hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. when donald trump lost the 2020 election, there was a brief hope, however naive, that maybe

just maybe things in this country would snap back into something resembling a pre-trump normal. dangerous elements of the far right would crawl back into their dark caves and corners that want harm done to the foundations of our most prized institutions, relentlessly maligned for years under donald trump would repair themselves. maybe even overnight. simply because trump is no longer the person sitting behind the resolute desk. sadly it appears that any of those hopes were in vain. more proof this afternoon that the destruction he left in his unhinged wake, the moral wrought he spread quietly continues to spread to this day inside some of our most important and revered institutions. considering chilling new reporting in today's "the new york times," cataloging attacks on the fbi. the piece centers in part on a somewhat dishonest effort by a group of former agents calling

themselves the suspendables. they wrote a letter earlier this month of accusing the fbi from discriminating against agents. writing with trump's supporters, have seized on the letter's accusations and stepped up assaults on the fbi. seeking to undermine the bureau as it has assumed the lead in an array of investigations into trump. what's more, the letter to wray also falsely suggests the head of the fbi office in miami played a suspicious role in the mar-a-lago search. an accusation that officials call false. it is sad but not surprising, the lawful court approved search of mar-a-lago has been a lightning rod for conservatives since the moment it happened. recall the way conservative media twisted the story and set its sights on the fbi. >> the way our federal government has gone, it's like what we thought about the

gestapo. >> this is gestapo crap and it will not stand. >> the fbi right now is the gestapo. >> this is some third world bull [bleep] right here. >> you cannot weaponize our political institutions for gain. >> do i know the boxes of material they took from mar-a-lago, they won't put things in those boxes to entrap him, how do we know? >> who is to say in this kind of case that some of the documents supposedly seized were not planted there to begin with. >> what the fbi is probably doing is planting evidence. which is what they did during the russia hoax. >> they raided our president's home. there is no going back from this, everybody. >> this is the worst attack on this republic in modern history. >> that really happened. another misdirected blood lust for the men and women of the fbi is particularly dangerous and offensive when held up to its

mirror image. that is the way the fbi has gone from ignoring to enabling and coddling and to, at times, outright supporting elements of far right extremism. a new "the washington post" reports illustrates ways in which republicans have tried to minimize far right violence. from that reporting, quote, republican leaders portray the far left and far right as equally dangerous. an assertion contradicted by white house assessments that, quote, the most persistent and lethal threats to the country come from the violent right. terrorism researchers hoped the rising political violence culminating in the january 6th, 2021 attack would jolt leaders into action. instead efforts to address violent extremism have staled over semantics and eagerness to blame the other side. but the most frightening part is this, with republicans set to

take control of the house in a matter of days, they'll have a firm grip on institutional control and the power to go after nearly any person or agency or bureau they please. it's where we begin today with some of our favorite reporters and friends, pete strzok is back, and amy stodard, danell harman and barbara mcquad is here. let me start with you pete strzok. this is the fbi, certainly not immune to the things that roil our country and politics but for this to spill into public view feels like an escalation. what is really going on? >> i think it's something i never saw in my career until the

end. the fact i started in the fbi in 1996 and it wasn't until about 2016 that you saw the political partisan attacks. a couple things i want to make clear. one, the fbi is one of the most conservative organizations in the federal government. i worked in the government again for the entirety of my career. it is truly a -- when you think about the party of law and order, that's what the fbi does. it enforces the laws and maintains order in the united states. so the workforce is overwhelmingly conservative. it's not something that's talked about. it's not something that comes up in conversation. but to be clear. some idea that it is a fashion of leftists sitting, controlling, you know, these attacks, what people are calling on donald trump, is simply absurd. the second thing i point out is, this is coming from a party led by a man who spent the better part of 2015 and 2016, leading cheers of lock her up, insisting

the fbi investigate and jail his political rival. so this isn't a function of concern about the fbi investigating something related to politics. it's a concern that when it comes to one party, the republican party, and one man in particular, donald trump, that somehow that should be offlimits. and if there's any legitimate investigative interest that doesn't exist, that's absolutely false and saddens me to see that it continues to this day. >> let me read some more of this new york times reporting to all of you. this is from this piece about republicans stepping up their attacks on the fbi. quote, i have an oath to uphold the constitution, mr. friend, a 12 year veteran of the bureau who told supervisors when he declined to join the raid on august 24th in jacksonville, florida, i have a moral objection and want to be considered an objector.

according to records there was only one january 6th related arrest in the jacksonville area and it was that of tyler bench, accused of being a militia member. what mr. friend emitted from his account, was that while mr. bench was charged with only misdemeanors, documents in his case say that on january 6th he posted a video of himself outside the capitol wearing body armor, a gas mask and carrying an ar-15 style rifle. witnesses told the fbi they had seen photographs of mr. bench carrying a similar rifle at other times. pete, let me come back to you and ask about how often this happens that a 12-year veteran of the bureau would describe themselves as a conscientious objectors from work in the field and refuse to participate?

>> i've never seen it before in my life. not only was the subject in this case known to have -- own and possess automatic rifles, it was also coming on the heels of two agents who were killed in florida as well when they went to arrest somebody on a -- purportedly a nonviolent person in a cyber case and they were ambushed and killed. so the goal in any arrest is to do that in a way that is going to protect the life and safety of the subject being arrested and the agents doing the arrest. so you had a lawful warrant signed by a federal judge saying there is probable cause to go arrest somebody. i have never heard any agent say i'm not going to participate in the rest. that's a breakdown in the chain of command and things that agents must do if they're called upon to do it. it's an absurd request. >> danell, let me pull you in. you were the first person that

became sort of publically known to have seen 1/6 as it would turn out to be ahead of time. you made a call for blood at the blood banks because you predicted the possibility of a mass casualty event. if any of my recollection is incorrect let me know. but i believe this is now memorialized in the 1/6 committee report. you've also been a voice for keeping politics out of homeland security, which feels like an impossible ask of our country right now, even though the gravest threat to the homeland is domestic violent extremism. what is your reaction to the reporting in "the new york times"? >> there's a lot to unpack, nicole. the attack on january 6th by the house committee itself, numerous times in the report called it a domestic terrorist attack. to date no one has been charged with an act of domestic terrorism. so there's a broader aspect here that we don't know what domestic terrorism looks like when it

comes to charging individuals. it's easy to do so when it comes to foreign terrorist organizations, ftos as we call them, people that don't look like us, speak like us, come from our culture. but when it comes to the holding up the mirror saying we might be terrorizing our own people it's quite difficult. the other thing i want to mention, a footnote to the january 6th attack itself is how those who were sworn to protect the constitution, those engaged in the public safety enterprise were disproportionately represented as an occupation amongst those arrested post january 6th. you had multiple former and current law enforcement, public safety officers, firefighters, as well as military individuals that were involved in that attack. and so, it speaks to a radicalization amongst those who were sworn to protect us that's quite concerning that many of us have been talking about for a

long time. i'll close with, recent reports up until the last few weeks, indicate from leaked oath keeper records that over 300 individuals who had signed up or active with the oath keeper were members of current or former members of adopt of homeland security, including the secret service and border patrol. so there may be an issue we haven't talked about yet with radicalization amongst the ranks of those sworn to protect us. that's concerning. >> you went right to the heart of it. which is probably where all these conversations should start. tell me how we begin if we can't acknowledge that truth, that you just laid out there for everyone to see? how do we begin to counterextremism effort if you have one of the two parties refusing to call it that? >>. >> i want to push back on the narrative of republicans. i generally don't get political

