want to know is this what you're hearing, what you heard on the ground among the maga people in arizona. watching the matchup, ron desantis, 52, donald trump, 58. i'm one of those who have said donald trump would probably crush desantis. i don't know now. i want to know what you're hearing from your former friends with the republican base. >> yeah, coin flip. i don't know, the base -- i john albot. you know, you look under the hood there's definitely a line track thing with ron desantis doing much better college-educated republican voters and trump doing better

with noncollege-educated voters with the make-up of a poll. so, look, people like ron desantis there. there's a lot of cheers around ron desantis anytime he's brought up. they're particularly happy with the gambit of texas to washington, d.c. people found that amusing. when you talk to folks, some people say, i think i'm leaning towards desantis. some people towards trump. it does matter how desantis actually performs under the bright lights. i've seen people wither before. but as it stands today, it's close to a coin book. >> tim, we could talk about a lot of different elements of this, i think one of the things that has made you a perceptive reporter on trump, you're a person who stands at the intersection of where his money and political fortunes intersect. i guess i wonder when you hear the talk from the republican party, and the sense that this

is not just now democrats who spent years waiting with bated breath for trump to crumble. now there are republicans seem to be waiting with that same bated breath. and to announce he's running for president it's not imperative, apparently to come out quickly and endorse trump which it used to be. you kind of had to come to his side as soon as he got out of the gate. what do you hear with the doj story and the sense what is going on among republicans in the political class and grassroots? >> well, john, i want this to be the point where i tear my shirt off and i'm wearing a trump sexiest man alive just to freak you out. >> there's no doubt that would freak me out, you would succeed. if you were to do that, no doubt that would freak me out. >> now i know.

now i know. you know, donald trump is not going away. the problem he presents to the republican party is that he is going to be a force to be reckoned with in the primaries because he still has a firm hold on the hearts and minds of about 25% to 30% of the republican electorate. he's also not a viable national candidate any longer. i don't think independent voters and moderate republicans can even stomach him. i think they would vote first now, they've arrived at a point where they'll vote for a certain kind of democrat, rather than a far-right trumpista. whether it's donald trump or someone else who peddles similar wares. the problem with that, trump and his party are in a hostage video together. and the party is too scared to completely cut the rope. and lose donald trump permanently.

but they know by embracing him, they're getting into bed with someone who -- i think donna correctly referred to as a vampire. he has no intention of leaving the public stage. and nonetheless, he is not going to be good for the national ticket. and i think this is playing out in all of the jockeying around kevin mccarthy, as house speaker. and this tete-a-tete between marjorie taylor greene and lauren boebert. this internicine war fare between the right. and the domes to corral what is a white nationalist flame-flowing movement that has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with the acquisition of power and a deep seated resentment. >> tim o'brien, man, that is a

fitting -- that is a fitting summation of the situation we find ourselves in. thank you for being with us. we're keeping tim miller, i still want to hear more from that arizona meeting with tim. and kari lake. and, donna, you're sticking around, too. for the next story, a wild one. this is a wild tale, a soon to-be republican congressman who may have fooled just about everyone. there are calls for an ethics investigation. we'll explain the whole thing. that's coming up, right after this. this you can plan on me. please have snow and mistletoe. and presents on the tree.

right now all over the country kids at shriners hospitals for children are able to go home and be with their families for the holidays. and that's only possible because of the monthly donations from people like you. thanks to a generous donor every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. with your gift of just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue blanket as a thank you. and a reminder of the care you'll be providing so kids can be with their families. (singing) christmas eve will find me. where the love light gleams. it only takes a moment to call the number on your screen. or you can visit loveshriners.org. thanks to a generous donor your gift will go twice as far and help more kids like me.

because every child just wants to be home for the holidays, and your gift makes that possible. your call is the best gift of all. your gift will be my favorite christmas present this year. thank you for giving. please call the number on your screen or go to loveshriners.org to give whatever you can. and when you do, your gift will have two times the impact. - [narrator] every day, our lives are filled with choices,

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

in the long and colorful history of american politics, one of the most common and frequently catastrophic sins committed by national, state and local candidates have every ideological stripe and partisan persuasion is the embellishment for exaggeration or puffery, and occasionally inflated elements into their resumes. and courtesy of the "the new york times" we have the latest and it should be said a particularly gratuitous example in that long and noble tradition in one that further shows that the republican party is coming apart at the seams. if you're one who will has no idea who george santos is. he's a young man, 34 years old, congressman-elect who will be

representing queens, his parents are immigrants from brazil. he is gay and a pro-trump republican. and until last weekend, you would have almost called him a rising star. plus this, the district he won in november was carried by joe biden back in 2020 by a margin of eight points but here is where things start to come apart for mr. santos. "the new york times" with some reporting, trying to tie down, get to the bottom of some very basic details about santos' past, details that santos built his winning campaign on, and the "times" found some discrepancies. quote, citigroup and goldman sachs, the marquee wall street firms on mr. santos' biography, told "the new york times" they have no record of his ever working there. officials in baruch college which mr. santos said he graduated from in 2010 could

find no record of anyone matching his name and date of birth graduated that year. there's also little evidence that animal rescue group friends of pets united, a tax exempt organization, the irs could find no record of a registered charity with that name. that is just the beginning of the bs when it comes to congressman santos. here's bring in house of "way too early", jonathan lemire, donna here with us and tim miller. jonathan, tell me, you want to give the official response, what the santos response is, by his lawyer to this story that has enveloped him over the last 48 hours. let's get that response on the record from you, and then we'll go from there. >> well, john heilemann, first of all, i'll say i now have new questions about your own resume,

now there's pressure light of the accusations against mr. santos. the lawyers, they're not saying much. they have issued a statement that really does not address or take on any of the accusations from, we should note, this terrific reporting in "the new york times". but all sorts of questions are now being raised about exactly who this person is. it seems that most of his resume has been fabricated. his team disputes that but they're not going tick by tick through his dossier, if you will, nor are they offering much in the way to corroborate who he is. this is, we should note, would be a big deal at anytime, but i think it is certainly raising a lot of anger and frustration with democrats because this is a state -- a seat in new york state which, of course, was the state that many blame that if democrats had simply done a little better there which is normally a blue is state, they may have been able to hang on to the house of representatives.

