hi there, everyone, and happy, happy new year. it is four income the east. when the clock strikes noon tomorrow, the 118th congress will convene for the very first time. in accordance with the 20th amendment ensuring another era.

for the january 6th select committee, the ticking clock has prompted a last-minute print to share with the american public everything that they've collected. this morning, the committee released yet another enlightening batch of transcripts from interviews with some of trump's closest allies. testimonies from people like ronna mcdaniel, kellyanne conway, and katrina pearson add new context to trump's state of mind in the lead-up to january 6th attack. however, the information we learned today was very important, this morning's release was follow-up to a veritable mother load from the committee shared overnight. a now public database of investigators' underlying evidence, as well as some of their sources and methods. thousands of pages of phone records, text messages and emails. think of the committee's work like this. a master architect constructing a new home. a tom firm ground, they set a solid foundation. it raised a frame and with

meticulous craftsmanship, it built a structure that ought to last a century or beyond. last night's list amounts to a list of every bit of nail, pipe, lumber and concrete used in the construction, a list of load-bearing elements packed to the brim with eye-popping details. in the formation, a summary from our friend kyle cheney at politico reads, quote, trump lawyers strategized with federal courts to see which ones would be most likely to uphold their fringe constitutional theirs. trump white house battled to keep fringe theorys from reaching the president's ears and west wing aides sent horrified messages about trump's incendiary tweets and action. some allies discuss continued efforts to derail the incoming biden administration. this contemporaneous evidence does much to undercut testimony from trump's closest allies. for instance, this. former deputy chief of staff anthony ornato seemed to square

under oath he could not recall conversations about moving the mags at the ellipse, that he could not recall any conversations about trump taking a walk down to the u.s. capital that day. text messages providing to the 1-6 committee by cassidy hutchinson dated january 6 reveal he did talk about it with her and perhaps with then lead secret service agent robert engel as well. there is so much more where that came from. we'll share as much a of it as we can. it also sorts something many of us have known all along. donald trump summoned the mob. he assembled the mob, and he lit the flame of the deadly attack while the people around him largely stood by and watched. it's where we begin today with someone of our favorite reporters and friends. kyle cheney is here, the senior legal afires reporter from politico. he has been covering the january 6th investigations. also "new york times" justice department reporter and msnbc contributor katie benner is back. miles teller also here, former

chief of staff at the former department of homeland security and barbara mcquade is also back, a former u.s. attorney, now law professor at the university of michigan. also an msnbc contributor. kyle, we've relied on your reporting as these batches of transcripts and sort of the raw evidence has been released in a frantic push by the committee. take us through what for you are the highlights. >> sure. i mean, this whole batch of evidence i would argue is probably the most significant thing they've released so far. as you said, it's the raw underlying material that they used to craft their report. we've been reading transcripts for days now. but all of that is people's foggy memories of things that happened almost two years ago or more. this is the contemporaneous evidence, what people were thinking at the time, the conversations they were having with trump, about trump, around trump, on the way to january 6th. and so you have things like dan

scavino, his social media aide telling someone several weeks after january 6th. by the way, he writes all of his own tweets. and that was in the con sex of discussing the be there, will be wild tweet on december 19th. that to so many people coming to washington, d.c. for that day on the january 6th. so little insights that the committee, some of it was in their public hearings, but a lot of it was not. >> you know, kyle, something that was notable, at least half of the members of the committee who appeared on the show very confidently asserted that someone at the secret service was lying. it's clear that that someone very well may have been tony ornato and his "do not recall" was not a credible answer in some of their questions inner this depositions. that a fair read? >> yeah. they'll say as much. they said -- i think even the report they said we don't believe that tony ornato doesn't remember some of the stuff he claims not to remember. how do you forget some of the stuff? they sort of shrugged and said we don't know for sure, but we don't really trust his lack of memory on some of these key

issues. as you pointed out, the contemporaneous texas sh texts w he was engaged in these conversations in realtime as opposed to this years later. >> katie benner, all the questions this evidence has poured out is how much and when will doj dig their fingers into it. do you have any indication that cassidy hutchinson is a critical witness in any of doj's criminal investigations related to 1/6? >> sure, i'll take your question in its parts. first of all, the justice department does have all the transcripts and information now at its disposal and is going through it. cassidy hutchinson would be a very good witness, and i'm sure she is somebody the justice department would want to speak with. but i think what we see, especially from the transcripts and text messages and the white house phone logs that's very intriguing, you kind of see the problem that emerges for the justice department. and the issue is whether or not they can speak to somebody like cassidy hutchinson. it's whether or not any of the people at the heart of the

conversations going on around trump will speak to the justice department. so when you look at the call logs, a very, very searing example is trump speaking with brad raffensperger in georgia, trying to get him to undo the results of the election there to find him the votes to make that possible. and then he goes and speaks with ruud rudy giuliani, steve bannon. if they want to move forward with any prosecution. even though cassidy hutchinson is a great witness in terms of bringing to light what was happening in the white house, the sorts of conversations that were happening around trump, when you're talking about a conspiracy that involves donald trump possibly and others, you really need to understand what's happening in those conversations. and we see from the transcripts the committee was never able to get some of those folks to be forthcoming. they also forget things. rudy giuliani conveniently forgets everything. they plead the fifth. nor the case of meadows, they don't cooperate at all.

so it's to be seen whether or not the justice department gets more fort coming answers from those people. and if it doesn't, i don't know that even a witness like cassidy hutchinson would be able to get a jury beyond the idea of reasonable doubt what was going on in the room in these conversations. >> so i guess this is where the questions move toward what will doj do to penetrate that black box that katie benner is transcribing. describing. >> first, i don't know that it's necessary to penetrate every black box. there are times when there are conversations between co-defendants that you can never penetrate. but the choices you often represent to people would you rather be a defendant or would you rather be a witness? so people like mark meadows maybe decides they want to have a political future. i don't know you're ever going to want steve bannon to cooperate. and rudy giuliani strikes me as someone whose credibility mic might be questionable. but you can build a case even without getting to that inner circle. sometimes the circle just

outside that circle can be just as valuable. people like kenneth cheesebrough the people working at the next level. especially when you have things like text messages and email messages, those things can be used to corroborate the testimony of the people at that next level. and, you know, as kyle was saying, these text messages are like truth serum. people may tell you they don't remember things. they don't deny things. but things they said in the moment, those contemporaneous communications usually do not lie and share great can door. the other thing i think the justice department is likely to do is to pour over all of these transcripts for nuggets of information they can use to build a case against witnesses who are just sharing facts. one new one today is one of ronna mcdonnell who shared conversations with eastman and donald trump about soliciting fake elects or the. there is not just one call that john eastman led, there was a second call where she was back

