gentleman. li there everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. you can actually feel it. the race is on hour by hour as the january 6th select committee hurdles towards its end. investigators have seemingly made it their mission to share with the american people as much as they possibly can. today that effort presents itself in the form of 18 brand-new transcripts, somehow still revealing highly important and previously unknown information. we will go through much of it together, but one fresh revelation in particular this afternoon is further coloring in just how frantically chaotic the twilight of trump's presidency

really was. from this latest discovery we have one johnny mcentee to thank, trump's director of personnel by the end. we now now mcentee's testimony before the committee revealed that the twice-impeached disgraced ex-president in his final hours in office floated the idea of a blanket pardon for the breach of the united states capitol. there was a vice of dissent to that idea, white house counsel pat cipollone. he rejected the idea. our friend luke broad water of the "new york times" reports this, quote, mcentee recalled cipollone also rejected trump's idea that all white house staff should be pardoned, even those who have played no role in the president's push to overturn the 2020 election. quote, i remember cipollone questioning on that, well, why does anyone need a pardon, mr. mcentee recalled, adding that the president had responded, well, just so they can't go after them for any little thing. and i think cipollone said, yeah, but no one here has done

anything wrong. the idea that trump wanted blanket pardons for those involved with the attempted coup, which could suggest consciousness of lots of guilt does not line up at all with what the ex-president was saying to the american people in the hours after the attack. here is what he said on january 7th. >> america is and must always be a nation of law and order. the demonstrators who infiltrated the capitol have defiled the seat of american democracy. to those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country, and to those who broke the law, you will pay. >> so which was it? were the attackers going to pay or were they all going to be pardoned? now consider what cassidy hutchinson told the committee about that speech. >> did you hear that mr. trump

at one point wanted to add language about pardoning those who took part in the january 6th riot? >> i did hear that and i understand that mr. -- that mr. meadows was encouraging that language as well. >> thank you. and here is what you told us previously about that -- >> you said he was instructed not to include it. who was instructing him not to include language about the pardon in the january 7th speech? >> i understood from white house counsel's office coming into our office that morning that they didn't think it was a good idea to include that in the speech. >> that being pat cipollone? >> that's correct. >> that donald trump would say one thing in a public speech and the opposite in private isn't exactly earth-shattering news for any one of us who have been around a television set these past six years, but still, this latest revelation brings into sharper focus just how fraught those final moments were and, again, raises monumental question. if trump really thought that he and his henchmen had done

nothing wrong, nothing illegal, why on earth would they need a blanket pardon on the way out of door? it's where we begin today with "new york times" congressional reporter luke broad water who is here he shares a by line on that reporting we shared with you on pardons, robert mcquaid is back, a former u.s. soern, now law professor at the university of michigan and msnbc legal analyst. katty kay is here u.s. special correspondent for bbc studios as well as an msnbc contributor pulling a true double today. and pete struck a former fbi counterintelligence agent. luke broad water i have to start with you. it feels like this whole topic of pardons was very well-deployed by the committee but in some ways saving some of this evidence for the very end. that not only did he know he lost, he knew that he and his aides had likely committed crimes. >> right. well, you know, as the january 6th committee is releasing these

hundreds of transcripts and they're racing to get them all out the door before january 3rd when republicans will take control of the congress, the reason they're doing that is they really want the full transcripts out there. they don't want the new house majority to be able to cherry pick evidence and selectively release things. but as they're putting this out we're seeing even more revelations that we didn't know necessarily in realtime about we've heard a lot about talk about the pardons, but to be sort of a fly on the wall here and hear the discussion between donald trump and pat cipollone as he sort of, you know, floating ideas. well, what if we pardon everybody? what if we pardon only the people who went in the building? what if we pardon all the white house staff? the idea that donald trump believed all these pardons were necessary i think is quite telling. and in the january 6th committee's report when they point to the pardons that were

requested by some members of congress, they say they believe that that is clear evidence of a guilty conscience. that looking back some of these people after january 6th looked at the events they were involved in and thought they would have criminal liability here and criminal exposure. so, you know, that's the subtext of these -- to these documents that were released yesterday. but, yes, it's quite opening conversations here that the president is floating to his -- to his top lawyer in the white house. >> yeah, i mean, barbara mcquaid, a pardon is not a pack of white house m & ms or higher up the valuable items to lift from the white house, a blanket from air force one. a pardon isn't like a party favor. the fact that he handed them out so frequently has almost desensitized everybody that talks about pardons and covers pardons a little bit, but the fact that he wanted to issue blanket pardons to the entire

white house staff and the rioters themselves, let me read of what the rioters did. one one, robert palmer was convicted for assaulting, resisting or impeding officers with a dangerous weapon. sentenced to 63 months. what trump wanted to issue blanket pardons that would have included robert palm sh, he threw a wooden plank at the police, sprayed fire extinguisher fluid to the officers and threw the canister at them after it was empty. assaulted another police officer with a metal pole. devlin thompson would have been pardoned, he threw objects and projectiles at police officers including flag poles. he grabbed and stole the officer's riot shields. helped throw a large speaker at the front line of officers. picked up a metal baton and swung it overhead and downward against the police line. you can go on and on the things that these people who donald trump thought were worthy of a blanket pardon did to the

capitol police. what do you make of this, barbara mcquaid? >> the way donald trump used the pardon power throughout his presidency was a violation of the rule of law. the idea of a blanket pardon is a violation of the rule of law. he bypassed the justice department consistently and its office of the pardon attorney, which looks at cases and tries to promote uniformity in issuing pardons, and at the end of the day a pardon is a sign of mercy, of forgiveness. the people that donald trump wanted to forgive are the people you just described who defaced our capitol and caused serious harm to capitol police and endangered the lives of lawmakers in congress. i think that luke makes the very good point that this is evidence of what prosecutors refer to as consciousness of guilt. that is the only reason you need a pardon is if you believe you did something wrong and it can matter a lot in the kinds of charges that the committee has recommended to doj. two of those do require that sort of cognizance, conspiracy

to defraud the united states requires knowledge of fraud. obstruction of an official proceeding requires a corrupt intent. and so to demonstrate those intents one of the things prosecutors can use as evidence is consciousness of guilt. as evidenced by this desire to have blanket pardons. >> you know, pete, on the way out the door trump pardoned a lot of the architects of the coup. he pardoned -- what's his name -- bannon, he pardoned flynn who makes his way into the west wing in all of the days leading up to the insurrection. he pardons manafort. you know, they were not hard to get, but -- so it's always interesting when someone pushes back and it's almost like how bad was it? it was so bad that someone said no to blanket pardons for the entire white house staff and the entire lot of insurrectionists at the u.s. capitol. what does that say about the importance of pat cipollone as a witness to doj?

>> well, nicolle, i think it's extraordinarily important that you had people like pat cipollone, that you had people who regardless of the chaos were still willing to stand up in the last days of the administration and say you can't do this. if they couldn't persuade him to sort of try to explain to him the political liability, the legal liability that he might face if he did these things. now, what's astounding on the one hand you did a great job on the run up showing on the one hand his public statements that he was making about the protesters and then contrasting that with the things in these private conversations where he wanted to pardon all the folks. the question of, well, what does he want to do? we know what he wants to do because the fact is that right now as a declared candidate for president in 2024 he is making statements and throwing out the idea that if elected as a president in the future he will still go ahead and pardon all these people. so when you look at all the behavior that we've seen, all these multiyear sentences that are being handed out, we know full well what trump wants to do

because like he always does he's telling us in plain language exactly what he intends to do if he regains the white house. >> yeah, i mean, katty kay, there's so much -- there's so many elements of what the committee has unearthed that are ongoing. the other one is the very bad behavior of one mark meadows. let me read from luke's reporting on this batch of transcripts that came out late last night. cassie hutchinson also said mr. meadows had sought broad pardons, meadows was personally concerned that there would be a connotation of violence associated with everybody who had gone to the capitol that day. so he thought it was an idea worth entertaining and raising to white house counsel's office to pardon those who had been inside the capitol, she said. she added there was a period where several white house staffers and administration officials wanted to pardon themselves prior to leaving and he was one of them. what do we make of this pile of evidence the committee had and