but from a homeland security and intelligence standpoint, the radical violent right is not nearly as dangerous or well equipped to attack the homeland as is the left. we've been ignoring the violent right for decades. go back to timothy mcvay and eric rudolph. so this problem has been brewing for a while. i will tell you as someone who studies this, that the disproportionate amount of our homeland security intelligence and domestic terrorism efforts, going back to the civil rights era have been really targeted towards black and brown individual, which buttresses what we saw on january 6th. the taped recordings, the transcripts, rather, from the d.c. national guard general that's now the house sergeant at arms, general walker -- former general walker. said it clearly had those been

black and brown people on january 6th that would have unfolded differently. it would have been a blood bath. so we have to look at ourselves. unfortunately, and i'm highly critical of the january 6th report. the january 6th report doesn't get us there, right. it spins most of the eight chapters talking about nothing to do with the attack on the capitol, in terms of how we can protect going forward. it does mention, i'll read this, that the -- that going forward that the government needs to take a whole of government strategy to combat violent activity. i think most americans would be surprised that's not happening currently. so that's a revelation to most americans, although myself and i'm sure pete would agree to that, we've seen that before. there's an expectation post 9/11 that should be happening. but who's leading that effort? where do we go from here? we're left looking for direction in that space. >> i want to play, christopher

wray, donald trump's hand-picked head of the fbi, saying and agreeing with your assessment about where the threat of domestic violent extremism lies not just on the ideological spectrum but the specific racial motives of them. this is chris wray from i think september of 2020. >> what i can tell you is that within within the domestic terrorism bucket category as a whole, racially motivated violent extremism is the biggest bucket within that group. and within that bucket, people ascribing to some kind of white supremacist ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that. >> so pete strzok, when chris wray said that in september of 2020, we carried it. and if the words domestic have

been replaced with foreign terrorism and racially motivated had been replaced with, i don't know, violent islamic extremism. that testimony would have been followed with emergency hearings on capitol hill, classified briefings. the kinds of things we saw after 9/11. after that testimony, nothing happened. well, except january 6th. an ongoing threat of attacks on state capitols from violent extremist groups. what are we headed towards in this country when we have the fbi director testifying before congress, for everybody to hear, what the biggest threat is to the homeland. an attack on the seat of government happening. and one of the two parties continuing, to this hour, to whitewash the reality and the severity and the damage done that day. >> nicole, i think the twos a pects of that. the first is the threat continues. this is not something that's stopped after january 6th people said this is unacceptable and we

have a reckoning we need to back away. the movement -- what was it a month ago trump was having a meal with nick fuentes, a white supremacist down at mar-a-lago, the threat of the violence of the groups continue. there's a recognition by the head of the fbi that this was the largest threat faced by the united states and yet somehow all of the plots we've seen brought to prosecution right now were not detected. one hand we were saying and hearing the right words but whether or not that matched up with the investigative priority, it's hard to tell. i share the concerns about what the january 6th committee didn't do in terms of a deep look at whether or not the law enforcement community is appropriately looking at these. i know doj's inspector general is doing it, but in the face of the continuing threat i have a concern whether or not there's been sufficient introspection to understand what the threat means

and figure out whether or not the resources and the investigative techniques that are being used are sufficient to match that threat. and i still don't, i haven't seen an answer to that, and i don't think anybody publically has seen a real assessment of whether or not that has been addressed. >> and amy, the importance here is that the republicans, who -- i'm going to play this instead of describing it, because it's indescribable. who will whitewash any violent extremism on the right to a point of absurdity are about to take control. they're about to have the power to investigate the investigators. let me show you andy bigs trying to describe a self-described white supremacist as a socialist. >> we hear a lot about right wing extremists but this guy was an admitted socialist. who was thankful that the conservative movement was dead.

>> would you categorize him, in your research on the left, national socialism being i guess the linguistic root of nazi for nazi germany. >> i think any sober look at the buffalo shooter's manifesto statements and the symbols and names on his weapons, by the way, symbols of white supremacy, names of white supremacist shooters before him, would recognize that attack as clearly a white supremacist attack. >> so we're in this position where the most generous excuse for mr. bigs is his ignorance but the other scenario is misdirection and the desire to paint a mass shooter as being a socialist not a conservative white supremacist. >> well, i mean, just days before the election they tried to mischaracterize the passions of the deranged person who

attacked nancy pelosi's husband, which was an intentional assassination attempt on the speaker of the house. and republicans, i believe, sense that could be bad for them and looked to whatever they could find to distort the motives and background of that -- of the attacker. look, this is the age of trump, nicole. no one ever has to tell the truth in the republican party. there are still people walking around saying that antifa and false flag fbi backed operations were responsible for the insurrection, which is the largest crime in our history. don junior in the transcripts to the committee said it's the media's fault that the whole riot and deaths happened that day. so republicans are not going to have a problem lying and distorting this. what's problematic is that

they're in a real state right now of paralysis as a party. they don't know how to make sense of the results of the midterm elections. many of the elites and the establishment figures want to move on from trump and don't know how. the base is mad at the remaining elites and establishment figures. and everyone is really coming at each other. and what those people who want to move on from donald trump are trying to do is assuage those trump voters, and they will, either by their silence or outward support, continue to support this very dangerous attack on the fbi as the kgb, and all of this reckless characterization of law enforcement, because they want to appeal to the trump voter as they think that they can get away from donald trump. >> barbara mcquad, quickly to you, i know that the fbi is made up of individuals and

professionals with the constitution afforded to to endure this, but there's also a threat environment, nearly unprecedented against the fbi and the irs, which is the ripple effects that we uncover the day we learn about them, but then they recede. and people live with this elevated threat of violence to themselves and families for the foreseeable future. what impacts does it have? >> it makes it more difficult for them to do their jobs. difficult to retain top talent in addition to the modest pay and dangerous circumstances you work under, you're getting threats, harassment and vitriol, that's not a good job. it also makes the country less safe. the initial trial in the plotters of the kidnapping of

gretchen whitmer, ended in a hung jury. and it was because the defense was saying the fbi set up the defendants. people are less likely to open the door when an fbi agent comes knocking asking for information about a kidnapping or any other crime. so it not only makes it harder for the agents to do their jobs it makes our nation less secure. >> no one is going anywhere. when we come back we'll have more on the mounting concerns that house republicans may pose major hurdle to the rest of us wanting to fight domestic violent extremism. plus the all hands on deck effort to help ukrainians facing a harsh winter and a humanitarian crisis growing every day. we'll talk to dr. irwin redliner. and the aftershocks of the january 6th report, what one federal judge said about the report and what it may mean for the criminal culpability of

those involved in the insurrection. we'll discuss with zoe lofgren. all of those stories and more when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. r 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. waiting. sometimes it's just inevitable. but if you're over 50 or live with a chronic condition,

waiting could be deadly. because conditions like heart disease or diabetes raise your risk of serious illness or death from untreated covid. and if you don't get treatment within days, you may not be able to get treatment. so, got covid symptoms? get tested and get treated right away. it can't wait.