to donald trump to get an update on what was happening. she talked to his campaign lawyer justin clark about the progress. so testimony like that, which is basically innocuous on its face can be very valuable to the justice department in putting together all of the pieces here. >> yeah. and i meant to ask all of you what pieces of the testimony stood out. katie, i missed that with you. what for you added to your understanding of something you've covered before or didn't know? what sort of piece of evidence or full transcript added context to something for you that you think is notable? >> i think when we were reporting the story at the time, it was really interesting that the folks closest to donald trump and even in the outer circle, people working in the white house like mckennedy, they were really adamant that all was going well, things were normal up until january 6th. and even then, you don't see a lot of public statements coming from folks in the white house, but you see privately that they

really understood the gravity of the situation. they had regret about having let the situation go this far. that there were questions about what happened to them next. interestingly, i found it really surprising that so many of the -- that so many of the biggest concerns were like things about their own job prospects, what would happen to them and their representation, more so than, for example, whether or not the attack was a huge blow to democracy. so it was like really interesting to sort of see the psychology of some of the players that we've been reporting on, especially since there was sort of somewhat of a wall in that moment about what was happening in the white house. >> i mean, with that as the frame, i mean, miles, i found this exchange between hope hicks and somebody who worked for ivanka ghoulish. there were police officers being speared with trump flags. some of them had been shot i think by the time this exchange i'm about to read is sent.

and to katie benner's superb point, no one was asking if the officers were okay. nobody was asking how many of their own supporters have been injured. nobody was asking -- what they're talking about are ongoing interview processes that are thwarted or in danger. let me read this text exchange to you this. is hope hicks and julie radford. she was i believe ivanka trump's chief of staff. hope hicks -- all of us that didn't have jobs lined up will be perpetually unemployed. i'm so mad and so upset. well all look like domestic terrorists now. now is such an interesting word, miles. bradford replies, oh, yes, i'm been crying for an hour. hope hicks -- she has no idea this made us unemployable. god, i'm so f'ing mad. >> julie radford. i know. like there isn't a chance of finding a job. visa also sent me a blowoff email today, dot dot dot.

already. hope hicks -- no, not being dramatic, but we are all f'd. alyssa look likes a genius. she resigned in early november. she was white house communications director. she is now co-host on the view. >> what most stood out, it was that exchange. you know why, because when hope hicks said that, it was deeply ironic for another reason, and that's because as you and have i talked about through the years, the trump administration at the highest levels all the way up to the president didn't want to look into domestic terrorism. in fact, they were averse to investigating domestic terrorist groups because they saw them as supporters and not as suspects. so it's deeply ironic that in one of the final weeks of his presidency, a top adviser says "we look like domestic terrorists now." well, yeah, because you didn't do a whole lot to unravel those

plots. and in fact, your boss helped foment them. i think that's a really damning piece of evidence here. it goes back to broader point that this is more than just little snippets. this is going to be information that's very useful in helping the justice department find new leads, find new targets and actually present compelling evidence in court of wrongdoing. and it's why i predict that this year will really be the year of justice against donald trump and his allies. and what the january 6th select committee did is they took us to the source. they didn't take us just around donald trump or in his inner orbit. they took us directly to donald trump himself and they took out the guesswork. we don't have to say i think it's colonel mustard with the candlestick in the library. they showed us that donald trump knew that there was wrongdoing in his mind-set all throughout. i think that is extraordinary, and it's probably given the justice department a very big jump on this investigation overall. >> i'm still getting through some of the transcripts that

were released before this morning that sort of the dump. and what's amazing is how much the committee had, miles. when you look at how much sort of tick-tock of the inner works. and i'm cognizant of the importance of katie benner's point in terms of charging and prosecuting a criminal conspiracy. but in terms of the doors getting pride open, it is so clear that cassidy hutchinson's change in representation and it seems like her testimony plus mark meadow's texts are the key to unlocking the locks for the committee. what is your sense? do you agree with that assessment? and what is your thoughts that meadows and cassidy hutchinson's full testimony? >> i'm going take an unexpected route here. i think the testimony itself is going to be very, very helpful to investigators and also to prosecutors. but here is what we're not talking about. there are a whole bunch of names that are likely to come up that

we haven't heard before in a trial against trump, a potential trial against trump or his associates. and those are the people who right now at this very moment are deciding whether or not they're going to do a barber set. if they're going to be witnesses or defendants. i think that's what's really interesting here. i think the mark meadows texts or cassidy hutchinson's testimony is giving those people hopefully motivation to come forward and tell the truth. because it's clear from the select committee's reporting that there are people who know things and are either lying about them or are really reluctant to share information. and now that information is coming out, those folks can decide whether or not they want to go out there and be on the right side of history, for they want to be behind bars. i think when those people make up therapy minds, it's going have an impact on this investigation. and certainly the justice department is going to put pressure on them by approaching those people and giving them that choice that barbara laid out that hopefully they're smart and forthcoming and we see people come forward. there is still an opportunity for that to happen and for that

to dramatically change the game. >> okay. i'm sorry to jump around, but barbara, i have to come to you and ask you to name names. which people would be most valuable if you're sitting at doj of that group that miles described? >> well, i think -- i don't know if they're unnamed, but there are a couple of names of people we haven't heard from yet, dan scavino, peter navarro. the justice department has the ability to compel their testimony. they can grant them immunity and have them testimony. the only reason they can't testify in that point would be to go to jail. because once they're granted immunity, it trumps their use of their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. so people like that, i also imagine look at some of these text messages will reveal people who had communications that can be helpful. although this is the opportunity for the rats to avoid the sinking ship and come forward to be witnesses instead of defendants, i think the justice department can make this case even without them.