really did again save until the end about mark meadows who adam kinzinger describes as their star witness for all of the texts that he turned over, even though he would end up not cooperating fully? >> yeah, i mean, he's central to those -- i mean, i think you described it brilliantly the kind of chaos of the last few days and we have to keep reminding ourselves the chaos of that december and january in the white house and at the center of it all in a way is mark meadows, burning documents, i can't believe barbara would think it was good if you had a star witness burning potentially white house secret documents. we don't know whether these were the originals or just copies, but either way a dozen times throwing papers, white house papers in the fireplace just doesn't look very good. there he is pushing for some kind of a blanket pardon. i think it's worth remembering, cassidy hutchinson's other testimony, earlier testimony, in which i think it was pat cipollone she heard saying, listen, we must make sure the president doesn't go down to the

capitol on january 6th because we could get charged with all sorts of criminal acts if he is just down there. he was very conscious of the fact that there was potential criminality around what was happening even before it happened on january 6th. the idea that comes across in these latest transcripts, too, and donald trump may say, look, you know -- or mark meadows may say we want to make sure they don't try to throw everything at us, they being the democrats because they have some vindictive vengeance against us as in the other impeachment trials against donald trump. he always had this sense that he was the victim of the democrats, but actually there were certainly people who were well aware and who were saying it publicly in that white house that there was criminality associated with what was happening on january 6th and what was being planned on january 6th. that defense just doesn't wash. and mark meadows is smart enough to have known exactly what pat cipollone was thinking from a legal perspective and what a plea -- what a request for some

kind of a pardon would look like. >> yeah, i mean, look, barbara, i want to pull you in on this. i mean, to katty's point, a pardon doesn't do anything for the democrats that you think are after you. i mean, that was the stated purpose, but a pardon doesn't help you with a congressional probe. it helps you in a criminal prosecution. the other thing that katty said is if there were copies -- in the white house every copy of every draft of every piece of paper belongs to the federal government. every speech that you are giving, that you make edits on that contributes to the final product is the property of the national archives. none of it belongs to you. i want to read from "vanity fair's" reporting of meadows burning documents. and this is about cassidy hutchinson from her transcript. the former'd insinuated meadows tried to keep meetings off official record. she said there were certain things that had potentially been left off the oval office diary although she didn't know the

specific documents. she did, however, remember one specific name, representative scott perry. she said that she recalled at least two burnings following meadows' meetings with perry. i mean, again, when the conduct of the most senior aides inside the white house, i believe most white house chiefs of staff have a cabinet rank is from like a c mob movie it really, really, i think, piques the attention and makes me want to know, barbara mcquaid if you think doj already has this information or if they're learning it like we are from these transcripts. >> hard to know what they already have and don't have, but i agree with you, nicolle, this is some really interesting evidence. on the one hand anybody who has ever worked in a government office knows if you have documents that you need to dispose of there are burn bags, there are shredders, the idea that you're burning it in your own fireplace is really unusual and for that reason highly suspect. i also think it's very interesting that cassidy hutchinson testified that on at least two occasions she saw mark

meadows burning documents after meeting with scott perry because, remember, there is evidence that scott perry was the one who introduced john eastman, jeff clarke and dropped that whole thought together what pat cipollone later are efrd to as the murder-suicide tlot plot. that is incredibly interesting. i think it raises the stakes to try to get cooperation out of mark meadows. he has potential criminal exposure himself. getting his testimony could be incredibly important. we know that the justice department has already gotten pat cipollone's testimony, likely more forthcoming than he was to the committee. so they could have that information as well. >> so, luke, i want to read more from your reporting on the transcripts. this is about matt gaetz. you write in his testimony mr. mcentee recalled that matt gaetz republican of florida told him he had sought a regard through mark meadows, trump's chief of staff. mcentee told the committee he believed gaetz was concerned about a federal sex trafficking investigation. gaetz has denied wrongdoing in

the matter. i mean, this sort of pigs at the trough of the pardons is a known story, but the conduit of being mark meadows feels like it is really cemented both through cassidy hutchinson's televised testimony and the snippets that were shown in the depp pose, but it really comes through in these transcripts the depth to which she reveals everything she saw mark meadows doing that by the end she realized was wrong and perhaps illegal. >> right. you know, mark meadows, aside from rudy giuliani and donald trump himself, is one of the probably three or four most important people in the effort to overturn the 2020 election because he was there doing trump's bidding, whether it was with -- trying to influence state lawmakers, taking trips down to georgia, trying to influence people down there to overturn the election, whether

it was asking different federal agencies to look into wild claims of voter fraud, including, you know, contacting the italian consulate about whether they were flipping votes through satellites from italy. i mean, he was trying every way he could to make donald trump happy and keep donald trump in office and i think that does come through in the transcripts. he says to cassidy hutchinson time and time again donald trump is really mad at me because we lost. he knows he lost, but we're going to try to pull this out anyway. so they're still fighting on looking for anything they can to stay in office even after they know they have lost. even destroying evidence. i mean, bringing up this throwing the documents in the fireplace, which actually maggie haberman and i broke in the spring, but showed up again in this -- in these transcripts, i mean, it's really shocking stuff. i mean, to come back immediately after a meeting and throw the

documents in the fireplace, i mean, who knows what they were, but it certainly doesn't look like it was on the up and up. so i think there's a lot more questions to be asked about that and i would be shocked if federal prosecutors did not want to ask more questions specifically about that incident. >> you know, pete, because they were the most senior officials in the white house there's something opaque about it and there's something uncomfortable about examining their contexts in that regard so let's just call them, i don't know, what was the last successful prosecution of a slightly incompetent mafia family branch? if you are investigating a mafia family and they come back from meetings with one of the targets of the investigation, someone like a mr. perry, again, not a congressman but a member of a mafia family let's pretend and you burn the documents as an investigator what do you want to know? what do you do next? it seems so basic, but this was

conduct that so far no one seems to have paid a price for. >> yeah, and nicolle, i don't know where we get when you have something that may have been destroyed. now, a couple observations. one, this isn't like it was some classified presidential daily brief or some intercept from the national security agency or some overhead satellite imagery from the nro that scott perry was bringing to mark meadows. there was nothing i'm willing to guarantee you perry was not walking into the meeting with something that was classified that needed to be dumped into a burn bag or disposed of. it stands to reason that the material that he was getting rid of was material that was inculpatory in a criminal way in some way, shape or form. and the notion that it was, well, it might not have been the original, well, it probably was a handwritten note and there is only one original of that. then the second thing that i'm struck by is we almost didn't know any of this. you will remember cassidy hutchinson her original attorneys paid for by trump allegedly were encouraging her to just say you don't remember.

they don't know what you know. just say you don't recall. so we were very close to a lot of this detail never ever coming out. it was only through, you know, her good sense and the idea of her conscience saying i can't lie that she went and found legitimate decent counsel that we have all these facts in front of us right now. but for that we might not know half the things we're talking about right now. >> yeah, i mean, katty, i want to give you the last word on this. you cannot get through her transcripts without coming down to pete's conclusion about how close we came to not knowing any of what she knows. to not knowing any of what she saw. to not being in any of the rooms that she puts us in. how close -- we're so close that after she was subpoenaed they called her and they said -- they didn't just tell her to be good, they said protect the boss. protect mark. we know you're in the family. protect the boss, meaning donald trump. i don't know that we will ever

know all of her personal calculations, but you go through this transcript and she really does close every circuit on trump's knowledge that he lost, trump's knowledge of illegality, trump's enthusiasm for violence, all of the elements of the crimes under investigation. >> yeah, i mean, it's why joyce vance has written a piece on msnbc's website arguing that obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and should be seen as a very serious crime. it shouldn't in the context of trump be seen as something that is lesser than inciting an insurrection or the other things that trump is potentially liable of or could be charged with because -- and cassidy hutchinson is a point in case that we would never have known any of this if she had sucumb to the enormous pressure that was being put on her or the advice of her first lawyer who was also putting that kind of pressure on her. it was only because she managed to change lawyers, she had the

moral compass, fortitude, strength of character, whatever you want to call it to decide, okay, this is the wrong advice that i'm being given and i should not give into the kind of pressure that is being put on me and i have a story to tell that the january 6th investigation needs to know about and ultimately the american public needs to know about and american voters need to know about. >> all right. no one is going anywhere. when we come back, we will dig more into how the georgia secretary of state viewed the ex-president's phone call to him. the tape that we've all heard over and over again. specifically when he instructs him to find 11,000 more votes. and what it could mean for the fulton county criminal investigation as well. plus, house republican leadership continues to stay mum over revelations that an incoming new york congressman lied about everything, even after he went on fox news and insulted the very voters who put him into office to represent them.