today's hearing is but an attempt to blame republicans for the horrendous acts of violence. >> this is a blame republicans so we don't have to take responsibility for our own defund the police and soft on crime policies. >> i think one, if we look at the type of people committing the crimes, the breakdown of the family. and, of course, we have people here who stood with black lives matter, who initially was

opposed to that. >> just to be clear, that was a hearing this month on the topic of antilgbtq violence. and yet, true to form, republicans were eager to play the victim card and the change the subject card and the anything but let's solve the problem card. blaming the rise in crime on defund the police, migrants crossing the border and the breakdown of the family. we're back with our panel. donell, what is the -- you know, as a student of some of these structural problems, how do you get to the beginning of combatting this line where the ideology triggers violence or the ideology seeps into the mind of someone who is unstapable and capable of violence, which seems like a very complicated, very intricate and very sort of all hands on deck mission. how do you begin to tackle that,

if again, you have this refusal to look in the mirror and say as a country we have a problem with extremism and its capacity to spill into violence? >> the first thing we do in intelligence in homeland security we look at the threat environment. i point you to poverty law center report that indicates that from 2008 to last year, anti-government groups increased by 300%. and so, whereas we had in 2008 about 150 now we're looking at about 500. the threat environment is rich right now for this type of activity, violent extremism. it comes from, obviously, politicians, it comes from conservative media. but it also comes from the internet. it comes from the dark and deep web. sites we've heard about. the lack of content moderation.

and the fact of the matter is, and i hate to say this, hate sells in this country. and many see the vision of america as an enterprise that can gain them either votes or clicks or cash. and we don't have to look that far past someone like nick fuentes or someone in this threat environment that are stoking this type of hate. we have ignored a domestic violent and domestic extremism problem for many years and it's coming back to bite us because they're enabled by technology, particularly the social media aspect but also you have people who are so called influencers who are stoking this. the last thing i'll say is that the part that i find interesting once again as a student and a professor of homeland security is this constant friction between security and safety. and privacy, civil rights and civil liberties. there's never any equilibrium.

there's a very limited time between the time they decide to go operational and they become violent to intradigit them. they also hide behind the second amendment and these groups for decades have amassed weapons and tactics, techniques and procedures that make them very, very lethal now. >> yeah. first amendment they're talking about, the second amendment while they're planning it and the right to privacy they don't see in reproductive rights when they're operational. it's amazing. pete, i want to read you revelations to the january 6th report that we haven't got to yet. mitch mcconnell of all people was on the phone with donald trump's national security add adviser warning that exmilitary was a threat to joe biden. two days after pro-donald trump rioters attacked the capitol,

then national security adviser robert o'brien got a call from mitch mcconnell and an aide who asked him to look into something he'd be hearing. retired military personnel sympathetic to president trump might be trying to stop joe biden. there were reports of ex-military sympathetic to the president. there were concerns about navy seals. that's from politico about the o'brien transcripts being part of the final report. i know the right went nuts when the new defense secretary and pentagon leaders sought to examine extremism in the military. and i wonder, pete, what you make of our ability to at least shine a light on it as a first step to combatting it. >> nicole, that episode with

mcconnell is absolutely chilling. i think it is an area that i'm concerned about about radicalization within the military ranks and law enforcement as well. but you're right. when you look at the last national defense authorization act passed a couple of weeks ago, there were several measures maybe six or seven, that had funding for the department of defense to do studies and look at the phenomenon of radicalization within the officer corp. and enlisted corp. to see how big the problem is. but because it's a political issue all of those measures was stripped out of it zeroed out the funding proposed for even just taking a look at the problem to figure out whether or not it was an issue, how broad an issue it was, and what might be done. we're not going to give money to take a first look at that. the issue at the end of the day, i agree there's a profit motive but also a political motive. we had marjorie taylor greene and mark meadows talking about the qanon saying these are my

people. >> my people. >> there are people in congress who have as their constituents who put them into power, qanon and these other extraordinarily dangerous groups who have violent ideologies at the fringes. so it's not just a profit issue. it's a political power issue as well. before we do any work to look at this, you have to have some sort of political will to do it and i just don't see that coming out of the republican party, at least not for the next two years. >> a.b. it seems like voters intuited some of this, but it seems like there's an opportunity for democrats to be blunt with the american people. not all republicans are domestic extremists, prone to domestic terrorism. but all the domestic extremists posed to domestic terrorism are republicans says chris wray. >> right. i see the average house member trying to make that case to the american people is not going to break through the way that

merrick garland and chris wray and joe biden are going to. and they are really boxed in, because republicans are exacting this leverage that's being described here on our -- on our -- on the biden administration, on the department of justice and the fbi. if you have a system to track threats, to school officials and school board members and school nurses, you are, quote, targeting and censoring republican voters. if you prosecute people who tried to overthrow the election and were responsible for the deaths of several people in the insurrection at the capitol, they are political prisoners. everyone is a martyr as described by the republicans. and all of the use of our justice system to bring them to justice is -- is an abuse and republicans are not going to go after the threat of domestic

extremism, which is a threat around the country to the american people. and they will never, as pete just pointed out, touch the internal threat, the radicalization of law enforcement and military from within. we have one party abdicating their oath to the constitution and duty to keep americans safe and to have an effective and trustworthy and credible government. and the political power of their narrative is so energizing to their quasi-violent base is extremely troubling and i think they have a very strong upper hand. >> barbara, as everyone is talking i'm thinking about cassidy hutchinson's testimony about what donald trump said, about his armed supporters on january 6th. when he said take down the mags and let them in, they won't hurt me. do you think the why is that republicans think they don't

represent a threat to them? i still struggle with the why. >> i think they see political advantage in protecting that group, and advancing that narrative. i think that donald trump has been very successful in exploiting differences in this country. they were already there, differences between conservatives and progressives, but donald trump has done all he can to stoke those divisions and push people to more extreme versions of themselves. and to put them at war with each other. when i was in college, i'm sure you thought this as well, nicole, you could have different views on things like affirmative action and abortion and immigration and gun control. you might be in favor of one, opposed to another. but now it is all or nothing. you are for us or against us. and political rivals are not just political opponents they are demonized, they are the enemy. this is one member at a trump rally who said it's team trump

versus team lucifer and it's not difficult to decide. when there's that stoking and the demonization of the other, people are turned against their neighbors and friends. it reminds me, nicole of the work we did in the bush administration and obama administration against extremism and violence but it was focused against al qaeda and nobody had a problem with it. now it's the oath keepers and the proud boys and everyone is abandoning their responsibility to the people. >> thank you all so much for starting us off. barbara mcquad sticks around. after the break for us, the lies keep piling up, a new one today from congressman-elect george santos, republican from new york. now reportedly the subject of a federal investigation. we'll tell you about that next. t

♪ 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.

ooh, we're firing up the chewy app. can't say no to these prices! hmm, clumping litter? resounding yes! salmon paté? love that for me! essentials? check! ooh, we have enough to splurge on catnip toys! we did it, i feel so accomplished. pet me, please! okay that's enough. now back to me time. luv you! great prices. happy pets. chewy.

a must in your medicine cabinet! less sick days! cold coming on? zicam is the number one cold shortening brand! highly recommend it! zifans love zicam's unique zinc formula. it shortens colds! zicam. zinc that cold! >> so this guy begins with a disservice unable to discharge his duties as a representative having to deal with all of these legal problems. they are playing for time. kevin mccarthy cannot afford to lose a republican vote in his quest for speaker on january 3rd. i believe despite the very serious legal and political problems that mr. santos has

they're going to do everything they can to get through the next two years. >> that was former democratic congressman steve israel. he once held the seat to which george santos was elected in november, explaining why the house gop seems willing to tolerate what has become an endless stream of embarrassing lies and complete fabrications by republican congressman-elect george santos. but even if house gop leader, kevin mccarthy is willing to give him a pass for the sake of getting his vote of being elected speaker. back home in new york, santos is under intense scrutiny from the state ag, from a republican da on long island and now from federal prosecutors interested in the money trail. the u.s. attorney's office in brooklyn is investigating his financial disclosures with many questions and few answers from santos about loans he made to his own campaign. nbc news reached out to the house gop leadership but has yet to receive a response.