i think the simplest path to doing that is an obstruction of an official proceeding or a conspiracy to defraud the united states. none of them requires this inner sanctum stuff. it was all done in broad daylight. it was a crime and it can be prosecuted right now. >> and i think katie benner, you're the one that's reported that mike pence hasn't ruled out being responsive to invitations to potentially talk to doj. is that right? >> that's correct. i mean, mike pence, he is also probably going to be thinking about running for president, possibly running against donald trump. and i think that he wants to leave all options on the table open for himself in terms of how this would impact his own political future. but he has already in public statements drawn a pretty clear line in the sand that what he thinks former president trump did is wrong and what he did is correct and he'll want to stand by that. i think if the justice department wants him to talk than more, it would be hard for him i think to move away from that stance, especially if he is

complying with a legal request for information. >> kyle, i want to ask you what else we're waiting for. the committee has hours, not days to release everything else. what sort of big ticket are yet to be released? >> i mean, at this point, if we haven't seen it, we may not see it. the. >> right. >> the committee actually said today they're preparing to ship everything to the national archives that hasn't come out. that may be a tricky process. the republicans are considering efforts to try to undo that and return all the documents to them when they take power. so that may be a fight to come. but i think anything that is not publicly released by the time the new majority takes over is sort of of banished to this secrecy for a while in the archives, barring some other unexpected events. i think we've seen, as you said, there is an enormous pile of information that we're all still combing through. >> yes. >> i don't think we've seen everything that has been posted.

but it's not -- i think that may be the bulk of what we end up seeing. >> i told congresswoman zoe lofgren i've changed the ink cartridge several times with everything i've been printing over the last two weeks. all right. i'm going to ask all of you to stick around through the break. when we come back, we're going to talk more about what the justice department's next moves may be now they're in possession of all of this evidence. weeze also show you what one member of the select committee says would be the right thing for the doj to do. it's charge the ex-president. spoiler alert. plus, not so fast for kevin mccarthy. the republican house speaker has already made the move into the speaker's suite on the capitol hill today. but there is a very real possibility that he might have to pack his stuff and move back out. we'll talk about the chaotic effort going on in his own caucus to keep him from becoming speaker. and later in the program, a warning from the former capitol police chief about weaknesses that remain to this day, almost two years after the deadly capitol attack. all those stories and more when

"deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. it has been a long road, but now i'm working for schwab. i love to help people understand the world through their lens and invest accordingly. you can call us christmas eve at four o'clock in the morning. we're gonna always make sure that you have all of the financial tools and support to secure your financial future. that means a lot for my community and for every community. i'd like to thank our sponsor liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. contestants ready? go! only pay for what you need. jingle: liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. - elites. now that we've made travel so expensive, only pay for what you need. this golf course is all... ours? - how'd you get here? - kayak! they compared hundreds of travel sites to find a great deal on my flight, car and hotel. [hissing]

- kayak. search one and done. ♪3, 4♪ ♪ ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪ 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. just look around. this digital age protein, we're living in, of protein, 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. 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! if this is not a crime, i don't know what is. if a president can incite an insurrection and not be held accountable, then really, there is no limit to what a president can do or can't do. so yeah, i do think ultimately when we get to where we're going to go, i think the justice department will do the right thing. i think he will be charged. and i frankly think he should be. >> in other words, doj, your move. we're back with the panel. i mean, barbara, liz cheney and

adam schiff and adam kinzinger have been the clearest that in their view, the right thing is charging donald trump with crimes related to january 6th. the impact is more than nothing. but what is -- what is sort of the space between these really clear clarion calls for the right thing being a criminal federal prosecution of donald trump for his role in january 6th? >> well, when the justice department makes a decision about charging, it actually answers two questions. one is can we charge that is there sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a con vixz. it's a little different than what the committee did. they have to be able to answer that question. the second question is should we file charges here. i think that when these calls and public support is supportive of charges, i think that does help in the equation, because the justice department has to consider whether there is a substantial federal interest in prosecuting, and whether there

would be any negative collateral consequences to a federal prosecution. certainly the idea of prosecuting a former president brings with it concerns. but i think there is a groundswell of support for doing it. i think that does augur in favor of prosecution. i also think that the most important thing that this committee has delivered is not so much the recommendation as all of these fax. when you look at these fax, it becomes very clear to me that there is a very strong case for a conviction here, and therefore a prosecution. now certainly there may be things unknown to me, and there may be more steps that the justice department needs to do. but at least with regard to the conspiracy to defraud the united states and the obstruction of an official proceeding, it seems that there is abundant evidence of criminal liability there for donald trump and for others. >> yeah. and miles, the sort of confidence in the quality of the evidence has also been verified or echoed by a federal judge. so you've got the one branch of government, the congress. you've got the second, the judiciary committee year saying

there is ample evidence that felonies were committed. i want to ask you, though, to take a step back. i had "the godfather" one and two on as i was cleaning up from the holidays in my house yesterday. there is no escaping the fact that trump's inner circle acted like a mob family where everyone was loyal to the boss, there were consequences and they were petty and personal and nasty if anyone's loyalty came into question. the litmus for every decision was not competence or qualifications or experience. it was always fealty. what to you is sort of the answer of getting this right and sanctioning behavior that is both corrupt and criminal? >> well, i'll continue the analogy, nicolle, and i would say if you don't go prosecute a mob family, you set the precedent that they can continue their corrupt behavior and continuing on barbara's point, if a decision is made not to

prosecute, i think that's very damaging to the justice system overall, because it says there are two tiers of justice in our country, and presidents and their allies are exempted from justice. so i think it's critically important that actually trump be charged, and i say that as someone who was a republican, someone who worked in his administration, and at the largest law enforcement department in the government, which is actually the homeland security department. and i think he needs to be prosecuted. but also what also worries me going back to your analogy about crime families is they also carry out acts of revenge after they are taken down. and i think the watch word in this period is going to be revenge. we're going to see republicans of the house launch this revenge effort to dismantle what the january 6th committee did. i worry that's going to be on side by side with the justice department prosecution against trump and his allies, and it

will damage public perceptions of the justice system which is something we can't afford as a country. >> miles, let me push back gently. i agree with just about everything you've said. but they've already done it. they've already threatened the lives of the fbi agents who were involved in the mar-a-lago case. they've already threatened the irs. they've threated all that related to the mar-a-lago probe. they've already threatened every member of the january 6th select committee. they successfully ran liz cheney out of office. they've encouraged the retirement of others. all that's already happen happened. so why don't we ever get to the point where everyone is going to do the right thing? >> yeah, i think you're right. it's not the reason not to do this. it's the reason they need to go forward with the prosecution any way. because if people don't end up behind bars because of this, it's going to justify all the behavior you just mentioned. we have seen individuals show up with ar-15s and nail guns at fbi field offices to try to kill agents. we have seen judges threatened with assassination.