and later in the program the united states supreme court once again sparking concern of overreach by allowing a trump-era covid policy to remain in place. all those stories and more when deadline: white house continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. inues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. downy provides 7 benefits for your clothes, like making them softer and fresher. plus, downy fights fading and stretching. make your laundry softer, fresher, and look newer longer. my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...the burning, the itching. the stinging. my skin was no longer mine. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 16 weeks. the majority of people saw 90% clearer skin even at 5 years. tremfya® is the first medication of its kind also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis... ...and it's 6 doses a year after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them.

tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®... ask your doctor about tremfya® today. ♪ [acoustic soul music throughout] ♪ ♪ [acoustic soul music throughout] ♪ ♪ [acoustic soul music throughout] ♪ if you run a small business, you need the most from every investment. that's why comcast business gives you more. more innovation... with our new gig-speed wi-fi, plus unlimited data. more speed... from the largest, fastest, reliable network... and more savings- up to 60% a year on comcast business mobile. all from the company

that powers more businesses than any other provider. get started with fast speeds and advanced security for $69.99 a month for 12 months. plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

after the election, my email, my cellphone was docsed so i was getting texts all over the country and eventually my wife starting getting texts, her typically came in as sexualized texts which were disgusting. they started going after her i think to probably put pressure on me, why don't you just quit, walk away.

so that happened. and then some people broke into my daughter-in-law's home and my son has passed and she's a widow and has two kids and so we were very concerned about her safety also. you can only imagine the horror being targeted in that manner, threatened by the far right when all you did was your job, your civic duty. but donald trump didn't like it. there's new context to these transcripts as well from the testimony of that man, georgia secretary of state brad ravnsborg, it's context that may ultimately be of interest to investigators in the fulton county criminal probe. asked if he considered trump's infamous request to find 11,000 votes a threat, raffensperger responded, quote, i understood the positional power that the president of the united states of america has and i heard what he was saying. and he was allegedly really accusing us of doing something

illegal, something criminal, but i knew we followed the law. it was a hollow threat, but it was, i feel, a threat. we're back with our panel. barbara mcquaid, how much trouble is trump in in the fulton county investigation? >> well, the test is going to be whether trump himself had a corrupt intent, an intent to interfere or to intimidate. but the fact that brad raffensperger said he felt it was a threatening is very important to a jury's understanding of that. because if the recipient of the threat is to say something like, no, i thought he was kidding or based on our prior relationship i knew he didn't mean it that could be different but that's not what he says. he says he did hear it to be threat. i think that will go a long way to convince the jury that trump had the corrupt intent necessary for conviction, both in the georgia case and could be useful to any federal case that includes conspiracy to defraud the united states relating to the effort to get all of these

states to change the outcomes of their elections. >> pete, barbara's analysis is correct as it always is, but corrupt intent was trump's brand. it still is. we know from witness after witness after witness that he lost and he knew he lost. we know from witness after witness after witness, at least three, that he knew the eastman plot was illegal. we know from witness after witness i think after witness that he knew the doj plot was -- i mean, all that we have been presented with by this committee is his knowledge of illegality and that the things he was saying were lies. how much trouble do you think he is in in this georgia investigation? >> well, i think he could potentially be in a lot of trouble. i think much like the federal case, the georgia case is going to rely on having people who can, one, help build that circumstantial case. there is not going to be something, some email or text or statement that trump made saying i illegally want you to do this

to steal the election for me, but what you can get in the form of what you have in raffensperger's testimony, ideally what you get if you're able to flip somebody like mark meadows to get somebody right around him who can sit and say to a jury, look, he said these things to me, i heard them, he said -- or he knew that this was not proper, that the votes weren't there, that he merely needed to get the 11,000 threshold to get him into a win column. those are the sorts of things that you need to build the circumstantial case and, again, it's going to be many of the same people, whether it's at the georgia state level, whether it's at a federal level that are going to be able to sort of build that mosaic of all of the things that trump was saying and doing. i don't think it's a slam dunk. i don't think it is easy. i do think it's possible. again, i said a while back i think it's more likely than not that trump will face criminal charges but i don't think anybody should be walking away thinking these are easy cases to make in a criminal context, even though. even with all the information

that we have. >> luke, playing the where's waldo of the criminal investigations into the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election is once again mark meadows. in the georgia probe, he want to georgia ahead of that call, he was on the call with raffensperger. what is meadows' exposure and is his attorney still representing him as far as you know? into my understanding is that he still has the same attorney representing mark meadows and he was probably instrumental in convincing the justice department not to charge him with contempt of congress because he did turn over some of those documents to -- to the committee and did cooperate to an extent and so likely made it a contempt of congress charge not as easy as it would have been had he flatly refused to supply at all, which is what steve bannon did and ultimately

did get charged. so, you know, it was a question whether the committee would sort of pursue mark meadows further, but likely now it's going to be up to -- much more up to georgia and the justice department to decide what to do about him. mark meadows to my knowledge has basically gone to ground, he's stopped talking to people, doesn't answer reporters' phone calls anymore and, you know, he's gone -- he's gone quite quiet. there's been a lot of speculation about what that means, some people think does that mean he's cooperating? does that mean he is now a witness answering questions from the government. we really don't know what the truth is about mark meadows' status at the present time, but we do know that so many roads lead back to him from this -- from this investigation that it would be almost impossible to complete it without intervening mark meadows and getting him on the witness stand. >> yeah, i mean, again, katty, i mentioned it already, adam

kinzinger describes his text messages as essentially one of the star witnesses from the committee provided confirmation, it puts them in the room, shows them both sides of the people he was communicating with on this day. i want to read a little bit more from the transcripts that came out, though, to you, katty, because it has marjorie taylor greene describing the qanon people as, quote, my people. cassidy hutchinson recalled marjorie taylor greene explaining how many of her supporters who subscribe to qanon conspiracy theories came to washington for the rally on january 6th that preceded the violence. she said, ms. greene later this a similar conversation with trump showing him a photo of her constituents one of whom was wearing a q shirt. quote, those are my people ms. hutchinson recalled her saying. it just seems to close this circuit on any questions that anyone has as marjorie taylor greene gets prepared for a new year with new power in kevin

mccarthy's republican caucus. >> yeah, i mean, i think amid all of the kind of democrat celebrations after the midterm elections that election deniers statewide, at statewide levels had not been put back into office in arizona ands in nevada and in other states as well, and in pennsylvania, too, and in georgia as well, i think it's worth remembering that there were clearly election deniers who were put back into office in districts that are being carefully gerrymandered and weren't competitive districts where they could run on a more extreme platform and those people, marjorie taylor greene among them, people who when they first came into office seemed like sort of a joke and their relationship with qanon, her overpublic embrace of qanon seemed like something that made her way on the fringe of american politics and not really somebody to be taken seriously. i think it's -- we just have to look at this incoming house

leadership and think that she is going to be part of it and she has to be taken very seriously and her views on qanon have to be taken very seriously because she is going to have a lot of influence over the leadership and she is going to dictate a lot of the investigations, the policies, whatever this next congress does, she's going to be front and center of it and she is somebody who just a couple of years ago we would have thought was -- was way out on the fringe of american politics, not somebody who represented where even the american right really was. >> yeah, and, i mean, the sort of marker is the right's reaction to marjorie taylor greene when stephen king -- was that his name? steve king of iowa was a fringy unacceptable figure, the right dealt with him. you now have in kevin mccarthy someone who is pandering to marjorie taylor greene, courting her and elevating her. it's just another marker and we will pay attention to her, you're right, katty.