george santos has also not responded to request for comment but he has apologized for lying in a recent interview. joining us now washington post's correspondent phillip bump and barbara mcquad is still with us. >> phillip, a bookend to our last conversations about republicans and will tolerate everything. enter today, george santos and his revelations. i think today it was about where he went to school. >> earlier this year i would have said that herschel walker was the best test to the strength of party. but i think the george santos test is one how the party responds and the push to maintain partisan advantage. we could spend the hour talking about the various things that george santos has claimed that has turned out not to be true. but the test is, does the republican party, establishment itself see him as so toxic they

have to take extraordinary steps to keep him from being a member of the caucus or do they not do that? i think steve israel is right they don't do that. but as things pile up, it exposes this party, the same party reticent to do anything in response to marjorie taylor greene and other actors who have made various claims, what's the stand they're going to take now with santos? what makes him different from these other folks? i think we'll see partisanship again shine through. >> barbara mcquade, i want to share what we know to be under scrutiny or examination. mostly around some of his filings and his finances. it's the campaign finance forms for his 2020 campaign, a campaign he lost. he lists no assets and a $55,000 salary. by 2022, he lists a salary of

3.5 million to $11.5 million in salary. it's a big boost in two years. and then he loans his campaign more than $700,000. dan goldman on this network said earlier, either he let donors give his company to the money and then transferred it to exceed campaign finance limits or it made that money and illegally funded his own campaign. what do you think investigators are looking at? >> i think they want to look at the source of the funds. was it a straw donation funneled through a corporation or himself or is there some more nefarious explanation where it's coming from. how did he come into $700,000 he was able to lend to his campaign. one thing prosecutors are always interested in is whether there is foreign money coming into an election. because that can buy influence that can be used against the

best interest of our country. i think just looking into pure wire fraud is a possibility here, in addition to the campaign finance laws when you use a lie to solicit money from others, that can be wire fraud. >> i think that's what was described as the big grift in the january 6th public hearings. >> yes. >> phillip, i guess my question as we -- as people covering this focus on this investigation, back to the politics, does it matter politically? >> i mean, first of all, the house republican caucus is covered by the fact they can't prevent him from taking a seat. powell versus mccormick, 1960s established the house can't stop him from being seeded. so the question is will the house ethics committee or another entity vote to oust him

from congress. that's unlikely. i think right now republicans are in a difficult position, they have no idea what else he lied about tomorrow. kevin mccarthy is not going to come out tomorrow and say i know george santos got this money legally. he'd be a fool to say that based on what was proven to be untrue. so we don't know what's going to happen once he's seeded. because we know he will be seeded and the bar is high enough that it's difficult to remove him from office -- there's a razor thin majority in the house, to make that decision it seems likely we'll see representative santos in office at least for months or years. >> it's almost just a joke that writes itself, you know. a qanon supporter, an insurrectionist and a liar walk into a bar. it's a crazy spectacle to watch. phillip bump, barbara mcquade, thank you for this conversation and for your coverage. still ahead a massive wave of russian strikes this morning

intended to plunge ukraine deeper into a humanitarian crisis. we'll talk to a man who's at the front lines to aid ukraine. s toe tide pods ultra oxi one ups the cleaning power of liquid. can it one up whatever they're doing? for sure. seriously? one up the power of liquid, one up the toughest stains. any further questions? uh uh! one up the power of liquid with tide pods ultra oxi.

citizen towns all across ukraine are in the dark, literally. after nearly 70 missile strikes and what ukraine's defense ministry describes as one of the

largest attacks since the beginning of the war. the strikes are just the latest in months of attacks in ukraine's energy grid. the strikes are intended to leave millions of civilians, millions of people without power in now brutal winter conditions and to worsen the humanitarian crisis on the ground in ukraine. about 9 million ukrainians, including well over a million children, are right now without electricity, heat, and access to safe drinking water. let's bring in public health analyst, professor of pediatrics with the albert einstein college of medicine. also cofounder of the ukraine's children's action project, a mission designed to provide urgent mental health and support to displaced ukrainian children. dr. redliner, i hoped that your heroic mission would at some point not be so desperately needed. but it seems as i watch and follow your activities, the need only grows. tell me what's happening,

especially with kids in ukraine right now. >> right, hi, nicolle. it's really extraordinary. this is the most desperately brutal civilian catastrophe for 85 years, since the germans started moving across europe with its own devastation. this is horrendous. these children and families are at real risk now. we were initially focused on educational continuity and psychological prowess, still big needs. however, the humanitarian crisis is absolutely overwhelming. we have people that are starving and freezing and they don't have communication. it's really pretty terrible. and we've stepped up our efforts to try to address as many of these problems as we can. >> dr. redliner, one of the things that seems -- i know more evidence is needed. but one of the things that seems so clear, that putin's strategy, as he stumbles on the battlefield, is to target and

terrorize the civilian population, is the suffering of children, of children freezing to death and having access to clean water. what, in your view, is sort of the missing piece between a greater international outcry or stronger sanctions, even, against putin's russia? >> well, i mean, i think really we should do everything possible to try to help the ukrainians. but i would note, nicolle, this is actually fascinating. when president zelenskyy was here addressing congress a week or so ago, he exhibited extraordinary leadership and resilience and defiance against the russian invasion. but the interesting thing is that the civilian population of ukraine reflects exactly that same kind of personal resilience and resistance. and they're going to keep fighting, and they want this to go on until the russians are expelled from their country. and by the way, the protection of ukraine's democracy is really important for the protection of our own democracy.

and this is why zelenskyy made that point. this is not just charity. this is about ukraine being on the front lines of a battle that really engages the u.s. and all the west. so, we need to really step up the support militarily, of course, but also from the humanitarian point of view. they need generators. they need wood burning stoves. they need winter clothing for children. and this is where we're trying to help as much as we can as an organization. >> and i think kids, especially ukrainian kids, they're probably capable of understanding all that. at the same time, the trauma they're enduring is likely unimaginable to most americans. can you speak about that? >> yeah, it's amazing. there's actually millions of children now that have been traumatized. don't forget, a lot of these kids and families who had to escape with their lives from eastern and southern ukraine have come to western ukraine for some degree of safety. and now the russians have undermined that safety by bombing western ukraine, lviv,

and so on. this is why, by the way, we're also focused on the ability, the resilience in treating the trauma. by the way, john cusack, the latest board member of the ukraine children's action project, is specifically focused on things like treating trauma in children. and we need to step all that up as well as the generators. it's all important, nicolle. >> let me take a second to tell our viewers how they can help. thank you for spending some time with us, dr. redliner, to talk about it. if you would like to help the children of ukraine and families in ukraine during this harsh winter and in all the conditions that dr. redliner describes, you can make a donation to the ukraine children's action project. the website ukrainecap.org is up on your screen right now. the next hour of ded line white house starts after a very quick break. don't go anywhere. very quick break. don't go anywhere.

♪ 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.