we have seen trump and his allies talk about dismantling the courts. i was there before all this happened when he said he wanted to, quote, get rid of the judges. this is a very dangerous group of people who wanted to regularly engage in illegal activity, and they need to experience the consequences of that. and their maga supporters, especially elected ones in the house, need to see the consequences of embracing that type of activity so that it's discouraged, dissuaded and punished in our political system. katie benner, before the january 6th select committee sort of roared into action, you were covering the senate judiciary committee's investigation into similar actors and actions. and i wonder, and i think mr. donahue was one of the first people that senate judiciary got to interview and sort of debrief. and i wonder with your perspective of the first efforts by congress to investigate january 6th through these final hours of the existence of the 1/6 select committee, what your

sense is of how much you're in the business of unearthing information people don't want unearthed. what is your assessment of how successfully congress has unearthed information about january 6th? >> i would say that congress has done an excellent job of bringing information to public light. there is no doubt than. and i think that on that measure alone, both the senate and the house have done an extraordinary job of allowing the american public to see for themselves exactly what happened in the final days of the trump administration. so i think this is an important, important step. but what you and barbara and miles have been talking about is this larger conversation about what does accountability mean. and we've seen at every turn, political accountability, which if you go back and read the constitution, a huge and important piece of accountable for any elected official, you will lose political power if you do not behave and act and work within your one job which is to defend and uphold the constitution. you should lose political power. but that has not happened.

i think it's one of the big reasons we're seeing such a push for the justice department to come in and be the arbiter of justice of last resort, because the political system in this way seems to not be working. so we do have congress coming out and delivering tremendous amounts of information to the american people. but how voters use that information and whether or not people within the republican party are willing to use that information in order to reform their own party so that things like an attack on the constitution do not happen from within the white house, that's to be seen. and so without political accountability, yes, it's true. we're left with the justice department. it's a slower process. it's an uncertain process. and it's one i'm very hesitant personally to say will happen in any one way or another. i don't want to be predictive here. i think that happened during the mueller era, and i think it was something that really hurt credibility for the media, hurt credibility for the justice department because predictions, while they seemed on their face to make a lot of sense, at the

end of the day, we really didn't know what was going to happen until prosecutors and the leader of that investigation made their final decisions. >> well, appreciate all your candor. i think that's absolutely right where the mueller probe was concerned. and just to look back at history, kyle, to katie's wise point, i think geraldo and sean hannity have had this conversation on the airwaves. that if fox news was around or sean hannity were specifically around during nixon's watergate crisis, nixon would have made it. one of the big differences. because i think katie is right. there is an undue burden on doj to solve our country's intractable political problems on one side of the aisle because voters don't reject corruption or potential criminality. but the reality is you sort of take the evidence to doj and the times in which you exist. these interest times in which we exist. what is your sense as we come to the final hours of the 1/6 committee which you have covered

brilliantly? >> yeah, i think they have essentially done what they can do to sort of pass that torch. they've sort of treated themselves as the preliminary investigation that is now in doj's hands. and i think in some ways, that is something they were publicly trying to avoid, even if every step they took was kind of in that vein. you had liz cheney saying over a year ago she thought donald trump may have committed elements of federal obstruction of an official proceeding crime. so they've been sort of operating in that direction for a long time. and i think, you know, they've begun sharing their transcripts now. so much of it is public that the doj has this enormous trove. doj's investigation, we should say is actually fairly advanced compared to what we know publicly. we know that mike pence's top aides have gone in. there has been secret court fights to invalidate trump's claims of privilege over some of these witnesses. i think dan scavino and stephen miller and these other high level trump aides have gone in

for some degree of interview and investigation. so i think doj is pretty far along the path, at least toward making a decision. again, like katie, i would not be predictive, but i think the decision would come sooner than later early in the next year. >> kyle cheney, katie benner, miles teller and barbara mcquade, thank you so much for starting us off and having this conversation with us. and happy new year to all of you. up next for here, kevin mccarthy's republican caucus is threatening the very institution they've been tasked to lead. their first vote tomorrow is to elect a house speaker. what that is shaping up to look like, and what it says about the year ahead that story is next.

tomorrow is a big day on capitol hill. a new congress begins. a divided government returns, one-half of which is already in complete and utter chaos. it will also be the make or break moment for kevin mccarthy's desperate fight to lead the republicans if he gets elected speaker. how he gets elected speaker will be telling. the last time a hopeful speaker failed to get enough support on the full ballot was in the year 1923, exactly 100 years ago. and it's not unlikely to happen tomorrow. at least nine members are saying right now that mccarthy still hasn't done enough to earn their support. far more than the four he can afford to lose in the vote. it comes even after he made his

biggest concession yet to their demands for a chaotic alternate reality leadership kind of situation. that's addition to the five never kevin members who would rather vote for an election denier and accused insurrectionist than hand mccarthy the speaker role. listen. >> i he is part of the problem. he is not part of the solution. i suspect 10 to 15 members who will vote against him on the first ballot tomorrow that will vote for andy biggs. >> joining our coverage, anna palmer. she has covered congress and this leadership for more than 15 years. she knows exactly what is going on today. she is the founder and ceo of punch bowl news. and charlie sykes, now the editor at large of the bulwark. both are msnbc contributors. tell us what's going on. did we get that right? >> yeah, it is a very crazy situation where we have r coupl

over this break do everything he can to try to appease those conservative members of his conference to try to get on board with his speakership. so far we're hearing that that is not -- it's not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. there is still that crowd of the handful of five, but it's even growing in terms of potential members who are not going support him. he says he is feeling good about it. they're going continue to have maybe stay in for multiple ballots. but it's truly unprecedented here. the thing that's been pretty interesting to watch is how many concession mccarthy has made. he's made concession, given up a lot of things that he said were deal breakers for him, things he wasn't going to do when it came to the motion to vacate the chair, for example. he has changed that threshold to say okay, not just a leadership person, but any five members want to do it. i'm making concession around who can be a part of some of these big committees. so there would be more conservatives on these

committees. it is unclear what if anything at this point he can do to secure the votes to actually appease these members of his conference. >> charlie, other than a kidney or a lung, it's not clear there is anything left to give away. let me read some of what anna is talking about. punch bowl reported mccarthy has reversed direction on the never change the motion to vaik vacate, the procedure under which a speaker can be removed. he is also sort of flirting publicly now with the kinds of questions for more from matt gaetz, negotiating in public, which is never a sign of strength. and if you think about the ultimately ill-fated speakerships of boehner and ryan, he would be weak were a wackier caucus. this seems like an ill-fated cruise. >> it's humiliation all the way down. so what he is doing is he is trying to shrink himself into power, which is a very, very