luke broadwater, thank you for coming back again today and thank you for your reporting. pete strzok, thank you for starting us off today. barbara mcquaid will be back with us in the next hour and katty sticks around a little longer. still ahead for us, a growing chorus calling for congressman-elect george santos to face consequences after he admitted that he lied about, oh, everything, from his education to his work experience to his religion, and now a republican district attorney in new york is opening an investigation into whether any of those lies are crimes. that's next. y of those lies are crimes that's next. this is going to be great. taking the shawl off. i did it. is he looking at my hairline? my joint pain isn't too bad. well, it wasn't this morning. i hope i can get through this. is plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis making you rethink your everyday choices? otezla is a pill, not a cream or injection that can help people with plaque psoriasis achieve clearer skin. otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness and pain in psoriatic arthritis. and no routine blood tests required.

don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla can cause serious allergic reactions. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over 8 years. don't hesitate. ask your doctor about otezla today.

i really want to talk about who is the makeup of this new majority. you heard from some of them already. you know, max miller in ohio, george santos in new york, and you had david cuss off from tennessee get reelected. he introduced them. do you realize we have the largest republican jewish caucus in more than 24 years? not bad, huh? >> not bad if it were true. now, here is the other part of that story, kevin mccarthy has more than a week to take back those comments about republican u.s. congressman-elect george santos, or at least publicly question what he has admitted were lies up and down his resumé, including that he's not even jewish. instead, it has been deafening but unsurprising silence from

kevin mccarthy and the rest of the republican leadership. there's been just one incoming congressman on the right calling for an investigation into santos. the republican jewish coalition has barred santos from attending its future events and we're learning that he is under investigation in new york by the republican da of nassau county who says, quote, the numerous fabrications an inconsistencies associated with santos are nothing short of stunning. nbc news still has yet to hear back from santos or mccarthy for that matter, but santos is still talking and talking. he went on fox news last night where guest host tulsi gabbard in for tucker carlson did a real interview with him. it can only be described as a disastrous car wreck of an appearance insulting the very voters who put him into office. >> do you have no shame in the people who are now you're asking to trust you to go and be their voice for them, their families and their kids in washington?

>> tulsi, i can say the same thing about the democrats and the party. i can sit down and explain to you what you can do in private in equity in capital via servicing limited partners and general partners and we can have this discussion that's going to go way above the american people's head but that's not what i campaigned on. i campaigned on delivering results for the american people. >> wow. you just highlighted my concern, the people at concern have, you're saying that this discussion will go way above the heads of the american people basically insulting their intelligence. >> calling your own voters stupid is not a good political strategy. joining our conversation political strategist and msnbc contributor matt dowd is here, katty still with us. matt, this feels like a story not about this, you know, yahoo congressman-elect but about kevin mccarthy and the republican party. what stands out? what are you watching with this? >> well, i'm glad you said that,

nicolle, because i actually think this is a broader indictment of it's not just george santos who i was thinking today is the only person i know who would write an autobiography and the book stores would have to put it in the fiction section the first time in history a biography got put in the fiction section. i mean, to me this is such an indictment and it doesn't surprise me we are at this where kevin mccarthy isn't saying anything at all, not a word. and most republicans are keeping quiet in the midst of this. they gave donald trump last count i know he lied 30,000 times as president in the course of this they gave him a pass every time. to me this is an example of our politics where a party no longer believes integrity is integral to being a representative in congress because if you are unwilling as a person, george santos, to self-regulate, right, to self-regulate and say i screwed up, i shouldn't be serving, and do the right thing and resign or not accede to the

office, so you have that problem, then you have the problem of a political party who has no desire, it seems right now, we will see what happens in the coming days, but it seems right now to hold george santos or any member of their political party accountable for anything. for anything. and so we are in a time when we used to count on leaders to sort of do self-examination, self-regulate, apologize, do the right thing, but then sometimes we have had to resort to a political party who would actually force a leader to do the right thing in the course of this. today the republican party doesn't have representatives who will do the right thing and self-regulate and they don't have a political party that will actually regulate and hold their members accountable. so you're right, this is a broader indictment, more so than over the talented mr. ripley as congressman coming january 3rd. >> yeah, i mean, because the story is so easy to understand,

you know, a lying liar lies about everything including his fabricating his grandparents' history, lying about his religion. you can stop there because it's enough. it's, oh, my god, but it really is, matt dowd, a story of like another chapter, you know, chapter 38 of the rot on the right. and i wish i didn't remember a different version of the republican party because then it wouldn't be a gut punch every single time you see how far they've fallen. this is that again, a reminder that they don't stand for nothing, this he stand for this. they stand for someone who is so foolish and so corrupt that he would get kicked out of any school, he would get kicked off any sports team, he would get kicked out of any normal workplace, but he can remain and thrive in the house republican caucus. >> well, you're right and that's because our system is dependent on these people having some sense of integrity for one for

them to do the right thing and, two, if they won't then the political party will do the right thing. i believe, i firmly believe, maybe this is my hope and optimism and belief that his tenure in the u.s. house of representatives will be a short one for a variety of reasons, not because the republicans will hold them accountable, because how do they sustain this? think about this, nicolle, what committee do they put this guy on that every single day of the week they're not going to have a problem? they can't put him on foreign intelligence because this guy makes up stuff. they can't put him on education, is that bhau want teaching our children? i mean, you look at every single committee, it's another headache, but it goes to something i think you are aiming at which is we have a political party today, the republicans, whose drive to get power knows no ends, i mean, knows no means that they won't agree to. that's what this is. they agreed to all the stuff that we all know that they didn't like about donald trump because it meant power. they've agreed to all the things

about u.s. senators, governor candidates, secretary of state candidates who were bizarre at the least, corrupt at the most, they acceded to all of that in their political party in the midst of this. so i think it's just telling, it's telling the moment we're in that the republican party no longer believes in truth telling, no longer believes in integrity. what they fundamentally believe to is access to power. >> katty, the most interesting twist here, though, is that it's not even clear it's working. it's not even clear they're gaining power with this as their brand. >> i guess it depends on what you mean by gaining power, you know, clearly, yes, they didn't do as well in 2022 as they should have done as they were predicted to do. herschel walker who you might kind of put in the same vein as somebody who lied about issues or said one thing about issues and actually did something else with his life reportedly, on the issue of abortion he didn't actually manage to get elected,

but they're seeing power in a very narrow sense. so for kevin mccarthy it's really just about getting to that 218. if it's 219 that's great, if it's 220 that's even better, but he's not expecting to get to 230 and in a way that's representative of where american politics writ large is at the moment. it's on stuff a knife edge that you're fighting over tiny slivers of ground and that's all -- that's all the republicans are trying to do is win very, very small margins and hope that that is just going to be enough. and they will do anything it takes in the case of herschel walker or in the case of santos, matt gaetz you could put in the same bracket to get there. >> it's amazing. all right. matt and katty are sticking around. up next for us, republicans also appear to be ignoring lessons from november, the rejection by voters, including their own voters, of extremism in the republican ranks. we will explain the latest intra party fighting going on over at the rnc next.

party fighting going on over at the rnc next alice loves the scent of gain so much, she wished there was a way to make it last longer. say hello to your fairy godmother, alice. and, long lasting gain scent beads. try gain odor defense. be gone, smelly everything! my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis...

the burning, itching. the pain. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 16 weeks. the majority of people saw 90% clearer skin even at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®... ask your doctor about tremfya® today.

we have extensively covered voters' rejection of some of the most far right, fringey and extremist candidates in the midterms last month, with even republican voters using words like reprehensible, saying they're sick of the big lie, and yearning for their own party, the republican party, to make

progress. today "the new york times" reports about what the party is doing instead of responding to those republican voters who have had enough. messy intra-party fighting between the right and the farther right about just how extreme the republican national leader committee should be. ronna mcdaniels re-election fight against challengers like the my pillow guy. thornier problems facing the party heading into the 2024 presidential campaign. we're back with matt daoud and katty kay. this is the story of the republican party. it doesn't reflect and improve. it doubles down on the hard core extremism. i imagine you're not surprised, but what do you think this means in terms of its brand as it gets ready to face the country again in '24? >> i can't help but make a football analogy in the course of this. this is like having a quarterback that one season they throw 22 interceptions.