>> jon, i want to read the statement because it's so trumpy -- and you're a student of trumpy statements. santos' layer to "the new york times," quote, george santos represents the kind of progress that the left is so threatened by a gay latino first generation american republican who won in biden district. it's no surprise that congressman-elect santos has enemies of the "the new york times" who are attempting to smear his good name. as winston churchill famously state, you have enemies, that means you that stood up to something in your life. man, there's no reference of a scoundrel than winston churchill when you're not going to address the claims head on. does that just reek, what the republican party does, when it is faced with facts it doesn't like? >> it is. as i've noted, there's nothing in there that actually denies the charges that offers any sort of evidence, except to state

that is institution. we should actually note that is not a churchill quote, that's another one from santos and his team. what this is, this is where trump people and the republican party now live. they're not limited to any sort of facts it's just bluster and they try to talk over it. it's all culture wars, rather than dealing with any sort of facts. so, if that regard, we can take santos at his word that he is a supporter of donald trump, even if we can't believe much else. >> tim, you know, what has become of the republican party, it's one thing to be caught by fabricating your resume, by making up where you worked and where you went to college and your charitable is all about. it's one thing to misquote, winston churchill, the republican party has not lost its way when it's starting to malign winston churchill. i don't know what to say. i want to play this here, this is what santos said after the

club q shooting. this is a shooting. i want to play this sound here and we'll talk about this. let's listen to santos here and we can talk about it on the other side. i want to get your take on it. >> i condemn what happened in colorado, just much like at the pulse, at the pulse nightclub in orlando in 2016 which i happened to, at the time, have people that work for me in the club. my company at the time, we lost four employees that were at pulse nightclub. so this is a deja vu moment for me. not something that is really good even going over because it just brings back such tragic memories. like i said, i just want to weed out the hate out of our country and our society. there is no place for hate in the united states of america. >> "the new york times" review of news coverage and obituaries found that none of the 49 victims of club q appear to have worked at the various firms named in congressman-elect's biography. i mean, this is a story -- he's

gone pretty low. that seems like maybe a new depth of lowness, making up stuff along that line? >> yeah, the "times" story includes a lot of funny light lines that are fun to mock. making fun of him to mock churchill, but this is one that's got my blood boiling the most, right? and for starters, what a horrible lie, he's just like begging to be caught and what are the odds that you happen to work with four people that were in pulse, that's an easily checkable lie. but, two, the question that came before that answer was about, you know, why he wasn't supporting more different gun laws, to address this, you know, what he's concerned about the republican party rhetoric with lgbtq plus americans, he's essentially using the people of the pulse massacre as like a shield to protect himself for

having to have accountability for what the republican party has been, you know, dabbling in, in the anti-lgbtq rhetoric. as a shield for himself, for his lies, about his resume. it's extremely sick. and one that you didn't mention which i think moves this from just lies and fabrications into potentially some legal questions is he also was charged with theft in brazil. and the story in the "times" was he stole checks, allegedly, from an elderly person that his mother was nursing. and used those checks to buy shoes. and also the story that he had some rent he hadn't paid. he had back rent that he owed to his landlords recently. and yet the guy gave himself $700,000 for his campaign. how does a guy that steals checks to buy shoes and can't make rent loan himself $700,000? i think there are a lot of investigative questions coming down his way as well. >> tim, honestly, we've got to

get to a break right now, but it's stunning how much is coming out that has proven how much house of lies congressman-elect santos' whole life turns out to be. we'll get to donna after this very quick break. we'll be right back. we'll be right back. once upon a time, at the magical everly estate, landscaper larry and his trusty crew... were delayed when the new kid totaled his truck. timber... fortunately, they were covered by progressive, so it was a happy ending... for almost everyone.

tide pods ultra oxi one ups the cleaning power of liquid. can it one up whatever they're doing? for sure. seriously? one up the power of liquid, one up the toughest stains. any further questions? uh uh! one up the power of liquid with tide pods ultra oxi. donna, the democrat who ran against george santos says now i tried to warn you. the political reporter, we had a story in realtime with a republican operative who said the republicans were wary of his purported business background.

the warning signs were everywhere. they got missed. what happens to this guy now? is george santos a congressman come memorial day? >> well i suspect because he's already pledged his support for kevin mccarthy who is struggling for votes that he's going to be seated as a member of congress. but it's one of the rare instances where a freshman member comes in and immediately is facing an ethics investigation both into his financial disclosures, into the financial information on his s.e.c. report, and into the not just exaggeration but almost complete fabrication of his resume. and so, he's going to have an ethics complaint hanging over his head. and i would be surprised if he survives another term. >> donna, jonathan lemire, tim miller, thank you for taking the time. tim miller, i come back to you, i have to say your obituary for

kari lake, but this is sad what it has to say about the republican party at the moment. next, pete aguilar, what we're learning about this afternoon. the committee has been cooperating with the doj. don't go anywhere. you've got to hear about that. and the hope that liberty and justice is for all people. but here's the truth. attacks on our constitutional rights, yours and mine are greater than they've ever been. the right for all to vote. reproductive rights. the rights of immigrant families. the right to equal justice for black, brown and lgbtq+ folks. the time to act to protect our rights is now. that's why i'm hoping you'll join me today in supporting the american civil liberties union. it's easy to make a difference. just call or go online now and become an aclu guardian of liberty. all it takes is just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day.