interesting strategy. look, kevin mccarthy is a holloman and a weak political leader. and what's happening now is members of his conference are testing to see exactly how hollow and week he is, how far can they push him, what kinds of concessions will he be willing to make, how far will he go to weaken himself in order to get this speakership. but what's also on display pretty obviously is how dysfunctional this new majority is and how the demands will be to turn the republican-led house into a dysfunctional body. because some of the objections are personal. obviously a lot of them are ideological. but at bottom, it appears to be a demand that kevin mccarthy not be tempted to actually engage in the act of governance, of making bipartisan compromises. so we are about to go in a period of about 24 hours from one of history's most powerful speakers to one of the most

feckless speakers. and it will be interesting to see if he is able to survive, how long he is able to hold on. i mean, you already have people comparing him to that head of lettuce that was in competition with the last prime minister of britain. who is going to last longer, the head of lettuce or the prime minister? who is going last longer, the head of lettuce or kevin mccarthy, if he should end up as speaker. >> you know, anna, it's so interesting, because it feels like we've covered the most humiliating phase of kevin mccarthy's career, the picking out the starburst flavors that trump liked, the saying one thing on all the calls with the members about how the 25th amendment was too slow. trump needed to go faster than that. and then being the human resuscitation for trump. but it's clear that the most humiliating part of kevin mccarthy's career is happening right now, today and tomorrow. what are the likely scenarios for the next 24 to 48 hours?

>> yeah, what's really stunning here is the fact that there has been no one in the republican conference that has done more to get republicans in this majority position. he raised tons and tons of money over this last election. he visited all of the districts. he was throughout on the stump living on an airplane, trying to get republicans in the majority. and at this point, it's unclear what if anything could be enough. so the question then kind of comes to, one, does he stay in? does he have some embarrassing two or three votes and able to do some wheeling and dealing on the house floor tomorrow, or does he at some point have to say you know what? i'm not going to be the guy. and that really, really scrambles things. because the reason why these conservatives are having such a hard time with this issue is because there isn't anybody else running who is a credible candidate against kevin mccarthy. so when you look down the line, is it going to be a steve

scalise, for example? elise stefanik? what happens with other republicans? and are they going to be able to find someone even within that day if he is unsuccessful to actually run for the leadership position. >> you know, charlie. >> yes. >> the red wave didn't happen because voters rejected the exact ideologies of the people that kevin mccarthy is empowering. what is sort of the larger meta political peril of what kevin mccarthy is doing right now? >> well, he's going to let people know what republican gove like in 2023. look, think about an alternative reality in which republicans are in a very, very good mood. and this is a day of celebration for them as opposed to a day in which the knives are going to be out. and i think that for the next two years, this is going to be on display, because these divisions aren't going away.

here is his speakership will rest on the support of people like marjorie taylor greene and george santos. these now become the faces of the republican majority. and he will be too weak to defy any of them. what you're seeing is a very real maga crackup when you start to see marjorie taylor greene fighting with lauren boebert. but the american people are going to be sitting back, and swing voters are going to be going who are these guys? what is this clown car that is just driven into washington, d.c.? and obviously kevin mccarthy has wanted this job for a very, very long time. you have to wonder whether there is a part of him deep down inside thinking is this worth it? i think probably not, because he is such a holloman. and by the way, i mean, adding to the layers of self humiliation that he may be subjected to over the next 24, 48 hours in the next two years is the fact that my understanding is he has already moved into the speaker's office. his stuff is already there.

if this could go badly for him, he is going to have to move his stuff out. you might have tomorrow end with kevin mccarthy walking out of the speaker's office with all of his personal artifacts in a cardboard box. i mean, that's where this may lead, on a day that should have been the celebration of the red wave. so, again, it's an interesting strategy to self humiliate your way into power. it does not appear to be playing out well for him. >> that's amazing. it is just amazing. karma is a you know what. anna and charlie are sticking around. up next for us, the house is looking likely to collapse or at least be very messy, over in the united states senate, the republicans in the minority are acknowledging their political reality. we'll tell you what that looks like the first week back, next.

♪3, 4♪ ♪ ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪ step up. prep up. to help keep you free from the risk of hiv. descovy for prep, the smallest prep pill available, is a once-daily prescription medicine

that helps lower the chances of getting hiv through sex. it's not for everyone. descovy for prep has not been studied in people assigned female at birth. talk to your doctor to find out if it's right for you. descovy is another way to prep. descovy does not prevent other sexually transmitted infections, so it's important to use safer sex practices and get tested regularly. you must be hiv-negative to take descovy for prep. so, you need to get tested for hiv immediately before and at least every 3 months while taking it. if you think you were exposed to hiv or have flu-like symptoms, tell your doctor right away. they may check to confirm you are still hiv-negative. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. the most common side effect was diarrhea. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking descovy without talking to your doctor. ask your doctor if descovy for prep is right for you. get help paying for descovy for prep. learn more at descovy.com. ( ♪♪ ) some things leave you guessing. mailchimp takes the guesswork out of email marketing by analyzing data from billions of emails

to offer suggestions for how to improve engagement and revenue. guess less and sell more with intuit mailchimp. i'm javi, i'm 31, and i'm a fitness instructor. i saw myself in a photograph. and we were all smiling, and i looked closer, and i was like that- that's what everybody sees? i'm back, and i got botox® cosmetic. the lines were so prominent it's all i saw in the photograph, so now when i take photos, and i see myself in photos, its- it's me, i just have fewer lines. botox® cosmetic is fda-approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping, and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history. muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins.