the next season, they throw 24 interceptions, have ten fumbles. and the next season they throw 30 interceptions and have 15 fumbles. but we're not going to change him for that reason. let's go ahead and have somebody who has 40 interceptions and 20 fumbles. we'll put that person in power. to me this is such a sign of -- again, i don't think it's about the republican leaders, but what the republican base has become, because this wouldn't even be permissible if the republican base was demanding them look at why are they losing suburban women, why can't they get a vote or percentage out of african american women? why are they not achieving numbers they need to achieve in urban areas around the country? that's whether the growth is. their self-examination seems to be, we did bad, we should go more in the direction of the bad we did already. and, again, it's about an inability to have any accountability in this. >> you know, how it would work part of the story is fascinating

to me too, katty kay. i mean, the pillow guy, i think, was interrupted. all of the stations on which he peddled his lies are being sued by the voting machine companies for billions of dollars for defamation. how does it work to have somebody who is so toxic that right wing disclaimers on his face when his lips are moving. >> it seems unlikely that she's going to be replaced by the pillow guy or the other challenger from the right, who's challenging her just because those two candidates have done a pretty good job of annoying everybody on the rnc. and this is an inside, members only vote. so, you can't really see her being ousted. but it is interesting that the challenge that she faces, as challenges, primaries all over the country, don't come with these more conservative candidates, these more extreme candidates. the challenges aren't coming

from the middle of the republican party. they're coming from the right of the republican party, whether it's in congressional districts or in the leadership races at the rnc. until that middle of the party finds a way -- maybe it's a systemic problem because of gerrymandering -- the center of the party isn't standing up. or maybe just the numbers aren't there. maybe there aren't enough in the middle to stand up, as matt is suggesting, and say, look, we need to try something else. >> matt daoud, katty kay, this is never boring. thank you so much for spending time with us today. up next for us here, the latest ruling from the united states supreme court has even one of the court's conservative justices worried about overreach. we'll tell you all about it next. don't go anywhere. about it next don't go anywhere. 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. ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a

goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. if your moderate to severe crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms are stopping you in your tracks... choose stelara® from the start... and move toward relief after the first dose... with injections every two months. stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition, may be possible. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. feel unstoppable.

ask your doctor how lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options. before we begin, i'd like to thank our sponsor, liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. and by switching, you could even save $652. thank you, liberty mutual. now, contestants ready? go! why? why? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

cdc is a public health agency, not an immigration agency. and the question of title 42 is a public health policy. the question of title 42 that was posed to me is, is there a public health emergency that should bar people from coming into the united states? we now have, as of april 1st, when i commented on this, we now have the tools, the tests, the vaccines, and the therapeutics that are available. our hospitals are not full. everyone -- most people in this room are not wearing a mask. there is no longer a public health emergency. >> hi, again, everybody. it's 5:00 in the east. you heard it there from the top public health official in the country. the public health emergency that initially justified the enactment of a policy called title 42 is no longer. yet title 42 remains in effect, since former president trump

introduced it back in march of 2020. and just yesterday, the united states supreme court ruled to keep the policy in place. let's back up for a second. title 42 is a pandemic-era policy. it was put in place by the trump administration. what it does is it enables the quick expulsion of migrants and asylum seekers on the basis of public health concerns. advocates say title 42 is now just preventing people fleeing persecution and violence from their right to seek protection. the cdc declared it would lift title 42 back in april, but state attorneys general in republican-led states have fought to keep it in effect. the supreme court just yesterday sides with the republican led states fighting a ruling by a washington-based judge, who says the title 42 should be lifted. the supreme court will hear oral arguments by february, which means title 42 stays in effect

at least until that ruling comes down. but of course vote yesterday was interesting. it was 5-4, with justice neil gorsuch objecting alongside the three liberal justices. justice gorsuch made note of the original purpose, writing this, quote, the current border crisis is not a covid crisis. the court should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. we are a court of law, not policy makers of last resort. in his response to the supreme court's ruling, the biden administration said it's preparing to manage the border for when title 42 is eventually lifted. it had called on congress to pass immigration reform. even with title 42 in place, migrants are still coming across the border in massive numbers. quote, the number of migrants apprehended at the southern border already surpass 9,000 per

day on three occasions in a 10-day span in december. that's a record number. about 1,500 people, mostly nicaraguans, crossed to el paso on december 11th alone, straining the city's shelters and prompting migrant families to sleep on the streets in freezing temperatures. that is where we begin the hour, some of our favorite reporters and friends, ann stein is here, politico's manager for politics, as well as allen orr. he's an immigration attorney and the former president of the immigration lawyers association. allen, take us through -- let's separate the law and the ruling yesterday from the humanitarian piece and give each their due. first, take me through the ruling yesterday, in your view, from the supreme court. >> so, i think it's important to know that title 42 is really a stephen miller special. that's what it was called in the white house.

it's not really a pandemic thing. it's something that stephen miller enacted along with his other policies, such as remain in mexico. what we got yesterday from the supreme court was a procedural salad, where they said the federal government could continue to do anything with regards to policy. but right now they want to see if these states could intervene this late in a case to see if they can -- well, the ruling that we're going to get maybe in june will be with regards to whether these states have standing in the case, not with regards to whether title 42 or any discussion about title 42. it will just be standing with regard to these states intervening as a later action. it's a side step. we've seen this consistently with supreme court cases in immigration. this is the last in the realm of things, where they sort of punt again, as they did with daca and other cases in the past. >> allen, what do we make of, how bad is it, it's so bad neil gorsuch voted with the liberal justices. what's that about? >> it's very bad. we see now -- we've had an

election, and we see that people voted, and they supported most of the biden. they did not get behind the great replacement theory in arizona. they're allowing people who don't have documents to go to college. this is the court stepping in place of congress because congress refuses to act and giving a resolution. what happened yesterday, nobody won. it made our democracy much weaker and lessened our thoughts about the supreme court to have a non-partisan body to have this sort of control. >> let me turn to the humanitarian piece here. this is lee gull ert, the deputy director of the lead counsel for the plaintiffs on cnn earlier today. >> title 42 does not allow you to get -- even if you present yourself legally at a point of entry. the other point is this is not some technical abstract policy. there is real harm going on. mothers and fathers are being pushed back across the bridge into mexico holding their little

childrens' hands directly into the hands of cartels. the federal court of appeals said it's like walking the plank. there are thousands of cases, documented cases, of rape, torture, persecution, even death. this is horrific that's happening. and there's no longer public health justification. let's not misuse a public health law, as justice gorsuch said. >> i watched that a couple times. every time i see it, it's just like a kick in the gut and makes me want to know who the people on the right think we are. who are we if that is what we want to put in motion, misusing covid policy to do what he described? >> it's very disheartening because we are americans and there's only one border in this country. we only see the southern border. we have a northern border that accept people every day. it's a concept of who do we want

to process, who do we think is valid? this is the political tool that was used by the former administration to obtain the white house. in both parties, the democrats and republicans both have won both parts of the white house in congress. i wish congress would have worked harder in december to see what they could get across the finish line. the issue is, there are no winners. people are dying. beyond that, asylum is legal. congress passed it. so, supreme court is stepping in the way of congress right now, forbidding asylum to happen in international law and putting all these people in danger, and which leads to the stunts we see over and over again by state governors. >> stan stein, the administration, in its response yesterday to the supreme court decision, made this call on congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. that has been an effort that has been tried by republican presidents, like my old boss, and democratic presidents, like former president obama.

and even though there are pockets of bipartisan support, no one has been able to do anything meaningful. do you think the biden administration sees that something has changed? >> no, i don't. you would think that the conditions are actually quite ripe for it. we have a worker shortage in this country, for instance, which is contributing to some of our economic woes. that could be addressed through immigration if you package that with enhanced border security mechanisms that republicans want. you could outline the type of deal that would get support, as was outlined during the obama administration. the problem is republicans think it's an effective political kuj yul and democrats think it's against them. you have two parties on agreement in terms of the politics of immigration. what you saw in these statements from the biden white house after the supreme court ruling, if you read between the lines, is that they're not entirely displeased.