your monthly support will make you part of the movement to protect the rights of all people, including the fundamental right to vote. states are passing laws that would suppress the right to vote. we are going backwards. but the aclu can't do this important work without the support of people like you. you can help ensure liberty and justice for all and make sure that every vote is counted. so please call the aclu now or go to my aclu.org and join us. when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special we the people t-shirt and much more. to show you're a part of the movement to protect the rights guaranteed to all of us by the us constitution. we protect everyone's rights, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, racial justice, lgbtq rights, the rights of the disabled. we are here for everyone. it is more important than ever to take a stand. so please join us today.

because we the people means all the people, including you. so call now or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty.

♪♪ there will always be a written record of what will happen here. we will always have these proceedings so we can't pretend this doesn't happen. does that give you comfort at all, is there any other part aside from people facing trial that you think is important? >> it does, it actually gives me comfort, especially when there are so many people on the right, particularly, attempting to whitewash a lie about what happened. the committee making sure this stays front and center. that's why me and my colleagues are there also, to make sure this -- a., this isn't getting pushed under the rug. and actually, i just realized

today and donald trump tweeted after the january 6 insurrection, make sure you never forget this day. and i promise you, we won't, donald. it's 5:00 in new york city, i'm john heilemann, in for nicolle wallace. while we wait to see whether federal prosecutors will charge the former president for anyone in his inner circle for actions around january 6. as harry dunn said, the fact that the january 6th select committee uncovered so much about that day, putting into a record of extremely mounds of evidence, nearly all of which will be public tomorrow when the committee releases its final report, a report that's bound to be quite long. the very executive summary was 154 pages. the release of this report will mark the conclusion, as the ap describes it, to one of the most

exhaustive and aggressive congressional probes in memory in its work spanned a year and a half. politico reporting right now, the final report will be the committee's most important acts, quote, the committee is sitting on a stockpile of nearly 1200 witness interviews, transcripts and reams of documents about donald trump's attempts to derail the peaceful transfer of power. while the select group of nine members gathered monday that raw information, not the showmanship of the final in-person meeting will tell the story the committee has labored to piece together. it's a story that the committee is already sharing with the doj. in just the last hour, nbc news confirmed reporting that the committee started handing over transcripts and documents to the justice department ahead of their lease. this follows the committee receiving a letter from the special counsel's office on december 5th, asking for all the materials and marks a new phase in the panel's cooperation with

federal prosecutors. yesterday, we got a sizable glimpse into what the report has in store, with the executive summary, that long one, but there were some glaring omissions as well. nbc news reports this, quote, the executive summary released monday avoids criticizing or reaching conclusions about law enforcement and intelligence shortfalls in the leadup to the attack which many law enforcement experts have called the biggest intelligence failure since the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001. whether this is addressed in the final report remains to be seen, we're expecting to see a bulk of nonsensitive records that the committee collected along with documents as well as recommendations to ensure that an event like january 6th, dear god, never happens again. in the end, "the washington post" editorial board sums it all up saying this committee mattered. writing, quote, the committee has secured its legacy in different ways, providing a searing picture of what occurred

on january 6, 2021, exhibiting the cowardice of those too, out of fear of mr. trump refused to help it reckon with that dark day. it's where we begin this hour with one of the committee members, california congressman pete aguilar. pete, great to see you here today. i just mentioned that nbc is now reporting there's active cooperation between what is happening with the committee and the doj. what you can tell us about that? >> what i can say is our plan all along was to release this information to the american public, so they can see what we have seen. and the evidence that we have built over 1,000 interviews, as you mentioned. documents, materials. that's the work product that we're going to stand behind. and our plan was always to share that with the american public. and clearly to share that with the department of justice. and we feel that ultimately the level of accountability that they have to offer, and the role that they play is significant, and we wish them well.

but our job was to create this report. and the detail it in a way for the american public. and we feel that we've done that. >> congressman, i probably -- because i've been in the news business, i'm always looking for what's new. yesterday, as we looked at the executive summary, we found some things that hadn't come out of the committee before. congressman -- you still got me there? you still hear me? we've lost him. all right. hopefully, we'll get the congressman back. and it kind of raises my question, i'll ask you, next to see you, by the way, we're looking for the news and the consequential. we talked about the consequential and what the committee meant and we're going to see the report and what's new in it. what advances the story and the details we didn't get to see in the committee hearings. what are you looking for? what are the things that you thing the committee might have

that you really want to know? >> well, the thing i most wanted was the thing they made explicitly clear they didn't have which is whether they had direct evidence linking donald trump to seditious insurrection, right? his sedition that would directly say he knew and helped plan the violence. we know that's not coming. that's what a lot of americans have been looking for. but i think what will be really interesting and important is how much information and evidence they have about his henchmen like a steve bannon, like roger stone, who weren't directly connected and engaged with the oath keepers. the proud boys. the people who have and will continue to stand trial for that sedition, and i want to know what they have there. >> one of the great things on maya wiley, at a moment when we lose the guest, not even without a proper introduction, she steps up with brilliance.