as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. see for yourself at botoxcosmetic.com i'm a vegas hotel. i don't want anything too serious either. just a fun, spontaneous thing. some people say i'm excessive, but who cares - i'm just looking for a saturday to remember and a sunday by the pool. will you go to mitch mcconnell to his kentucky -- why is that significant to be with mcconnell there? >> there's nothing unusual about our relationship. [ inaudible ] >> president biden just a couple of minutes ago being asked i believe by my colleague kristen welker about why it's important to go with mitch mcconnell to his state. the president giving an answer

that sounded to me, we'll verify, that's what we do, we're going to his state. senator mitch mcconnell is facing the realities of his choices. another senate term as the senate minority leader. he will appear at an event with president joe biden on wednesday in his home state of kentucky to champion president he joe biden's infrastructure bill. that event, which was first reported by nbc news, will be president biden's first trip of the new year. it's part of an effort to highlight the more than 20,000 projects funded by the legislation that gets under way this year and signaling "a dual focus for a white house aiming to stay above the political fray in 2023." we're back with anna palmer and charlie sykes. the infrastructure bill is almost sort of the joke that keeps on giving. it is a bipartisan accomplishment on the part of the biden white house. but even the republican -- it's so good, it's like the joke that writes itself. how good is it? it's so good that the republicans that blocked it, voted against it, still try to

take credit for it. the truth is anybody that lives anywhere in this country appreciates effects to crumbling infrastructure, crumbling roads, subpar broadband, inadequate bridges and tunnels, and the idea that mitch mcconnell is appearing with the president, it's hard to figure out who gains the most by that, anna. >> yeah, certainly, i mean, listen, president biden wants to and has long sought this kind of idea that he was a dealmaker, that he was going to bring republicans and democrats together, change washington. this is a time where you see mitch mcconnell coming to the event which is i think a bit surprising honestly given the fact that he is not facing the kind of consternation or opposition that kevin mccarthy is but he has his own internal problems where there has been a smaller faction of republican senators who have been upset with the deal making and the future and the leadership of

this republican conference but clearly back home bills like this, bills that bring cash into the states are very popular. it's not just going to be him. you're going to have ohio republican governor mike dewine also there. two republicans coming out for this. it's a big win for the biden administration for sure. >> charlie, mitch mcconnell is in the minority for one reason. there's one reason that he's there. and it's not just the crappy candidates that he described as crappy or whatever he said about them, low quality. it is because he went to the floor of the senate and said someone else should prosecute donald trump but i won't vote to convict. that's why he's there. but he didn't appear strong to his peers in the republican caucus and he didn't get rid of trump at the moment that we all know he wanted to. so what do you make of this decision to appear with president joe biden? >> well, and he knows that as well. as donald trump in mar-a-lago continues to he throw out racist slurs about his wife. this does feel like a troll by

senator mcconnell to do this. but there's no political down side from his point of view at least with his voters because as you point out this is a popular piece of legislation. but to anna's point, this is a big win for the biden administration. i think that the conventional wisdom had been in that first year of his term that he was somewhat delusional in thinking he could cut bipartisan deals. but as i was going back over 2022, the year in review, one of the most surprising things is how much bipartisan legislation was passed in a period of intense partisanship. so this is on display. it does underline one of the successes of the biden administration. but again, it reminds folks that mitch mcconnell is charting a very, very different path than kevin mccarthy and certainly is all out of bleeps to give for the guy down in mar-a-lago and how he could react to this. >> such a good point.

and you guys had one of the best years in review. i've been pulling from it for days now. charlie sykes, anna palmer, thank you so much for spending time with us today. happy new year to you both. up next, a stunning warning from a former capitol police chief. that january 6th could very well happen again. right now. that story after a quick break. don't go anywhere. don't go anyw.

i've never been healthier. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. >> tech: when you have auto glass damage, trust safelite. this dad and daughter were driving when they got a crack in their windshield. [smash] >> dad: it's okay. pull over. >> tech: he wouldn't take his car just anywhere... ♪ pop rock music ♪ >> tech: ...so he brought it to safelite.

we replaced the windshield and recalibrated their car's advanced safety system, so features like automatic emergency braking will work properly. >> tech: alright, all finished. >> dad: wow, that's great. thanks. >> tech: stay safe with safelite. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ - life is uncertain. everyday pressures can feel overwhelming it's okay to feel stressed, anxious, worried, or frustrated. it's normal. with calhope's free and secure mental health resources,

it's easy to get the help you and your loved ones need when you need it the most. call our warm line at (833) 317-4673 or live chat at calhope.org today. we rely on accurate information from our federal partners to help us develop effective security plans. the intelligence that we based our planning on indicated that the january 6th protests were expected to be similar to the

previous maga rallies in 2020, which drew tens of thousands of participants. we properly planned for a mass demonstration with possible violence. what we got was a military-style coordinated assault on my officers and a violent takeover of the capitol building. >> hi there, everyone. it's 5:00 in the east. very soon after the january 6th attack former capitol police chief steven sund testified there before congress about the intelligence failures leading up to and on that day. he slammed other officials and agencies, saying the intelligence he was given in advance did not portray a threat like the one that ultimately came to be. and he testified about how his requests that day for help from the national guard were met with resistance. well, sund goes into even more detail in a brand new book, out tomorrow, called "courage under fire." it was obtained in advance by the "washington post." the post writes this about it. "in his account sund describes his shock at the battle that unfolded as an estimated 10,000

protesters, inflamed by dronld v donald trump's rally earlier in the day, broke through police lines and punched, stabbed and pepper-sprayed officers, outnumbering them 58-1." in the book sund describes a heated conference call with pentagon leaders about 20 minutes after the capitol had been broken into. "sund writes that lieutenant general walter piatt told him he didn't like the optics of sending uniformed guard troops to the u.s. capitol but could allow them to replace police officers at roadside checkpoints. listening incredulously and trying to explain that he needed help to save officers' lives, sund said he felt both nauseated and mad as hell." "it's a response i will never forget for the rest of my life, sund writes. while on the call sund recalls hearing the frantic voice of an officer being broadcast into the command center, quote, shots fired in the capitol. shots fired in the capitol. sund's anger boiled over and he

shouted the report of gunfire into the conference call. is that urgent enough for you now? then sund hung up to deal with the new crisis." sund describes the insurrection to the january 6th select committee as a colossal intelligence failure. according to transcripts released just last week. also released at that time the transcript of the committee's interview with d.c. mayor muriel bowser where she attributed some of the lack of preparedness to incorrect assumptions about the crowd. about the rioters bowser said this. "people thought they were friendly to law enforcement and that they loved their country. i think our experience with them in december showed us that they were antagonistic to law enforcement." she was then asked this. "and you say intelligence failures. what do you view the intelligence failures to be and who." to which she responds, "that people didn't think that these white nationalists would overthrow the capitol building." that is where we begin the hour.