♪ music (“i swear”) plays ♪ jaycee tried gain flings for the first time the other day... and forgot where she was. [buzz] you can always spot a first timer. gain flings with oxi boost and febreze.

it's just completely clear that he had culpable criminal intent. he knew he had lost the election. he knew the crowd was armed and dangerous. he said, take down the mags. these were his people. they weren't going to hurt him. he unleashed the crowd to go and fight like hell, and then said when fraud is involved, there are very different rules that are allowed and so on. i mean, it's just -- it's just an open and shut case from my perspective. >> hi again, everyone. it's 5:00 in the east. an open and shut case against the ex-president, says january 6th select committee member, jamie raskin, coming to that on

collusion only after 18 months in a deep and thorough investigation that is wrapping up in the coming days. the committee is set to officially dissolve when the congressional session expires, when republicans take control of the house. the case of the former president's conduct is now in the hands of federal prosecutors at the u.s. justice department, who will make the historic decision whether to criminally charge an ex-president. in its final days and weeks, the select committee has sent doj its recommendations for the criminal prosecution on donald trump. it is making public thousands of cases of transcripts of interviews of key witnesses. inside those pages, revelations like this, how labor secretary eugene scalia pushed to convene a cabinet meeting after january 6th to demonstrate a commitment to an orderly transition, only to be strongly rebuffed by the ex-president, as scalia feared

trump was continuing to get bad advice from sources outside the administration. earlier today, the latest batch of transcripts were released, nearly 20 of them. among the transcripts was the committee's interview with ray epps. epps is a capitol rioter who became the target of a right wing conspiracy spread by some, including some sitting members of congress, that he was secretly working for the government. quote, the only time i've been involved with the government was when i was a marine in the u.s. marine corp. the select committee withdrew its subpoena of the ex-president yesterday, citing the committee's imminent end. politico reports on a federal judge citing the committee's referral in his opinion, quote, u.s. district court judge john beats, an appointee of president george w. bush, ruled alexander

shepard should be prohibited from making the public authority defense because there is no evidence trump told his followers that entering the restricted grounds on january 6th was legal. in fact, his incendiary rhetoric, especially telling his supporters to, quote, fight like hell, may suggest trump was asking them to break the law. the select committee's finding that trump violated at least four federal laws in his crusade to subvert the 2020 election. and it is an early window into how the judiciary might interpret the unusual findings of criminal violations by a congressional committee. and it is where we begin the hour. joining us, congresswoman zoe lofgren of california, a member of the house select committee, a frequent guest. to have all of this out and to not have to cry in places you don't want to get ahead of the rest of your committee members is a privilege. so, thank you for being here

today. i remember asking you i think almost a year ago -- it couldn't have been that long. but months ago about the decision to take the depositions, which was so earth-shatteringly dramatic and impactful in the public hearings. you sort of very, well, we thought -- that was you. that was you. that was your -- >> yes, it was. >> -- your sort of recommendation. what can you say about that and the impact that it ultimately had? >> well, we had a bunch of former u.s. attorneys doing very capable questioning of witnesses. ordinarily the u.s. attorneys don't video tape the witnesses in their proceedings, but this is different. and when i found out they weren't being video taped, i said, gosh, we've got to do this. and i was told, well, we don't have the equipment. you know, you've got an iphone. i mean, video the interviews.

and clearly, we were not going to be able, looking at the number of people we needed to interview, to have them all appear in a public hearing setting. it was just too voluminous. and it would be important that we have videos of these interviews because the transcripts are important. but sometimes the body language is important as well. and of course the fact that we had videos made it possible for us to put together, i think, compelling hearings with their testimony. and you could see there were a couple of times prior to the videotaping, mr. donahue and rosen, we just had pictures and audio. but i'm so glad that we enacted the video policy so that we would get all of this captured. >> obviously in television, it's

so valuable to have the pictures of these people, not just in their own words but in their own voices and watching them. i mean, seeing bill barr call donald trump's delusions of having won b.s. over and over again on camera was priceless. and i wonder -- the story now is more public about how a very accomplished television producer entered into the committee's life. and when he said, what do we have, some of what he was able to do was to edit, to splice together trump insider after trump insider after trump insider saying yes, he knew he lost. how do you know? because i told him. what do you think -- as you look at where the committee ended, which is something that seemed like it wasn't predetermined at any point -- you'll tell me -- before criminal refers for the ex-president. what was the impact of being able to share with the whole country what donald trump's closest advisers thought he had

done? >> well, i think it was important. i think you asked me early on what would be a success of the committee. and i think i said something to the effect that reenergizing the passion of the american people for their democracy would be part of the success. and i think our hearings helped to do that. people understood because of the testimony that there had been a threat to our democracy and it was coming from republican insiders who were the witnesses. it wasn't democrats. it was republican members of the trump world that were telling us what they had seen and what they had done. and i think it was very compelling. and it had an influence on people, understanding, you know, right or left on the political spectrum, we better cherish and protect our democracy.

>> when liz cheney first started reading from the criminal code, i think i first started peppering you with questions about where that was heading. i think it was months later the "new york times" reported that criminal referrals were on the table. until the final time we got to talk to you, the committee didn't get ahead of its opportunity to hear from the subcommittee, which you were a part of with three of your other colleagues. but can you take us now inside the decision to make those four criminal referrals? >> sure. it was important to us that we not recommend anything that wasn't tethered to the facts that we had uncovered. and so we went through and the staff was very helpful. as i say, a lot of former u.s. attorneys on the staff assembling. the facts that we had uncovered and then comparing those facts to the criminal statutes.

and it was a lengthy process, but it was important that we act carefully and that we got get ahead of where the facts were that we had uncovered. so, in the end, the subcommittee was -- bennie thompson said, well, all the lawyers on the committee will be the subcommittee. and then we presented it and went through it with the other committee members. as i think i've mentioned, i don't think -- other than the votes we had in public, we never had official votes. we just talked through issues and reached consensus. and that's what we did in this case as well. >> i asked congressman raskin what the raskin standard was for criminal referral. and he said basically what you just said, which is clear in the result but the unanimous decisions around these, but that you wouldn't referral the ex-president for any crimes that you didn't think you had the evidence to support.

and i think some of the drama was around the inclusion of insurrection. can you explain how that became one of the four crimes that were referred? >> well, when you take a look at it, you know, it's a serious offense. some of the, lack of a better word, the foot soldiers have now been faced and been convicted of insurrection. so, we did want to examine the instigator, who was the former president, ex-president, instigated this entire thing. and what was his culpability there? so, we thought it was important that not just the people who did what he told them to do but the ex-president himself be examined from that point of view. and we think we found ample evidence, certainly for giving aid and comfort. and we think potentially

inciting as well. >> i wondered and i wanted to ask you today, the first public hearing was of the capitol police officers. and it will be seared in my memory for the rest of my days of harry dunn and michael fanone and the other officers. they've become unbelievable and probably unwilling narrators to this horrific attack and what they were subjected to. but harry dunn says at that first public hearing, go find the man who sent the hit men. how much did their presence and their role influence -- how did you carry their presence and the trauma they suffered with you, as you did your work as a committee? >> well, you know, obviously we were assigned this task by the congress, you know, so it wasn't just the officers. but we were mindful of the tremendous trauma they had been through, the sacrifice they made

basically to save our lives. the officers attended most of the hearings. and i had a chance in most of the hearings to talk to them after the hearing was over, one or more of them, to get their take, to see how they felt about it. i had a chance to talk to officer hodges briefly and ga nell after the last hearing. and i think they had a sense -- i think one of them told me that, you know, the committee has done its job. and i felt gratified that they had said that, that they felt that way, that we discharged our duty, of course. and they say, now it's up to the department of justice. >> officers dunn and fanone for very explicit in feeling that unless doj holds trump accountable, then doj would not have done what the committee has done, its job. what is the -- i mean, what is the hope now in terms of what doj does with the evidence,