we now have congressman aguilar back there. there you are. >> okay, john. >> fantastic. i just asked maya a question, as someone who has followed the news and watched what you've done very carefully, we all in the business, we want to know what's new. there's obviously a huge amount of work product transmitted in the final report tomorrow. what you can tell us now, give us a little taste, a little tease, of at least some areas where we'll be treated to information that's material and new? >> well, what you'll see are the eight chapters that largely mirrored the hearings that we had. you'll see the legislative recommendations. that piece is new to the american public. and you'll see the work product that we have spent some time on, including i'll say, on that critical piece that you mentioned at the top which is the law enforcement response. we're not avoiding any topic, and we want to be as thorough as

we possibly can in detailing exactly what happened on january 6th. and what the causes that led up to january 6th are. in some cases as you saw in the executive summary, we're honest when we say there are conflicts accounts and information that we received from witnesses. the american public, ultimately, will get to see those documents and that information, and we'll be able to draw their own conclusions but what i think is very clear, and our top line has been very clear throughout, that the former president sought to obstruct and impede the lawful pointing of ballots on january 6th. this was a well-thought out campaign by people around him. we ultimately feel there should be a level of accountability associated with that. that's what our report details. and that's what the evidence that we show tomorrow and the days after will prove. >> so, congressman, you mentioned the law enforcement issue. and obviously something that we paid attention to a lot yesterday. the fact that there wasn't very much discussion, that's a thing

in terms of policy going forward, enormous implications for the security of washington, d.c., the capitol and the country in a lot of ways. i want to read to you from the executive summary from law enforcement that day and ask you what more we might get in way of a final report on a summary level. here's what it said, neither the intelligence community nor law enforcement obtained intelligence in advance of january 6 on the full extent of ongoing planning by president trump, john eastman, rudy giuliani and their associates to overturn results. some agencies could not anticipate the provocation that trump would offer the crowd in his ellipse speech, that the trump would spontaneously instruct the crowd to march to the capitol and the president trump would exacerbate the violent riot by sending tweet condemning vice president pence.

a lot of people with no national security background would say, hey, there could be trouble on january 6. and that question, how it is, that the intelligence community and the national security apparatus of the united states did not get a clue and were not mobilized? that's one of the biggest questions that i feel like there's still not a full answer to. are we going to get a full answer to that question when we read the full report tomorrow? >> you'll get a more complete and thorough analysis. and you will get an answer to that. in some cases, there is conflicting information from people who were there. and i think that that's fair. and i think that's something that we also aren't shy to discuss. but what i would underscore, exactly what you said in that executive summary. nobody could understand or contemplate the fact the president would summon the mob to washington, d.c., that he knew that they were armed, and that he would point to the united states capitol and tell people to go there. the word "fight" was written in

the speech twice. he said it 20 times. nobody anticipated that he would -- that threats that he would make to his own vice president when his life was endanger, those are the things that we couldn't anticipate. but it is fair to say that law enforcement agencies, including the united states secret service and others, had law intelligence that talked about the threat. we will detail that in subsequent material, but nobody knew the extent to which the former president would weaponize that and light the match that led to january 6. >> here's a name we didn't hear much yesterday, tony ornato, a lot of people curious what we're going to learn about that matter. you read in the executive summary, he is mentioned in the executive summary noting that ornato had intelligence to the capitol and what happened. it was his job to inform trump. ornato told us he did not recall

doing so. and his testimony questionable. i want to put this in common sense issue, did tony ornato, a liar, is that a sense that he lied to you and he is one of the people that may be a fruitful target of the doj going forward? >> ultimately, that's up to the department of justice. but i think it's fair to say not every witness was as truthful as they should have been, and could have been. and he definitely falls into that category. we have multiple individuals, as that information will detail, who tell different pieces of that story, that he has -- that he told us he had no recollection of. so, in the grand process of this had we feel that he was less truthful than many other witnesses. >> yeah. less truthful. yeah, coming from a mild and very kind man like yourself, that's basically the equivalent of saying liar, liar, pants on fire. and the committee with andrew weissmann that we focused on

which is a suggestion, kind of an illusion for the executive summary, when you folks wrote about why mark meadows and dan scavino had maybe not been prosecuted, charge by the doj, raised the possibility that they already cooperated with the doj. is it your view, your assessment, on the basis of facts you know or your spidey sense that either of those gentlemen is working with the doj at this moment? >> i'm not a lawyer and haven't spent any time at the department of justice. i'll let other commentators talk to that. i have no knowledge that would lead to that. what we have indicated it's unfortunate those individuals, mark meadow, dan scavino, as well as other members of congress chose not to cooperate with lawful subpoenas. it's unfortunate. it hindered our ability to tell a complete story. we feel we did our best given what we had access to. and we put together a report that we can be proud of that talks about what transpired, the

failures, as well as what we did. >> congressman, thank you for coming back, joining our conversation, barbara mcquade, university of michigan law professor. and the aforementioned maya wiley, president of the council on civil and human rights. that's a great title. and author of "evil geniuses the unmaking of america" and fancy land." barb, i've now asked a couple people this question, on the eve of the release of the executive summary, excited, what are you looking for tomorrow, what do you most care about that you think we could reasonably learn from the full report that we don't know right now? >> i think the big picture has already been spelled out, john,

the goal here was very much to focus on the big evidence regarding donald trump. and i think that was very strategically placed in the executive summary. but what's to come is not unimportant. i think now is what we're going to hear the bigger picture about other issues. things like law enforcement failures. intelligence failures. the rise of domestic extremism in the united states. i think that is something that they need to look at. so, i think, my guess is, the way this was rolled out with the executive summary on monday, focusing largely on trump to be followed by these other chapters on wednesday was an effort not to allow the forest to get -- lose the sight of the trees for the forest. you know, when there's so much information, sometimes important facts get lost. so, i think, strategically, we heard the most important things for criminal referrals yesterday. and i expect what we hear tomorrow, not so much crimes by donald trump and other people