former fbi counterintelligence agent pete strzok is here. also joining us tracy walleder, former cia officer and former fbi special agent. rick stengel is here, former top state department official as well as an msnbc political analyst. i want to start with muriel bowser's interesting point because it seems to boil down the crux of the problem. and you can call it an intel failure. you can call it an assessment failure. you can call it underestimating the violent capacity of white nationalists. but she put it pretty simply. they underestimated the capacity for violence and the hostility to law enforcement from white nationalists. pete strzok, is that fair? >> i think it's one possible explanation, nicolle. look, the point of january 6th, looking at the law enforcement response, is there were a wide variety of issues. and i think in terms of there were some hard acceptable issues and some hard unacceptable issues. there are things like do we need to rebalance civil liberties when it comes to looking at domestic terrorism threats, do we need new domestic terrorism

legislation? when we look at sort of the command and control environment of washington, d.c., we have the capitol police, the metropolitan police department, the secret service, the uniformed division, the secret service, the fbi, national guard that doesn't report to the mayor. those are all legitimate hard questions. but then there are things that the mayor's talking about. did implicit bias play a role in failing to see this coming because law enforcement is disproportionately made up of white conservative men? did donald trump's pressure on the fbi and elsewhere cause the fbi to not investigate as they should? those are hard unacceptable issues. and i think at the end of the day there are a lot of things in the january 6th committee i was hoping they'd do a little more to sort of tease out all of these various threads. but i think certainly the mayor has a point but the fact is there are a lot of different things that went into the failure of january 6th. >> well, pete, you ask all the right questions. i'm going to push you to answer a few of them. do we need to rebalance and reconsider the balance and the

toolkit we have to deal with domestic terrorism? >> nicolle, i think it's a question we absolutely need to ask. i started in the fbi in 1996 working domestic terrorism and we were in the middle of debating post oklahoma city bombing whether we needed domestic terrorism legislation, new legislation to be brought into existence. so this is a debate that's been going on for more than 30 years. and the sort of back and forth between how invasive we want the federal government to be looking at political speech and where the balance is between investigation and first amendment protected activity, i think that's a discussion that's well outside of certainly the law enforcement community. that's something that congress is going to have to address. i do think ultimately the balance we have is the right balance. i think the fbi probably is looking at whether or not their guidelines and the way they even interpreted their guidelines when it comes to looking at domestic terrorism activity is something that may be getting rejiggered. i look forward to seeing whether doj's inspector general agrees with the way the fbi's

interpreting its investigative authorities. but i certainly think again those are things that are legitimate hard problems. the things i really want to see and i don't know if they've really been addressed is all the sort of pernicious issues of implicit bias. certainly whether or not trump caused the fbi -- you know, he fired jim comey. he fired andy mccabe. full disclosure, he fired me. there are a lot of people who are watching, the folks that investigated trump get fired. and that can't help but have had an impact on the willingness of law enforcement across the board to really look into things that trump was doing during his administration. >> i mean, tracy, this is so interesting. and our conversations always get right to this conversation about the toolkit available for combating domestic terror threats. i want to ask you to speak to some of pete's points. i mean, we know that christopher wray was able to clearly see the problem. he testifies in september of 2020 under oath before congress that by far the largest threat

to the homeland is domestic violent extremism. and in that bucket by far the gravest threat is racially motivated white supremacists, domestic violent extremism. so we know the problem's been identified at the highest levels of the fbi. but when you look at the freedom with which the militia groups roamed washington, d.c. that day, you listen to the secret service radio traffic, i mean, they had ar-15s and they were literally swinging from trees. i think some of the 1-6 transcripts have made clear that law enforcement on that day felt that if the protesters on january 6th had not been trump supporters but had been black and brown americans they would have been shot and killed. how do we deal with -- how do we start the conversation that ete just suggested about implicit bias? >> really to pete's point i fully agree with the implicit bias but i feel that the implicit bias is more toward

skin color and religious ideology. i think if we start calling them what they are, terrorists, really my hope is we could have other laws and also really sort of dissuading people to join this group because right now they're using patriotism as really this calling card to get more people to join these groups. but if we start labeling them as really what they are, which is terrorist organizations, i don't care foreign, domestic, we're really parsing hairs at this point, really people may be more hesitant to join these known terrorist organizations. and yes, i understand that we have to balance civil liberties out. but at the same time these groups have shown to be violent and they have shown to be racially motivated. you look at the oath keepers. their formation really goes back to 2009 with the inception of president obama. and really they were established under racial auspices. yes, they are sort of looking to fight for the government but really they have done nothing in their past to fight for the government. it's been against the

government. and the fbi has opened plenty of cases against domestic terrorists but they have to rely on other charging statutes to charge them and the reality is material support to foreign terrorist organizations is about 20 years in prison. we don't really have anything right now like that for domestic terrorists. and so having to kind of parcel together all of these charges and really these sentences can ultimately be a lot less severe for really the same if not worse type of crime. >> tracy, he i understand all of the protections of the first amendment. obviously what i do every day is benefit from my first amendment freedoms. what i don't understand is why a self-styled militia is legal. i mean, whether the oath keepers were benefiting the government, is it even legal to exist outside of the chain of command of the u.s. military as a militia? is that legal? >> yes. yes and no. it depends on what their behavior has been. you know, i went undercover on many neoo'nazi conventions and that was quite dismaying to see.

and they have a right to exist. they have a right to be armed because of the second amendment. now, whether they actually act on that is a whole other story. and that's what we're seeing here. unfortunately, they have a right to exist. however, they do not have a right to really create this political discord and replace the government. what they're doing is terrorism in its definition. >> rick stengel, there's always a part of covering this moment in politics that makes my brain ache and pete and tracy usually elicit that. not to raise expectations for your response. but i want to share with you more of our good friend carol leonnig's scoop really of this new book by officer -- by sund. she writes this. "sund said his shock on january 6th shifted to agony as he unsuccessfully begged military generals for national guard reinforcements. though they delayed sending help until it was too late for sund's overrun corps, he says he later

discovered that the pentagon had rushed to send security teams to protect military officials' homes in washington, d.c. none of them were under attack." end quote. again, it's another piece of evidence that the threat was recognized including at the highest levels of the pentagon. and so they sent troops to protect officers' homes. which is good. we should protect our officers wherever they are. but shouldn't we have also protected the united states capitol? >> yes indeed, nicolle, they should have. i'm going to go from 30,000 foot where you started to right down on the ground. i mean, the last big intelligence failure that we had in america was 9/11. and what did the 9/11 report call that? they called that a failure of the imagination. kind of an odd phrase. but the idea was that we just couldn't imagine foreign terrorists attacking the world trade center or attacking the pentagon. it was a failure of imagination. i you think that's what happened on january 6th as well. there was a failure of the