particularly around the four crimes that the committee's referred? >> well, they have, you know, their job to do. the legislative branch can't instruct them. but they've got to sort through the evidence and see if they believe they have evidence sufficient to convict. and that's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. if they don't think they are able to convict, then they won't make a charge. and that's the standard, whether it's, you know, a garden variety crime in a town or whether it's the ex-president bringing us to the brink of a coup, you have to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. and they'll have to sort through that. there are a lot of other individuals who have engaged in misconduct. as you know, we referred several others, but also noted that we

didn't mean to exclude others because we had just mentioned their names. but you can see, as you read through these transcripts, there is a whole bunch of problematic behavior that i think the department of justice will be looking at and, where appropriate, bringing charges. >> cassidy hutchinson's testimony was one of the most dramatic moments of the public hearings. her transcript is almost as dramatic. i mean, there is evidence of multiple crimes from multiple people, lawyers telling her to just be loyal, messages coming in from trump and mark meadows. are those the individuals you're talking about when you say there are people whose crimes have been raised and eliminated for doj? >> among them. i mean, honestly, i wasn't able to attend the first september testimony interview that she had. but i read the transcript the next day. and i just thought it was jaw dropping what she revealed.

really, it read like a mob family. i mean, it's really shocking stuff. and i started thinking back to the prior interviews that she had with the committee and the interventions her then-lawyer was making that pretty much masked the description of what she was telling us in september. so, you know, that's now in the department of justice hands or the various bar associations. but, you know, apparently, at least the testimony she gave, what she was told, was that someone -- and it appeared to be the ex-president -- was reading the transcripts and the information was being shared. and she was, you know, carrot/stick. she felt threatened.

she was also promised a really good-paying job where she'd be very comfortable if she just did what she was told. really shocking stuff. >> brad raffensperger, his transcript is shocking in the same way. did you feel threatened? yes, i felt threatened. and it's a federal crime to threaten an election official. will you feel the way officers fanone and dunn have said they will feel if charges are not brought and prosecutions are not made of donald trump and mark meadows and his chief enablers of the coup? >> i -- i will be satisfied if the department of justice approaches this with courage and vigor. they've got to reach the decision, not me. and of course we've also got proceedings in georgia under state law going on in terms of the interference in georgia. so, i just want to make sure that the prosecutors take this seriously, that they're not

afraid to act, if the evidence is present at a standard sufficient. and we'll go from there. you know, i can't -- you know, we spend so much time on this. we have -- i thought we made the case. we've provided just a huge amount of evidence, and there's more to come. the footnotes are not included in the transcripts, so all exhibits are going to be released in the coming days pretty soon. so, there's even more material that will be available to the public and to the department of justice. i think it's pretty clear what happened here, but they need to make their decision. >> i have changed the ink on my printer twice now, as i keep printing these massive volumes. it is clear that there was so much information that you were all trying to protect, as the investigation was ongoing. so, for always coming on and being a good sport and sharing what you could and taking our

questions before the report was complete, i just want to thank you today. >> well, thank you very much. it's been, you know, a tremendous honor to be a part of the committee. and i've enjoyed being on with you and telling you what i could while trying to be careful not to violate the committee rules. >> you're not off the hook with us yet. as we get through it, we're going to keep peppering you with questions. congresswoman zoe lofgren, thank you so much for starting us off this hour. >> you take care. >> thank you. joining our conversation, "new york times" congressional reporter, bob -- luke, you had the best behind-the-curtains reporting. at no point did we know everything that they knew. and congresswoman lofgren was such a good sport about fielding the questions and saying what she could and couldn't say. when you read what they had and what they were sitting on until

the end, it is an extraordinary portrait. as she said, that hutchinson transcript reads like a crummy script for a mob family the way they talked to her. >> actually the committee had so much evidence, it would be hard for any individual person to know it all. you had close to i think 80 staffers if you count the contractors and the staff of the different members working on this case and doing all these interviews. i mean, just in the past couple of weeks, we've had 13,000 pages of transcripts released. and there's so many different threads to follow, whether it's the security failures or the financing of january 6th or the extremist groups or inside trump's inner circle. so, the amount of work and evidence that they have accumulated i think is without precedent in congressional history. and we're still learning more of

it, the fact that they have more exhibits to put out, the fact we have 20 new transcripts a day. we've probably got 200 more transcripts coming by tuesday. you know, i still think there are still new revelations to learn, new details to uncover, and many more stories to write. >> i think that's absolutely right. and every transcript has something in it that answers -- closes a loop or answers a question that was sort of on the table in terms of what this committee had gathered and how it intersected with other pieces. glen, i wonder -- and i constantly remind myself and my viewers, and the congresswoman just said it. the investigation was conducted by former u.s. attorneys and assistant u.s. attorneys, so the documents they're turning over will be very recognizable and very much up to snuff at doj. they are in some instances likely their former peers. what is the dynamic of a

congressional investigation going so deep and so far ahead of the doj? >> you know, i think it's fair to say, nicolle, it's unprecedented. doj typically takes the lead in investigating federal crimes. when i was a federal prosecutor, we very much wanted to keep other organizations away from our witnesses. the witnesses that we would have to rely on in future criminal trials, we wanted to be the one to lock in, so to speak, their testimony. we wanted to craft it -- and i don't mean in a nefarious way. we wanted it to be full, accurate, complete, truthful, and corroborated by what we knew other witnesses and other documents were telling us as part of the investigation. but i will tell you, nicolle, i've been very heartened by what i've seen of the january 6th committee's work and its report. and let's face it. it is headed up by the chief

investigative counsel tim iffy, one of my former rico partners at the d.c. attorney's office and a long-time friend. and i can see the way he and his team of former federal prosecutors have crafted this investigation. and i think it's going to be really effective now that all of this evidence and information is being handed off to the department of justice. it's almost like a second criminal investigation has been conducted, and now doj just has to pick up the ball and run with it. >> yeah, i want to press you on that. i think luke broke the story with his colleagues about mr. iffy and his federal investigators' use of criminal investigative tools. so, i want to ask both of you to help me see where the evidence of the tools are in this report. we'll have much more on what is next for the january 6th investigation and what we can expect from the justice department and special counsel

jack smith. also ahead, the future of reproductive rights in our country after the supreme court overturned roe this year. we'll take a closer look at where the battle over abortion rights heads in 2023. dedline white house continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ter a quick b. don't go anywhere. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity research shows people remember commercials that lets you place, flatten, owith nostalgia.s so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual!!! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

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.

if you run a small business, can take one to four days to fully work. 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.