but important issues in american society and law and policy and perhaps means for reform in the law to protect the national security of this country. >> barbara, a number of smart prosecutors yesterday said to me, there's obviously nothing that the doj can do about this. but that the release of this standpoints, having all of this. all of the people they might interview, the witnesses they might seek to talk, to the investigations they might do would be hampered by the knowledge this is giving to those individuals of what the government knows from the 1/6 committee's investigation that they'd be in the dark about and that would be to the advantage of the prosecutor. do you agree with that? there are obviously other competing issues here, but is that basically right that prosecutors are better off in a world where none of this ever became public? i think it's largely true, john. it's such a weird scenario for prosecutors to be in because usually, they're the ones

leading the investigation. and usually, no one knows the person is even under investigation. so, they can do a lot of things in secret without worrying about one witness compromising another. i think the downside of what people are talking about, when the witness statements are out there for the world to see, then other people can read them and try to get their stories straight. they can control the messaging by trying to explain away the things that are damaging there. so, it also opens up witnesses to intimidation and tampering. i think that's the bad side of it. i do think there's an upside. maybe a silver lining that i would look to here. that is, the names that were outed yesterday in that report probably not a surprise to people, but i think it puts more pressure on some of those people to reconsider cooperation, if they have not agreed to do so already. because now they're kind of dangling out there in the wind. everybody knows that charges against them are likely. so if i represent any of those people, i'm probably going to make a phone call to doj today to say, what could you offer my

client if he were to come in and talk with you? so, it's mostly downside, but maybe you can find a little silver lining as a prosecutor. >> curt, the student of history that you are, a brilliant podcast on nixon and has thought about these questions for a long while, what do you think is at stake here, where we're now going which is ultimately, is the doj going to, you know, get across the rubicon here and charge trump? what's at stake for the american self-governance, in terms of confidence and governability and all of that stuff? >> yeah, in the near term, unfortunately, i think the fear of some months ago, the hardcore trump violent-prone trump people are going to riot -- for instance, after the fbi inspection at mar-a-lago, i think the real risk of that is

quite clearly englished and with a moment of hysterical perhaps fear about that. so, i think that has gone away. and i think as you're stressing, it's a longer term to consequences. which is to say, we do not want to live in a country where party takes congress and takes the white house and starts prosecuting its predecessors. but i think -- i think this committee very adeptly has shown what an unique singular figure donald trump and the attempt to unconstitutionally and illegally to stay in office it was. and i believe -- i think we'll start seeing, surely we already see, with the executive summary, that his side isn't arguing over facts. >> yeah. >> and we'll see when there's hundreds and thousands of pages after tomorrow if his side, will

argue over facts, argue over conclusions or just take his line, oh, no, it's a witch hunt, it's a witch hunt. that these days in 2022 and 2023 beginning and the doj taking this all seriously is going to be -- is not going to play even on the right as it has. so, i think we're moving slowly, but surely. because the committee has done, frankly, such a good job. >> yeah. >> it's a relatively nonpartisan job. it looks -- i think it appears to reasonable people, even reasonable republicans and there are some like not a witch hunt. and i'm hopeful right now that we're moving in a correct decision. >> maya, stick around, we'll talk about this. there's good argument. people miss this argument at peril. the notion that this is a grave step to take, the notion of charging a former president does set a precedent that could

politicize law enforcement going on in the future. on the other hand, looking at all of this evidence, what we see of the president, and not charging him also sets precedent. action or nonaction, they're both precedential. and that precedent might be worse than the other precedent. >> yes. and particularly, given the fact that we still have mainstream violent extremism, we saw in our midterms, the department of homeland security had to put out an alert about domestic terror for the midterms because they had credible threats. and those credible threats were coming from people who were election deniers, the very underpinning of donald trump to stay in office. if we don't hold that accountable how are we

protecting our democracies and the elections. >> we're going to take a break, maya riley and kurt andersen. with the house of representatives, getting off scot-free, no accountability here whatsoever. we've got a lot to talk about, all of that, as we sit here awaiting the january 6 final report. later in the other, another seditious trial under way in connection with january 6. this time, with several members. far-right group the proud boys. how prosecutors plan to focus on the violence at the capitol and the proud boys role inciting it. and we keep an eye on the committee as they decide what to do with donald trump's tax returns. "deadline: white house" continues after a break. so stick around. don't pay for water. pay for clean. it's got to be tide. as someone living with type 2 diabetes,

i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com if you still have symptoms of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis after a tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq is different and may help. stand up to your symptoms with rinvoq. rinvoq is a once-daily pill that tackles pain, stiffness, swelling. for some, rinvoq significantly reduces ra and psa fatigue. it can stop further irreversible joint damage. and rinvoq can leave skin clear or almost clear in psa. that's rinvoq relief.

rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq. rinvoq. make it your mission. learn how abbvie could help you save.

i would hope that they would not bring charges against the former president. i don't -- look, as i wrote in my book, i think the president's actions and words on january 6th were reckless. and i don't know that it's criminal to take bad advice from lawyers. i hope the justice department understands the magnitude, the very idea of indicting a former president of the united states. i think that would be terribly divisive in a country at the time when the american people want to see us heal. oh, boy, we're back with barbara mcquade, maya riley and kurt andersen. kurt, i want to start with you, whenever i see pence, i just

think, donald trump threw you to the lions, if you and your family would have been killed that day, he would have been fine with that, totally fine. as a matter of fact, he encouraged put your lives, your fame's lives at risk, and now this man, who apparently aspires to be the next president of the united states thinks that the next calculation is donald trump is a bad guy, please don't indict him although he tried to have me and my family killed, we wouldn't want to see him punished in any way. what does it say about the enduring trump? about the continued rot of the republican party that hey, maybe trump is dead, that tells a different story? >> well, it certainly tells a story about mike pence, which i often thought if ai ever gets censored, that's what it's about. there's people i don't want to make angry, okay, this is what i'll say. it's not a real lane, a