they could have admonished the court more forcefully for what it did. but instead, they said, we will abide by the ruling. we will be prepared for when title 42 comes to an end, as we want it to do. but they weren't mad, necessarily, about the ruling, because they want the tool to try to effectuate less border crossings. and that's just the -- that's their political interpretation of this current reality. >> and, sam, what is your read on the supreme court itself? they have become a hot topic, if you will, on the voters' minds very much. i mean, one of the most, i think, sort of undernoted structural changes in our politics is that the supreme court long, something that kept the republicans on offense, is now a political dead weight for the right. this seems to be gorsuch siding with the liberal justices and saying, this is not what we do, folks. what do you make of gorsuch's dissent? >> you know, it's fascinating.

one sense, gorsuch siding with the liberals suggests that there is the potential for crossover, ideological crossover on the court, or at least jurisprudence crossover. on the other hand, the text of his dissent really does come across as an attack on the court itself, the institution. what he's saying here is, look, this is not our role. congress makes the laws. we are not legislators of last resort. i think there's some validity to that. what is notable, i think, about the court is that in prior times they were fairly differential to the executive branch, especially on immigration law enforcement. the muslim ban, rejected on occasion, but ultimately they let it go once they determined it wasn't a religious text, even though it was rooted, essentially, as a religious text. they've been fairly deferential

to the executive branch. the court risks reputational damage. it is only a furtherance of the case that discuss grounds of standing. but even that i do think does risk reputational harm to the court. >> it's been brought to my attention that the court pays a whole lot of attention to the press it gets. and this is part of the reason why that's the case. this is according to gallup, the latest numbers are from june. in 2021, 36% of americans had a great deal of quite a lot of confidence in the supreme court. in 2022, just one year later, only 25% of americans surveyed had had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence. in contrast, when asked should the u.s. continue to offer asylum to people who arrive at the u.s. border if they are found to be fleeing persecution in their home countries, this is taken two weeks ago. 55% of americans say yes. so, the supreme court has half the amount of support from the public as asylum seekers, allen.

what do we do with that? >> i think the american people need to stand up and start pushing congress to act. and in the meantime, we need to understand this is a humanitarian issue, these are lives on the border. it is actually cost effective to allow immigrants to enter the country to meet the job needs we have. it is interesting to me that texas is at the front of all these cases at the supreme court. when they receive the most immigrant labor with regards to temporary, seasonal work. and also just a labor pool in general. so, we need to understand the value of immigration and how it can add money to the benefit because it is more expensive just like it has been in every other case, like the prohibition of alcohol, to prohibit inhibition than to allow it to transform. the budget has almost grown ten times larger than the creation of the homeland security department because of this inability to manage the process. the system itself, immigration, needs some reform. it's a -- computer in an apple

world. budget congress only gets so much money a year to fund and move only 400,000 individuals. >> you know, sam, i'll give you a herculean task here. this story to me has everything, right? it has the dysfunction of the court, in the words of one of the conservative justices. it has this fundamentally broken fang, our immigration system and policies the in a country. it has the misappropriation of the covid pandemic, right, as the justification, created in a laboratory of stephen miller that no longer applies. republicans would say that we shouldn't do anything anymore because of covid. what do you think -- where do you think it will end up? >> well, i'm not trying to punt the herculean task over to allen, but i would imagine that ultimately come june, the court will probably decide that there is no standing that exists. or maybe the majority of the court will decide that there is no standing that exists for a

couple reasons. one is ultimately i think we've got is this idea is that the executive branch does have purview over the federal immigration systems. you could have essentially 50 different presidents at one given time. that is untenable. i do think the other thing is what you talked about, which is the idea that the pandemic is with us. we live by it, it affects us. as a matter of public policy, it's winding down. the president himself has said the pandemic is over. the states that are suing to keep title 42 intact basically have forgotten the pandemic existed long ago. so, i don't think there's a tenable way to argue that this public health order has to be put into effect or kept in effect at the same time you think the public health emergency no longer applies to any other facet of society. >> allen, you were invoked, is a

better answer. i'd love your thoughts on the same question. >> i agree with him 100%. it's time to do the right thing. this is america. we've been to the moon. we've been to mars. we can manage our border. it's a 20,000 people a day arriving at the border, we really need to reconsider what we're doing here. i think once again it's just a choice of who we want to process. and in this world, the people -- are those from the northern triangle. so, it actually works as inclusion act for those individuals and allows other individuals, ukrainians, to come in. so, there are equities that keep brown and black immigrants and allow other immigrants to come into this country which is not who we are and who we say we are. >> stan sign, allen orr, thanks so much. when we come back, there are new battles on the voting rights front to tell you about, including a so-called legal red wave of lawsuits intended to disrupt our elections.

we'll talk to one man who is standing in the way of that red wave. you won't be surprised who it is. it's attorney mark elias. plus new reporting by the u.s. to disrupt russia and iran, major effects on what has become a harsh and brutal winter for the people of ukraine. and later in the president, the disgraced ex-president has spent years trying to hide them from the public, but this friday we get to peek at them. we're talking about trump's tax returns. we'll talk about what to expect. don't go anywhere. t to expect. don't go anywhere. 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.

just look around. this digital age we're living in, it's pretty unbelievable. problem is, not everyone's fully living in it. nobody should have to take a class or fill out a medical form on public wifi with a screen the size of your hand. home internet shouldn't be a luxury. everyone should have it and now a lot more people can. so let's go. the digital age is waiting.

voters saw democracy was on the ballot, but it wasn't a partisan issue. it was an american issue. it was one we could all come together around. election denialism was proven to be a losing strategy. it still is a strategy, and it's one we can expected to be levied in the '24 cycle. >> that was michigan secretary of state jocelyn benson, who won a resounding victory against an election denier victory, warning us that the threat to democracy

has not passed. politico's reporting that efforts to undermine voting are playing out in the courts now. quote, after trump attempted to use the courts to change the results of the 2020 election, many republicans borrowed a page from that playbook, scrutinizing almost every aspect of the electoral process. the uptick in litigation is sharp. more than 215 lawsuits related to the elections have been filed this year. almost 100 more than during the 2020 cycle. that is the group organized, of course, by attorney mark elias, who along with his firm, is fighting back against the gop efforts to undermine elections. he tells politico this, quote, i don't want to leave the republican party unattended. i want to babysit them in every case they file. mark elias, voting rights attorney, founder of the site democracy docket, adding the title babysitter to his own résumé, joins us right now. it's such a great way to talk

about who they have become. they need to be supervised because they are a threat to our democracy. explain. >> yeah. well, look, it's easy to now focus on the fact that the worst of the worst lost their elections. but the republican party, from the rnc down to the county party level, is constantly engaged in efforts to undermine confidence in the elections, to undermine the ability to be able to vote in elections, and to undermine the accurate tallying of elections. while we're still dealing with the remnants of the kari lake fiasco in arizona, don't forget the fact that in -- arizona, elsewhere, we saw subverting the will of the voters. if you don't babysit, lord knows

when you come home, what you'll find, what kind of mess. >> yeah, look, i think it's a commentary on what the republican party is from our perspective too. and the reason we cover them is because unscrutinized, people don't know what is tolerated by the leaders at the top of the party. that would be mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy. i want to know, you know, what you are still dealing with. i saw kari lake mean tweeting against you still. what are the deniers -- it is my understanding that some of the antidemocratic lawsuits actually cut against republicans, by trying to deprive their own voters their right to vote. so, tell me what lawsuits are still ongoing that you're still dealing with. >> yeah, so, there are -- in the post-election sense, there are three cases in arizona. there is -- all three of which, by the way, have met a correct outcome at the trial court.

the secretary of state, republican secretary of state, republican ag, and republican governor, all filed election contests. all three lost. the one that my firm is handling is the -- is representing governor-elect katie hobbs against kari lake. and it was a matter of time that kari lake was going to devolve from allegations that voter suppression caused her to lose the election, which was a bit hard to take coming from her, into full on out conspiracy theories. and that's what you saw on twitter, which is that kari lake retweeted and quote-tweeted an article that somehow suggested that i personally had ghost written an opinion for the trial judge that was against her in arizona. it's defamatory, it's obviously untrue. it undermines confidence in the election system, which is what it was intended to do. and frankly, it's outrageous.