chairman thompson, distinguished caucus, vice chair liz cheney, and all the members of the committee for their persistent patriotic leadership. the 107th congress began with a violent assault on our

democracy, and now we hear its conclusions. we have a vital roadmap in ensuring justice will be done and that this won't happen again. >> we're back with luke and glen. it is an optimistic thing to say, right, that we hope it won't happen again. the truth is the final report has all sorts of loose ends about republican members of congress. luke, what is your sense of what this new term holds for the members of the select committee? >> obviously republicans will be in control of the house. they've already pledged to investigate the investigators. so, we can see why the january 6th committee is rushing to get these transcripts out before congress changes hands because they are concerned that if republicans get ahold of them before they're released, they will cherry pick certain facts, certain evidence, put it out, and try to embarrass the january 6th committee. so, they are trying to get everything out the door quickly

before congress turns over. but, you know, they will have to, i think, fend off some of the attacks from the republicans over the next two years. we saw jamie raskin get elevated to be the top democrat on house oversight. i believe his colleagues think that he is a skilled defender of democracy and of democratic principles and that he is the person that can best defend them from some of these attacks the republicans will be leveling. obviously he's undergoing treatment for cancer. so, you know, all the well wishes and prayers go out to him. they're going to have to brace themselves. the tables are going to be turned. they're going to be -- the republicans are going to have power, and it's going to be a very different atmosphere on capitol hill. >> i'm struck by how many republicans made this 875-page report what it is. they're not just conservative

republicans. they're trump republicans. and yet none of trump's allies in congress dane to voluntarily come in and visit and sit with the select committee. what dynamic does that put into motion in the new year? >> you know, i think a troubling dynamic. you know, when you talk about threats of investigations being launched against the investigators, that runs a chill up my spine because i think about my time as a federal prosecutor. when i was assigned a case to investigate and i would do by diligent and ethical best to investigate it to an appropriate conclusion, and i have to tell you, nicolle, if i had somebody come in behind that and say, glen, now we're going to investigate you for doing your job and investigating suspected crime, that's kind of a recipe for law enforcement chaos and anarchy and perhaps paralysis. if you know that, you know, as a

public official, as a public servant, you're going to get criticized and perhaps investigated for doing a job you're trying to do honorably and ethically -- i mean, i hope we've learned our lessons from what seems like a complete failure of the durham investigation to investigate the investigators. it really came up with almost nothing. some important minor misconduct that was addressed. but let's hope that people take a step back and learn those important lessons. >> i want to follow up with you, glen. i mean, as you look at the -- and to luke's point, you can feel the frenetic pace of pushing all their content out the door so it is all in the public arena. and that was reports of republicans want to investigate the investigators just broke. their plan was always to get everything into public view. when you see the content of these transcripts and the degree

of brazen criminality, brazen witness tampering, brazen efforts to refuse to stop an insurrection, brazen acknowledgment that the eastman project was illegal, but let's go with it anyway. what do you think doj -- you have to triage all of this evidence. what are you diving into first? >> yeah, the triage piece is a real challenge because, you know, the department of justice has its hands on or will soon get its hands on some 1,200 transcripts. and they're going to have to pretty quickly assess which ones are most important for their criminal investigation. but, you know, the work has sort of only just begun when they get those transcripts because then they have to get the witness in, they have to review the transcript, they have to build on it if need be in the grand jury by presenting that witness anew to the grand jury. now, i will say, we often present witnesses to a grand

jury when we're in possession of prior transcripts from other agencies or organizations. and if everything is in that transcript, we can simply call the witness before the grand jury, have them adopt the transcript as the substance of their grand jury testimony, and perhaps ask a handful of follow-up questions to further develop the record if need be. so, these transcripts are sort of a blessing and a curse. there's so much information there that i'm sure will be helpful. but, boy, it's going to take some time to really fully include it in the grand jury presentation. >> and, luke, congresswoman lofgren was a little circumspect and a little zen about what doj ultimately does. other members of the committee have been forward leaning. liz cheney saying if there isn't prosecution of trump, it really calls into question whether the rule of law is alive and well in america. what is your sense of the diversity of opinions among the

committee members themselves and the investigators about whether or not trump is now prosecuted? >> right, i mean, i think they wouldn't have made the referral if they weren't all in unison that they thought he committed federal crimes and should be investigated and potentially indicted for them. they may have different approaches in terms of their tenor and how aggressively they speak about it. and some have to be brought along about the criminal referrals. some didn't view it as their role in congress. they didn't view it as the legislative branch's role. but i think what won out in the end was that if you've done all this work, if you've done all these interviews, collected all these documents, and you've built what you believe is an air-tight case, and you can make the legal argument that they believe could go before a grand jury right now, then why wouldn't you present this evidence in the form of a criminal referral to the justice department? in some ways, they believed it was their duty to do that.

so, i think that, you know, if the justice department does not take a case to the grand jury against trump, i could see, you know, adam schiff and some of the other members of this committee being very critical about merrick garland and the justice department. and you can see sort of a specter hanging over his head where congress has amassed all this evidence and the justice department hasn't done anything with it. and that really being a public problem for merrick garland. so, i would -- it would not surprise me at all if the january 6th committee, even in the minority, if those members continue to put pressure on merrick garland and to try to encourage him to pursue an aggressive investigation against donald trump and his allies. >> thank you so much for being part of our coverage today. when we come back, 2022 was the year in which millions of women all over our country lost the right to abortion health

care. now both sides of the debate are gearing up for the next phase of this fight. where the battle of reproductive rights goes in america in the new yore. that conversation after a quick break. don't go anywhere. break. don't go anywhere.

a must in your medicine cabinet! less sick days! cold coming on? zicam is the number one cold shortening brand! highly recommend it! zifans love zicam's unique zinc formula. it shortens colds! zicam. zinc that cold! ♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us.

it has been just over six months since the u.s. supreme court stripped away the constitutional right to abortion

in america. child rape victims have been forced to cross state lines to access health care or worse, carry their rapist's babies to term. the women who were forced to carry unviable pregnancies, becoming sicker and sicker and sicker, risking life long injury or death. sadly, it's only the beginning. "vice news" is reporting that the antiabortion rights movement is not done yet. they will only get more draconian in their proposals heading into 2023. states with first trimester bans are likely to consider total bans on abortion. legislators have already floated attempting to restrict people going out of state for abortions. some activists are suing people from being able to discuss abortions. and antiabortion rights advocates are suing to revoke fda approval for the abortion pill, which could have nationwide impact on abortion access and health care. joining us, president of pro

choice america, and dr. kavita patel, former obama health policy director, msnbc contributor. i want to start with both of you before we get into the politics, which for republicans are abysmal, but they are undeterred with what's happening in the country to women and children. just tell me what the picture looks like, especially in the states with the most restrictive bans. >> right now -- thanks, nicolle, for having me. "vice news" and your coverage couldn't be more accurate. we've got 17 active abortion bans right now. we've got various litigation in various states. that number keeps ebbing and flowing, but about 17 right now. we're looking at potential bans in alaska, florida, north dakota, montana, ohio, virginia, and georgia, where we just had some really tough election

results. and we know, for example, in georgia that governor brian kemp has made it clear that he's open to additional bans on contraception and ivf. what we're looking for in 2023 is doing everything we can to expand rights for states friendly in reproductive freedom, prevent harm, and gain ground in states that are challenging, states i just mentioned, and prep for 2024 when we have a chance to win back the house and pass federal legislation that could protect and restore roe but also expand nationally and help us with issues like travel and access to contraception, which are on the table and legislative fights we're going to have in congress next year. >> what's so chilling is you're describing the best-case scenario is women, in lots of instances, vulnerable women, low income women, having to flee their states. and what the republicans seem to be proposing are bans to trap

them there. tell me how that plays out. who gets access to health care and who doesn't? >> it's not a hypothetical anymore, right? in georgia and texas we've had these laws on the books for quite some time now. i hate to be a broken record, but you have to look at my home state of texas to understand the consequences. we're already seeing in a place like texas, where one out of ten american women live, very, very challenging stories, some of the most terrifying stories of folks being forced into birth, restricting access to procedures they need that are life-saving, like cancer treatments, being prosecuted for miscarriage management, doctors being afraid to do their jobs. it's already happening in texas. and i want to make a note -- you know, you've covered it really well. the states that have the worst abortion bans and access issues are the states with the worst investment for maternal health and child care infrastructure and paid family need. so, these are bad states for