political lane, for what donald trump called him which is to say a wimp and a -- and even more to indict this guy who said, well, maybe, mike deserves it on the day his life is being threatened. so there's that. but, i think we'll see, when he doesn't get the nomination and gets single digits in primaries and that isn't working and it has been for naught to try to play that. >> i think the notion of mike pence, that expression, it's only true if sentia is given the shelter of a sheltered high school person like the squarest person you knew growing up in nebraska maya wants to get in on this. >> well, sadly, that's how we're building ai. that's a different topic. but we're talking about people who call for the death penalty for people who do much less for

our democracy. we're talking about people who are suggesting people should go to jail and prison for very long periods of time for hurting substantially fewer people. it's hard to say to americans particularly from the black community, the latino community, the native-american community where there's absolutely no hesitation to imprison people for violent crime, to then say you hold the most powerful office in the country, and if convicted, if sufficient evidence and conviction, you should not have to pay any price whatsoever. for your transgressions, not just against democracy, but people are dead. people are dead. and we also have to go back to that report because part of what is so powerful in those charges is exactly how intentional donald trump was in participating in blocking the selection, with full knowledge. they used the word "knowingly"

purposefully, and they used that intentionally because the evidence supports it. i'm not about throwing people in jail for no reason and i'm not about prosecuting people with no evidence. but it's very dangerous with the facts that we see, and, by the way, with far too many political leaders denying violence that is still playing out, including racist hate, anti-semitism and other things, poll workers, that this is not an ongoing threat that doesn't require some kind of answer. >> i want to come back to barbara mcquade and come back to the question of the 1-6 committee. barbara, you and i talked yesterday, but to tee up the question played from jamie raskin on "morning joe" this morning when talking about why the committee felt of the criminal referrals. let's listen to raskin. >> you're sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't. we felt that the magnitude of

the offense against democracy was so great that we needed 0 specify criminal offenses that the president and his immediate circle had engaged in. but we know the department of justice will do their own job. and we have no binding effect on them. but we want the committee to understand what the conclusion is after looking at this for a year and a half. >> barb, in the end, politics and law intersect. there's no way with a case like this talking about the president of the united states, do you think in the end, given the contributions that the committee made over the course of the yearly and a half that it did its work, that these criminal referrals were, in a sense, necessary as kind of closure? and despite our discussion earlier with the difficulties they posted with prosecutors that there are positives that can be taken out of this from the doj things that they can flip that will give them leads? was there on-balance in some

sense, the right thing and really the only thing to do? >> yeah, john, i don't think they could have done anything else after the hearings. imagine if they had instead said well, we don't think it's appropriate for us to make criminal referrals. imagine how it would have been spun? it would have been spun even the committee didn't even make a criminal referral. they completely exonerated donald trump. that's the way it would be spun. to the extent they found evidence of crimes. they have an obligation to tell the justice department they found evidence of crimes. i'll tell you what could influence the decision of the justice department in some way when deciding whether to file charges there are really two questions that have to be decided. one is is there sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction? that's something that the justice department has to decide for itself. the other is is there a substantial federal interest here that we should file

charges? the can we charge and shot we the should we charge question? the should we charge are there negative consequences in charging like what's the impact on future elections and the like. and i think this committee has shown that there is public support going forward with these charges that we've now learned so much about them that it would seem irresponsible not to hold donald trump accountable. so, i think that, before this committee conducted its hearings, there were people who said things like, you know, i think it would be better for the country just to move on, the gerald ford approach. the long national nightmare is over, let's just get on with the healing and move on. i think now that the american people have seen all the evidence and how egregious this was, i think there's an appetite for criminal charge. that wasn't there before. >> second day in a row i had a dream team.

yesterday i had one, today i have one. you guys all can't leave. you have to stay here. i couldn't really finish the show without you. when we return, the second seditious conspiracy trial is under way. this time with the proud boys what we expect to learn from that prosecution, after a quick break. ♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us.

when a truck hit my car, the insurance company wasn't fair. i didid't t kn whahatmy c caswa, so i called the barnes firm. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to k how much their accident case is worth.h barnes.

t ouour juryry aorneneys hehelpou - life is uncertain. everyday pressures can feel overwhelming it's okay to feel stressed, anxious, worried, or frustrated. it's normal. with calhope's free and secure mental health resources, it's easy to get the help you and your loved ones need when you need it the most. call our warm line at (833) 317-4673 or live chat at calhope.org today. the insurance company enwasn't fair.ity y ca call our warm line at (833) 317-4673 i didn't know what my case was worth, so i called the barnes firm. llll theararnes rmrm now the best result possible. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ jury selection began on

monday in washington, d.c. for yet another trial against a far-right group for their actions on january 6. prosecutors in this case will argue that five members of the proud boys including its former chairman enrique tarrio committed seditious conspiracy by inciting a mob of violence. the trial comes after oath keeper leader stewart rhodes was prosecuted of the same charge. with "the new york times," quote, prosecutors will offer the jury a detailed account of how the five defendants led their own troops and other, kweet, tools into the mob of the capitol and played a central role in breach frs of the building and hand-to-hand fight with the police. joining us is alec bowyer. his byline is on that "times" report we just read from. barbara, maya and kurt are still here. you mentioned in your reporting,