and yet, she took down the tweet, but you can not find a single republican that has denounced such a ridiculous accusation. yet you go on the internet, go on right wing websites, and they continue to spread it. so, that's the kind of nonsense that we're still seeing. >> what is the sort of pace of the -- even if they ultimately lose, these are time consuming. these are resources. and that is their strategy as well, right, to pull you out of other priorities? and i know you have a mechanism to work on advancing voting rights as well. it seems part of the republican strategy to keep defenders of democracy on defense at all times as well. >> it's not just to keep the lawyers on defense. it's to keep the entire country on defense as well. what republicans want to do is

explain every electoral loss as they were the victims of some, you know, dark conspiracy. every electoral win, they portray as them overcoming that dark conspiracy. when in fact, the reality of it is, they are not appealing to the majority of voters. so, rather than acknowledging that, they spin these crazy conspiracy theories that then serve as the basis for the wave of voter suppression laws that they then pass next year. and we saw that passage by '21 as a response to the very conspiracy theories that they created. and against all of that backdrop, you have the pathetic figures of the republican leadership, whether it's ronna mcdaniel or mitch mcconnell or kevin mccarthy sitting by and refusing to speak out because that's who their voters are. kevin mccarthy won't even denounce the absolute pathological liar from long island that's about to join his

caucus because he's afraid he won't have enough votes for speaker. >> right. i have to ask you about the other story that we've been covering all the time, because everything that you have to contend with comes from the twice-impeached ex-president. and i wonder what you make as you pore through the transcripts. these weren't democrats interviewed. these were the most senior advisers in donald trump's west wing who describe donald trump's cue detente and his acknowledgment of a plan he knew was illegal. >> yeah, you know, it's shocking. it reminds me of hannah errands talk about the finality of evil. it's shocking that you have this going on and being treated as a normal day in the west wing of the white house. and it's part of the reason why i push back on this notion that there was a quote, unquote team normal in the white house.

there's a faction of the trump white house that now wants to describe itself as team normal in the waning days. there was nothing normal about this white house. there were pathological enablers, and there were less pathological enablers. but everyone in that white house was to one extent or another enabling an absolutely incompetent, unqualified, authoritarian instinct, malevolent, failed, one-term president. >> he's unleashed all of these forces of, shall we say, copy cat candidates. it's always great to see you and talk to you. thank you so much. >> thank you. a quick break for us. when we come back, the united states is scrambling to counter an alliance of convenience between russia and iran, one that is having a major impact on the ground in ukraine. that story's next. 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.

my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... the itching... the burning. the stinging. my skin was no longer mine. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 16 weeks. the majority of people saw 90% clearer skin even at 5 years. tremfya® is the first medication of its kind also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis... and it's 6 doses a year after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®... ask your doctor about tremfya® today.

a blow today to hopes for any peace talks soon between russia and ukraine. russian officials today said that russia is officially rejected ukraine's latest proposal for talks. it comes amid seemingly relentless attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure by russia on the ground in ukraine. the use of kamikaze drones provided to russia by iran. "the new york times" reports the use of those drones has sparked a major all hands on deck effort by the biden administration to

put a stop to the use of these drones by russia. in interviews in the u.s., europe, and the middle east, a range of officials have described an expanding u.s. program that aims to choke off iran's ability to manufacture the drones, to make it harder for the russians to launch the unmanned kamikaze aircraft, and if all else fails, provide defenses necessary to shoot them out of the sky. former adviser to ukraine's president zelenskyy -- chief international security diplomacy analyst. igor, first on the ground in kyiv, how are you doing, my friend? >> we're doing fine. we just survived another drone attack. luckily none of them reached kyiv. of those, i believe at the moment, 20 have been shot down. so, there have been some hits.

so, the drones are a problem that need solving. in other news, no missile attacks just yet. we're expecting one around new year's day, probably a few days before or after that. but i want to make a case for the long-range rocket systems. while ukraine has used some old soviet technology to get angles on russia, some 800 kilometers from our border, that seemed to have disrupted their plans for another missile attack. so, we haven't had one. >> admiral, the list of options that "the new york times" reports, seems to leave igor's plan as the only viable option. is that your read? >> i think igor is spot on. we need to provide our ukrainian friends the means to close the skies over ukraine, a phrase

that president zelenskyy often uses. we've given them part of what they need. but there's more that has to be provided, including, of course, the patriot battery deal, which was just signed. i would advocate for fighters. i would advocate for even more surface-to-air missiles. nicolel, i think an important aspect is going after the iranians, and you can do it over several vectors. one is internationally, working with our allies, partners, israel, our friends in the arab world have means of intelligence and constraining the iranians, putting pressure on them in other ways. you can use interagency, bringing cia, nsa, dod assets to bear here. you can also use private/public means, going to the companies that are providing some of the components here. you can use the public diplomacy. talking about this is very important. and finally, nicole, there are technological solutions here

that can be put into the hands of the ukrainians. all of that needs to come together as a coherent effort. this is a critical path in the war. >> igor, you've always been really elegant about giving us a brutal truth from the ground in ukraine and about balancing gratitude for the partnership and the support of united states with the kind of bottom lining that the admiral's doing right now, frankly. what is it that you need today that you don't have, as a country? >> first of all, if we're talking about military hardware, my first pick would be systems that can strike further than 80 kilometers, that the himars is capable of at the moment. those systems will allow us to actually destroy the bases and the supplies deeper into the enemy territory.

i can give you an analogy. you can feed cancer at stage three, but isn't it better to beat it at stage one or preferably prevent it from happening in the first place. so, that is what's happening. at the moment, with all the help we're grateful for, we're rooting for some measures as well to not let it happen in the first place. >> admiral, what is the line that the biden administration is walking in these systems, in these specific weapons that ukraine has asked for and needs to protect itself more adequately? >> if our friend, jake sullivan, were on, this is where he would cue up correctly the delicacy of the situation, in that what we don't want to end up with is a full blown war between russia and nato. having said that -- and i've

said it myself many times -- i think we are now at the point where the egregious behavior of russia, the massive pile of war crimes, these attacks on civilians going back to the torture, murder, rape, all of that, means we have to up our game. and i agree with igor. i think attack ems is a very capable system. the bottom line, i think the time for incrementally adding weapons system has passed. it's now time to really put everything at play. if we do that, as winston churchill asked for at the start of world war ii, he said, give us the tools, we will do the job. i think we need to put more, better, faster the right tools in the hands of the ukrainians. i think you'll see movement in that direction, as this new year unfolds. >> igor, on that note, just take me inside your thoughts and your

days walking around your beloved city and your beloved country, as the new year is about to ring in under the most -- i know you always find optimism and positivity and hope, but there's real suffering there. tell me how you balance all that. >> if i might be forward, i just want to quickly add, the fear escalating with russia is wrong, plain wrong. why? it's not nato's decision. it's not the supply of weapons that decides whether there will be war. it's putin's decision. if he decides to do to war with nato he will. now, as for kyiv, a positive story. look, it's difficult on the ground, but this all brought the country together. most positive story for me was, you know, at the resilience center that we launched, one of our volunteers actually ran into a homeless guy two days ago with a dog and learned his story.

basically the guy doesn't have anyone in this world and his house was destroyed in irpin. so, he picked up the dog in irpin, and he lives for that dog. he approached one of the volunteers saying, can you buy some food for this dog because i don't want it to die. we brought some resources together thanks to twitter and friends in kyiv, and we basically -- i personally delivered all the supplies to the guy. he's never going to be in the situation ever again. and it's that spirit that keeps ukraine going because we're doing that for our soldiers. we're doing it for our civilians. and we need all the help that we can get. if we get it, you know, you're going to see -- >> igor, i'm just going to ask so we don't have to do this on twitter later. my viewers always want to know how they can help you help ukraine. do you want to tell them? >> it's on my twitter. the handle is @igor -- all one

word. >> igor, happy new year to you. thank you for being here. admiral, thank you for your frank talk on this and for spending some time with us today. up next for us, for years and years and years, donald trump offered nothing but excuses and did everything in his power to hide his taxes from the american people. then he sued to keep democrats from getting their hands on them. all of that, though, is now over, and his tax records are sent to be revealed and released to the world on friday. that story is next.

when our daughter and her kids moved in with us... our bargain detergent couldn't keep up. turns out it's mostly water. so, we switched back to tide. one wash, stains are gone. [daughter] slurping don't pay for water. pay for clean. it's got to be tide. why give your family just ordinary eggs when they can enjoy the best? eggland's best. the only eggs with more fresh and delicious taste. plus, superior nutrition. because the way we care is anything but ordinary. ♪♪ love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning. we just wait till we get to the school. so, yeah. right now here in america, millions of kids like victoria

and andre live with hunger, and the need to help them has never been greater. when you join your friends, neighbors and me to support no kid hungry, you'll help hungry kids get the food they need. if we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them. your gift of just $0.63 a day, only $19 a month at helpnokidhungry.org right now will help provide healthy meals and hope. we want our children to grow and thrive and to just not have to worry and face themselves with the struggles that we endure. nobody wants that for their children. like if these programs didn't exist me and aj, we wouldn't probably get lunch at all. please call or go online right now with your gift of just $19 a month. and when you use your credit card, you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives. if you're coming in hungry,

there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure they get the healthy meals they need to thrive. because when you help feed kids, you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever. so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today.