women, period. >> dr. patel, i want your sort of take from inside the physicians' offices. what are doctors, especially in states with these draconian laws, what are they facing in terms of the limits of how they can care for their patients? >> inside many of these states, nicolle, they're facing not only -- we've already seen cases brought by the state attorney general and have already tried to take away not only physicians' licenses but there's criminal statutes in place so that these are physicians -- not justify situations, but anyone in their care team or anyone helping an individual to access reproductive rights, that they could also have criminal penalties against them. monetary, civil, and criminal. all of that adds up to putting health care professionals in a state of quandary. in fact, in a survey of medical professionals done in idaho and tennessee, two states where it has not been a short history of targeted regulations against abortion providers, but there

have been so many back and forth decisions and state legislatures and conclusion that even health professionals said that they didn't know what the state of the law was and that they would likely default to doing the least until they could check with hospital counsel or with somebody. and could you imagine? so, what's happening is not only are there women and transgender individuals who can't access their health care. but on top of that, even if you try -- you make it to an emergency room, there is actually a timeout and a pause moment where teams are having to find out if that individual is in such a dire situation that their life is in jeopardy and then having to make clinical decisions. and we have a recently released study yesterday from the university of pennsylvania that says the states that have the targeted regulations on abortion providers, that we see an almost 6% higher relative suicide rate in patients. this isn't just hypothetical. this is numbers showing that people are dying.

>> i mean, the anxiety and the fear is being created. it seems to be the point on the right. they're now targeting access to googling or trying to get information online about abortion pills, trying to target that content the same way they target child pornography. it would be great if they could target insurrection enthusiasm with the same technology, but that's not their plan. dr. patel, what's on the table in terms of making access to abortion medications more difficult and out of reach and potentially illegal? >> yeah, so, already we've seen that there is attempts in different states to actually change -- even though the fda has reinforced, the department of justice, health and human service, centers for medicare and medicaid services, almost every agency and jurisdiction has already vocalized that it is

legal across state boundaries, especially through telemedicine, which is also legal for all circumstances right now because of the state of the public health emergency. but the ability to even just describe medications or drifr medications across state lines is being called into question as well as providers within states. if i am a patient inside a state where i want access to a medical abortion, there is potential laws on the books at the state level -- this is going to play out at the state level. the federal administration has weighed in that this is legal, this is safe. they can do everything they can to scare not just the providers, but to scare people from seeking out this information. so, all the targeted ads that we would normally hope could reach people in places they are, online shopping, those things. you're seeing those things being taken down because people are afraid anyone putting up those ads will be targeted. there are many of us who are trying to figure out how to help

not just the states we have seen these draconian laws being proposed or passed, but even in the states like maryland, where i enjoy the rights to do a lot of this, but providers are feeling slightly defensive. we have to make sure we reinforce what is safe and healthy and accessible. and all three of those terms are being redefined by poll situations, not doctors. >> i want to turn to the politics of this next. i'm going to ask both of you to stick around. a quick break for us. we will all be right back. all b.

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.

we are back. mini, i want to ask you this question -- the entire time i've work in the politics, the supreme court has been a motivating issue for the right, something that they feel puts them on offense with their voters. the largest structural change in politics in my life is that the supreme court is now a political deadweight. it's approval dropped more than 40 points in less than 20 years. in one year, down 11 points from 2021 to 2022. we did coverage yesterday about asylum seekers that have support of 55% of all americans. the supreme court made it difficult with title 42, which has the support of only 21% of americans. the irony of such a popular and untrusted body making decisions that cost mitch mcconnell the majority a second time, it would

be funny if it wasn't doing so much harm to american women, but i wonder what your thoughts are about maintaining the political momentum of policies and politics. >> it's such a great point. one of the things you probably saw a lot of our organizations calling for after the explosive "the new york times" report about the hobby lobby leaks and the long extensive infiltration of the court by anti-choice extremists is the fact that a lot of organizations are calling for more aggressive investigation of this court. the house judiciary did something last month -- earlier this month, which was a really effective start. we'd love to see senate judiciary do an in-depth investigation. for reproductive rights advocates, it's important to note the two significant leaks, hobby lobby and dobbs were done in reproductive rights cases and were created, it sounds like, by anti-choice extremists

infiltrating the court. so the credibility of this court is very much up to question. advocates and al lice of our organization want to see it questioned and want to see congress take a more aggressive hand and the politics around the court are going to be critical for how democrats are going to be seen by activists and their base of women voter who is narrowly helped them hang on to the senate and narrowly lost the house. we have to show them we're fighting for them, and there's a real opportunity here. >> dr. patel, i think of justice sotomayor's comment about the stench of the dobbs case everyone making it to the court. she was wasn't maligning her colleagues. she was talking about the state legislature until gorsuch and kavanaugh and coney barrett were seated. the stench in the eyes of voters is this feeling that it's all rigged, that these extremists, who are passing abortion bans

out in the states that ban access to abortion, even in the case of life of the mother, rape, and incest -- those are opposed by 85% to 90 americans. and that's where this republican party is heading. ou keep the disparity between what is a legitimate debate about access to abortion with the extremism that's been ushered in by this supreme court? >> i mean, just -- i don't know how to keep that disparity from widening other than to say that we have to just get raging mad, and when i say that as a health professional, i try to keep politics out of the exam room, but vi too many feelings we're considered separate and unequal, and that stench carried over. regardless of your politics you should be disgraced by the fact that someone is singling out not just the best science, the best medicine, but your rights, and i think that's the stench that

needs to carry over. we can't relax on what we have had. we have to fight forward. close that disparity and show the country that something's possible when you all kind of gather around, regardless of party politics, to do and stand up for what's right. >> yeah, and i always think about the fact that roe and casey were decided with justices who were appointed by republican presidents. it's not about just the makeup, it is the makeup of this particular supreme court. do you have any closing thoughts about sort of heading into the new year with protecting women and talking about this in a productive way in mind? >> just to piggy back off your last comment, folks forget richard nixon was the person who shepherded title 10, a fundamental funding stream for contraception that's under attack. barry goldwater was a famous pro-choice republican. there were times we had famous pro-choice republican leaders in this country, and i hope we can

get back to that. my closing thoughts for 2023, the elections aren't over, unfortunately. i know people are tired. we have a state supreme court fight in wisconsin. if we can flip it, we can fundamentally reshape abortion rights in wisconsin. we've got three special elections in the pennsylvania house that if we lose, if democrats lose, an abortion ban would ricochet through that legislature. so it's not over, folks. then we'll be working really hard to get it done. >> we're not tired. thank you so much for spending time with us. to be continued. quick break for us. we'll be right back. we'll be ri.

my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... the tightness, stinging... 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. ♪♪ what will you do? will you make something better? create something new? our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you. when dehydration gets real... hey! that's mine. i'll buy you a pony. advanced hydration isn't just for kids.

pedialyte helps you hydrate during recovery. i screwed up. mhm. advanced hydration isn't just for kids. i got us t-mobile home internet. now cell phone users have priority over us. and your marriage survived that? you can almost feel the drag when people walk by with their phones. oh i can't hear you... you're froze-- ladies, please! you put it on airplane mode when you pass our house. i was trying to work. we're workin' it too. yeah! work it girl! woo! i want to hear you say it out loud. well, i could switch us to xfinity. those smiles. that's why i do what i do.

that and the paycheck. thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. we are grateful. "the beat" with katie phang in for ari melber starts right now. hi, katie. >> thanks, nicolle. i'd like to wish you and yours a happy new year. >> to you, to. >> thank you, nicolle. welcome to "the beat."