the trial of the proud boys will be different than the oath keepers. >> sure, we're going to get a kind of, you know, play-by-play analysis from the prosecution of breaches of security at the capitol and kind of a concerted effort by the proud boys to attack the police and, you know, sort of get into the building. and the way that that's different from the oath keepers case is that the oath keepers defendant, the five folks who are on trial with stewart rhodes, you know in the last trial weren't actually accused of all that much violence personally. the way that the government argued seditious conspiracy was in two ways. one, they pointed to all of these crazy statements that the oath keepers kept making that a civil war was required to stop

biden from taking office. and the oath keepers also had a stash of heavy weapons placed at hotel rooms across the potomac river from d.c. in virginia, right? ready to come in, if needed. and that was the way they kind of painted the picture of force being used to stop the transfer of presidential power on january 6. >> i want to read a little bit more from the piece where you write, while prosecutors could have taken the five proud boys to trial on relatively simple charges like trespassing or interfering with law enforcement officers they instead aimed higher and charged seditious which carries a heftier sentence and has much more serious political connotations but by doing so the government has assumed the burden of proving that the defendants plotted in advance of execution of federal laws had in this case, those that govern the transfer of

presidential power. the idea, alan, that they went for this charge, right, does that reflect some high degree of confidence? that if you're going to take this on, the government must feel they have an extremely strong case? or was that not the right decision to draw from the decision to go after his higher 11 of charging? >> look, i don't have insight what the justice department was thinking in bringing the charges, but i can tell you, clearly, that the burden they have assumed is exactly as described. you know, the defense lawyers who are representing the five defendants in this case, including, as you said, the former chairman enrique tarrio have pointed to the fact they get information from the government. they see what's coming. and they have pointed to the fact that all of the government's civilian witnesses, by which i mean, not the law enforcement agents who investigated the case, have said there was no premeditated plan

to attack the capitol on january 6. and, you know, stop the transfer of power from donald trump to joe biden which is the kind of -- which is the nugget of seditious conspiracy. >> right. >> so, we'll see what happens to trump. >> maya, you think about this stuff now, like really professionally all the time, the question of hate groups and white supremacy, and radicalized right. 900 people were arrested in connection with january 6. the number of -- the number of people that could be charged in connection with the attack, much larger than that. these are the high-profile cases, right? these are the ones that people know about, that the extent that anybody knows about any of these people, they're not anonymous. how important is three things, law, policy and public perception is it that the government make this case? >> on all three. so, on the law, obviously, seditious and seditious

conspiracy is not something that is very often or very regularly charge. the department of justice has already shown they can win because we had two of these against two oath keepers. it's going to be equally important with the proud boys. remember, on the policy and on the public, first, the proud boys really are a creation of trumpism. they really organized around trumpism. and their goal has been to convince the republican party of violence. so without starting to put some guard rails that say you will suffer the consequences, if you continue down this road, means we don't start to get to the policy side. and also, the public norms that say we can't have politicians, we can have pundits, we can have people pretending like the rnc did that what happened on january 6 which is political speech as opposed to violent crimes. so, it matters a lot. and i'll add one other thing. right now, we're still seeing

this mainstreaming. and one of the things we're also seeing is that it's not just who the organizers are. it's the public that comes around that supports or buys into the conspiracy theories, picks up an ar-15 and goes and mows down black people in a grocery store or latinos in el paso. or jews trying to wore worship, wherever the violence happens. we have to stop the disinformation and line the line where this lawsuit can shine. >> amen, sister. alan, thank you. barbara mcquade, as always, thank you for being with us and bringing your brilliance to this program. when we return, we come back to our top story, as we continue to watch what the house ways and

means committee is doing when they return with donald trump returns six years of them. and then after the break, what a tease, news, news, and more news, we'll be right back. k is he deranged? i've been called dog, bad dog, stupid dog, rat face. hey you there, get out. yep. hands in crew. go team friendship. -team friendship? i'll workshop it, ok? puss in boots. only in theaters. rated pg. my dad was a hard worker. he used to do side jobs installing windows, charging something like a hundred bucks a window when other guys were charging four to five-hundred bucks. he just didn't wanna do that. he was proud of the price he was charging. ♪♪ my dad instilled in me, always put the people before the money. be proud of offering a good product at a fair price. i think he'd be extremely proud of me, yeah.

♪♪ good morning, kaleb. alec. are you seeing this? are we cartoons? i think we are. this is awesome. look over there! is that alec, kaleb, welcome to shriners hospitals for children village. we call it fezzyville. and i'm the mayor. mayor fezzy you boys got here just in time. we need your help. oh, wow. this is shriners hospitals workshop, where you can discover the moments our donors make possible. this is amazing. wow! kids, it takes a whole lot of support from caring people out there to make all this happen.

and i can't think of anyone better than you two to deliver this important holiday message. what do you say? think you can do that? sure thing, fezzy. i can't believe we got to hang out with fezzy. that's mayor fezzy to you, alec. wait, we have a job to do, kaleb. oh, yeah. it takes a lot of support from caring people just like you to fund all the important work that everyday heroes at shriners hospitals do every single day. can you become a monthly donor today? when you do, we'll send you your very own love to the rescue blanket to show that you're a part of our shriners hospitals for children workshop team. i hear the blanket is adorable. laughs but seriously, whether you call or go online to loveshriners.org and become a monthly donor or just make your very best one time gift.