. after years of stonewalling, among many other things, by the disgraced ex-president, a legal battle that went all the way to the u.s. supreme court, this friday, americans will finally get to see donald trump's taxes. that announcement was made by the house committee on ways and means, the committee that won their legal battle over trump's tax returns. a series of reports by congress released last week show that he paid $0 in taxes in 2020. also showed that trump was not subject to an irs audit mandatory for all u.s. presidents until two years into his presidency. back with us former u.s. attorney, now law professor at the university of michigan, and tim o'brien, executive editor,

both are msnbc contributors and dear friends of the show. i've got to deal with the irs first. what sort of questions do you have, barbara mcwade, either ethical or legal about the irs? >> i want to know why this audit wasn't conducted. they're supposed to conduct an audit every year of every president. that's the audit program. it's existed every year since the presidency of richard nixon. the reporting indicates it was because of the aggressive pushback and it seemed like it was going to be too big of a hassle. they shrugged their shoulders and moved on. i want to know, was this mere incompetence or was there something more nefarious going on. those are the questions that need to be asked of the irs. >> we have a constellation of public-facing data points. we haven't cracked the code yet. but we have these extraordinary audits of andrew mccabe and jim comey that paint a disturbing

perception problem for the irs, barbara. >> yeah, you know, the irs is supposed to be non-political. it's supposed to be even handed in its administration of its work. and yet you can't help but get the feeling that perhaps they were targeting resources against trump's enemies and toward him in a way that was protecting him. i know that the irs has been chronically understaffed and underfunded. recently there has been a push to remedy that, to get them back to 1990s level funding. so, i think we have to find out whether those were resource issues or if it was something more nefarious. and certainly the odds of mccabe and comey both being selected for audits i think raises an eyebrow that's worthy of asking some questions. >> okay. so, now on to trump's taxes. i think that there's less that we know -- there's probably more that we don't know than we do know, tim, about how hard he worked to keep them secret,

about how much he contorted the federal government to shield them from public view. but we are about to see them, as one of the only humans who have seen them. what should we expect? >> it's interesting as to why he went into contortions to prevent them from being released. if he had nothing to hide and if he hadn't spent decades exaggerating or lying about his business prowess and his wealth, we wouldn't, i think, had to go into conniptions to make sure no one saw documentation that would substantiate some of the things he was saying. but i don't think anybody cares about donald trump's wealth as much as donald trump does. and at the end of the day, it's a scorecard that he put a lot of weight on because he's a deeply insecure man, and he wanted to be at the top of billionaire lists. but he was also president. and what's really important about these documents is we need to know what financial conflicts of interest, domestic or international, may have affected

public policy making during his tenure. and there's a national security issue. if anyone wielded influence over him. there's also a number of just legal and equity issues here. the house ways summary of their findings, along with the jct's findings suggest that trump may have taken as much as $300 million in questionable deductions over several years. that's going to be looked into, and he's going to have to be accountable for that. i think there's also the whole fact that we know in some years he paid no income tax at all. he's a self-proclaimed billionaire, professing to stand up for the forgotten working class american who, in many cases, appeared to pay more taxes than one of the wealthiest people in the united states. so, the taxes are going to bring all of this i think into sunshine, to some extent. >> you know, tim, he managed to

turn that into -- i don't know if political asset is the right description. but he leaned into that as a candidate in 2016, that romney really -- i think it was a speech attacking trump for not releasing his taxes, for not being transparent. and trump seemed to turn it into -- it was one of the first examples where he turned his defiance and thumbing his nose at the norms into a political asset that thrilled his base. what you're describing though sounds like something that will very much cause pressure with the kind of working class voters that he, in his mind, courted and won over. this idea that he didn't pay any taxes, it seems like we saw a little bit of that in "the new york times" investigation. what will be clear to us when we see the whole document? and can you just give clear to e see the whole document? and can you give us a trump taxes for dummies overview. >> on your very good point how he weaponized what would have

been criticism of him remember in one of the famous debates with hillary clinton where she correctly called him out for not paying his fair share of taxes and he said, hey, that makes me smart. i think at that stage of his political life hez supporters liked the idea he's thumbing his nose at institutions. in terms of taxes 101 i think it's the k1 filings which are documentations of his business partnerships are part of this release beyond just what we -- you know, the raw numbers and the income tax returns, i'm very curious to see disclosure around who his business partners are. i'm interested to see disclosure of foreign sources of income. i'm interested to see if he has

foreign bank accounts abroad and if there is any money that he hasn't declared that is abroad as well. remember paul manafort famously got in trouble for not disclosing foreign sources of income. it's a tax -- it's a crime. and i think that the more we can fill in the blanks about why trump bent over backwards to court dictatorships and i don't think it was just because he fetishized autocrats. most of trump's motivations involve bags full of cash, and i think he saw all those relationships as monetizable. to the extent we get any window on that in the tax returns i think is very important. >> we're going to call on both of you as this day gets closer. quick break for us. we will be right back. er quick break for us we will be right back.

i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. uhhhh... here, i'll take that. [woo hoo!] ensure max protein, with 30 grams of protein,

one gram of sugar and nutrients for immune health.

frank is a fan of fast. he's a fast talker. a fast walker. thanks, gary. and for unexpected heartburn... frank is a fan of pepcid. it works in minutes. nexium 24 hour and prilosec otc can take one to four days to fully work. pepcid. strong relief for fans of fast. there's some breaking news

to tell you about about a champion of democracy, a face very familiar to viewers of this program. congressman jamie raskin of maryland of course a member of the january 6th select committee has just announced with the public he's been diagnosed with a type of lymphoma, a serious but he says curable form of cancer. from his statement, quote, with the benefit of early detection and fine doctors, the help of my extraordinary staff, the love of sarah and our daughters and sons in law and the support of my beloved constituents and my colleagues in the house, i plan to get through this and in the meantime to keep making progress every day in congress for american democracy. the congressman will be on tonight with my colleague chris hayes at 8:00 p.m. eastern. our thoughts of course with the congressman who's given so much to this country and has so much more to give to his family. we wish him a speedy recovery. more to give to his family we wish him a speedy recovery. ♪

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. frank is a fan of fast. he's a fast talker. a fast walker. thanks, gary. and for unexpected heartburn... frank is a fan of pepcid. it works in minutes. nexium 24 hour and prilosec otc can take one to four days to fully work. pepcid. strong relief for fans of fast.

at booking.com, finding perfect isn't rocket science. kitchen? sorted. hot tub, why not? and of course, puppy-friendly. we don't like to say perfect, but it's pretty perfect. booking.com, booking.yeah. as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. but it's pretty perfect. so start saving by switching to the mobile service

designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to 60% a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. well, we fell in love through gaming. but now the internet lags and it throws the whole thing off. when did you first discover this lag? i signed us up for t-mobile home internet. ugh! but, we found other interests. i guess we have. [both] finch! let's go! oh yeah! it's not the same. what could you do to solve the problem? we could get xfinity? that's actually super adult of you to suggest. i can't wait to squad up. i love it when you talk nerdy to me. guy, guys, guys, we're still in session. and i don't know what the heck you're talking about.