we want to say thank you and happy holidays, everyone! ♪ ♪ this... is a glimpse into the no-too-distant future of lincoln. ♪ ♪ it's what sanctuary could look like... feel like... sound like... even smell like. more on that soon. ♪ ♪ the best part? the prequel is pretty sweet too. ♪ ♪ ♪♪ breaking news, there actually is breaking news to tell you about. both capitol hill and the white house are preparing for a possible visit from ukrainian president zelenskyy on wednesday, that's tomorrow. let's bring in nbc news correspondent carol lee to tell

us about this story which is like -- now, not enough news already this week, carol. it's like what time is zelenskyy coming, great. what's happening here? >> well, what we're learning from multiple sources, as you said, the white house and congress are preparing for a potential visit from president zelenskyy tomorrow. and that, as part of that, president zelenskyy could possibly address a joint session of congress tomorrow night. so that would be a very significant speech. and, look, it comes as the white house is preparing for announce a new package of aid for ukraine that's expected to include thos missile defense system. as congress is passing tens of billions of dollars of aid for ukraine and at a critical moment in this conflict, so it is significant to say the least that president volodymyr zelenskyy would be leaving ukraine and arriving here in washington, if that does indeed happen. one thing worth noting is that

people we spoke with said this is all contingent on security and this is not a done deal by any means. >> yes. but i gather that the capitol police have been undergoing preparations for the visit. there is stuff afoot, right? that's a signal that things are close to being locked in. curt, at this moment, the juxtaposition of times man of the year, you know, the most unequivocally heroic figure of this last year in the world coming to washington, d.c. on the day that we read the full committee report on donald trump's attempts to incite insurrection and overthrow an american election, the juxtaposition doesn't get any more dramatic than that, right? >> it is a good episode of the show. it's extraordinary. not only that, of course, the timing of the president as he's trying to get more billions of dollars from us to defend his war, defend himself, but of course it is a perfect bookend

to three years later of volodymyr zelenskyy the last time he visited the oval office, which was, of course, donald trump. >> doing his trumpy stuff. >> trying to hold him up for -- to besmerch biden. i mean, you can't make it up, as they say. in fiction, this would be -- >> a bridge too far. not just a bridge too far. like four or five bridges too far in a hollywood pitch meeting. people would be like, come on. give me a break. i mean, it's something, right? >> yeah. look, donald trump has been the portrait of a national security disaster for this country since the inception of this presidency. this being one. and, remember, remember the stance he took with vladimir putin, which was to throw overboard our own intelligence, have basically lengthy secret meeting with putin and have it be very unclear whether he was

serving the best interest of the country versus his own personal interests all wrapped up into a war that is now the bread basket of the world. so i think the stakes are well beyond those for ukrainian people. although, that matters. but it's such a juxtaposition because every thing we're seeing and this is just a reminder of it is how much donald trump compromised national security and still is. >> and what is donald trump doing this week? he's -- i saw the e-mail today. $2 you can buy a raffle ticket to get him to do a personal video christmas message for you. >> no. >> and, so, again, as the writers of the show are saying, hey, what is trump doing? this. >> yes. look, i mentioned before the reaction on capitol hill, the republicans that supported trump back on january 6th, if i'm the capitol police one of the things i would be concerned about is people like marjorie taylor greene and some of these other

folks stay away from volodymyr zelenskyy and not yell at him about hunter biden's laptop because that's the next thing we see is the right wing accost him about hunter biden's laptop. i'm only half kidding. thank you for spending this time with us. we will take a break and see if the house ways and means committee gives us the news we have been waiting for, as opposed to the news we didn't expect remotely. quick break. we will be right back. ick break. we will be right back. one more time. before you wake up in the wiid. in your eyes i see a flower slowly dying. you have the power to make a difference

for unspoiled nature, for beautiful wildlife, and for people everywhere. when you join the nature conservancy today, call now or go online to joinnature.org to become a conservation champion today for just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. your ongoing monthly support will help conserve threatened land and waters, protect endangered wildlife and their habitats, create a healthier path forward for all of us who share this planet. in the wild! you're gonna make it the moonlight is here to take you. for just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day. you can join other conservation champions. use your credit card today and get our award winning magazine, our calendar and this special nature conservancy picnic blanket to thank you for helping protect

the wild wonders of nature. every day we lose more lands, waters and the wild species that depend on them. we urgently need steady monthly support from nature lovers like you. together, we can find a way to ensure that all life on earth can thrive. you'll be all right in the wild. run where you want to the sunrise is there to guide you. please call or go online to joinnature.org now. become a conservation champion today. thank you. i remember the gift, it was one of those gifts that it just landed perfectly. i figured this is a great holiday present since i won't be with him for christmas. it was the best gift that i ever received, because it opened up my life. unwrap your family story, with ancestrydna.

she is fearless heart's on the line depend silhouette keeping leaks off her mind. comfortable in shapeware fabric she moves with ease. confident on nights like these. depend silhouette. the only thing stronger than us, is you. what should the future deliver? depen(music)uette. progress... (music) ...innovation... (music) ...discovery? or simply stability... ...security... ...protection? you shouldn't have to choose. (music) gold. your strategic advantage. (music) visit goldhub.com.

speaking as someone who knows a thing or two about wild, and debotched parties, i can say without fear of contradiction that the biggest and easiest funniest shin ding on the planet is happening in argentina. they welcomed home their world cup soccer team. tens of thousands of people on hand to witness the procession, many of them having camped out overnight. the streets so crammed with fans that after four hours of moving at a snail's pace, players were forced to ditch their bus for helicopters just so they could fly over all of those adoring, expectant and utterly relieved and gratified fans. literally it is today a national holiday, the futball day in argentina today.

good for them. we'll be right back. what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us. ♪ well the sun is shining and the grass is green ♪ ♪ i'm way ahead of schedule with my trusty team ♪ ♪ there's heather on the hedges ♪ ♪ and kenny on the koi ♪ ♪ and your truck's been demolished by the peterson boy ♪ ♪ yes -- ♪ wait, what was that? timber... [ sighs heavily ] when owning a small business gets real, progressive helps protect what you've built with affordable coverage.