imagination. we just couldn't imagine americans, even extremists, trying to take over the capitol and overthrow the government. that's just not something that had ever happened before. so some of it is this cognitive bias we had that we didn't think that would happen. there's lots of procedural things they should have done. i mean, i have to say, and i know you talked about it on your show before, i listened before the end of the year to rachel maddow's podcast "ultra," which was about the rise of neo-naziism and naziism before world war ii and how there were paid nazi agents in congress. i mean, we can't forget that this is a strain in the american character and american history. and i think it was not only a failure of imagination, it was a failure to reckon with history. and the fact the military was so slow to react, on the one hand i commend that. i also agree it's a problem of optics of having armed national guard troops going into the

capitol. but it's more than a problem of optics when capitol officers are being killed and there are extremists taking over the capitol. then you can't be shy about how it appears. and i feel like the military was a little too delicate about that. they were a little too concerned about optics. they were unprepared and they reacted too slowly. >> pete, is that fair, a failure of imagination? >> i think it certainly is. one thing that i would point out, though, is that if you had a scenario where there were tens of thousands of angry black americans descending on the capitol or you had a scenario where there were tens of thousands of angry muslim americans descending on the capitol, i don't think you'd see the same lack of imagination. so i do think it's important when you think about this, was it a failure, absolutely. but it's absolutely critical that we sort of unpack where these failures occurred. and again, going to what acceptable reasons are and what unacceptable reasons are. and i think when you look at race, when i think you look at the makeup of who the protesters

were, the assumptions of what they would or wouldn't do was tethered in a lot of ways to the socioeconomic and racial background of the people who were protesting. and you can't escape that. and we need to address that. >> pete, let me follow up with some information that out of context -- i don't want to take it out of context. this is also from the "washington post" reporting about information that was available to the fbi. as of january 5th, 2021 fbi norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to unlawful lockdowns to begin on january 6th, 2021 in d.c. the document says an online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating, quote, be ready to fight, congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in and blood from their blm and pantifa slave soldiers being spilled. get violent. stopping calling this a march, a

rally offer a protest. go there ready for war. we get our president or we die. nothing else will achieve this goal." tragically, that is exactly what came to pass. how would that have been processed and shared? and do you think chris wray saw that and shared that with anybody? >> well, i don't know whether or not director wray saw it. he certainly spoke toto it during subsequent congressional testimony. i think the issue is to what extent -- this was going on all over the place. anyone who's watching the news, it was being covered up, down, left and right about the potential for violence. and then you had at least this one formal intelligence product that very much put the finger right on what exactly happened. and then compare and contrast that to the summer of 2020. we had all the protests that were coming on the heels of the george floyd murder and the black lives matter movement and people who were engaged largely in peaceful activity. now, there was some very violent activity targeting federal buildings. but when you look at the federal response to that, when you look

at attorney general bill barr's statements about antifa, president trump's statement about antifa, whipping this sort of fear about the nation, compare and contrast that to the lack of any sort of administration response leading up to january 6th. i think there's absolutely a question of why the response by federal law enforcement was so different from the summer of 2020 until the end of december and beginning of january 2021. >> tracy, i'd love your thoughts on all this. i want to show our viewers a little bit more of what we learned through the process of the congressional probe into these events, about what was known ahead of 1-6. this starts with cassidy hutchinson. >> i remember mr. ornato had talked to him about intelligence reports. i remember mr. ornato coming in sxag we had intel reports saying that there could potentially be violence on the 6th. >> their plan is to literally kill people. please, please take this tip seriously and investigate further. >> many shared plans and violent

threats. "bring handcuffs and wait near the tunnels," wrote one user. a commenter replied suggesting "zip ties" instead. >> on a call with president trump's white house national security staff in early january 2021 deputy secretary of defense david norquist had warned about the potential that the capitol would be the target of the attack. >> so during these calls i only remember in hindsight because he was almost like clairvoyant. norquist says during one of these calls the greatest threat is a direct assault on the capitol. i'll never forget it. >> so tracy, a lot of people at the highest levels of the military and highest levels of the white house national security apparatus and the highest levels of the secret service knew exactly what was going to happen on january 6th. what do we do with that? >> you know, this whole thing is fascinating to me and honestly quite frustrating. i was in the counterterrorism center at cia before, during and

after september 11th and had to deal with the fallout of the 9/11 commission. and what's frustrating is we didn't have that specific of information regarding 9/11. we just had increased chatter. you're getting here really specific information about where folks are going to be staged, what precise weapons they're going to have, what time they're going to do this at. and really it's just crickets. but another aspect to that is if you look at the 9/11 commission the patriot act and reshaping of all of the organizations and better communication, you know, classified intelligence is shafrd a bit better. we do deal with foreign terrorism a bit better because of what happened on 9/11. but again, we don't have any way to label what this is. therefore, we really can't have the audits done of these organizations that would really help in terms of increasing communications. >> tracy walder and pete strzok, you have started off the first show of the new year by blowing my mind with this conversation.

thank you very much. rick stengel sticks around for the whole hour. when we come become, the far right proud boys are on trial this week for their role in the january 6th insurrection. jury selection is under way and potential jurors are making it crystal clear what they think of this extremist group. plus how the red wave in 2022 turned out to be a mirage thanks to some very questionable polling. why anyone paid attention to it. we'll explain. and later in the program brand new reporting on one of the leaders of the house gop. how elise stefanik went from calling donald trump a whack job to becoming one of his biggest boosters and what her transformation says about the gop. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. s after a qui. don't go anywhere. from billions of emailsinga to offer suggestions for how to improve engagement and revenue. guess less and sell more with intuit mailchimp.

first, there's an idea and you do something about it for the first time. then before you know it, you make your first sale it is a life changer... small businesses firsts never stop coming and you have a partner that always puts you first. no way! godaddy. tools and support for every small business first. ooh, the chewy app. clumping litter. salmon paté? we have enough to splurge on catnip toys! i feel so accomplished. pet me please! great prices. happy pets. chewy. (vo) if you have thyroid eye disease

and things are a no go because you keep seeing double, great prices. happy pets. or...your bloodshot eyes have you seeing red, it might be time to discover another treatment option for thyroid eye disease, also known as t-e-d. to learn more, visit treatted.com that's “treat t-e-d dot com." pst. girl. you can do better. at least with your big-name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile you can get unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, at&t, and verizon. wow. i can do better! -yes you can! i can do better, too!

see how easy it is to save hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, verizon, and at&t. talk to our switch squad at your local xfinity store today.

the seditious conspiracy trial for five members of the far right group the proud boys including the group's former chairman enrique tarrio for their actions at the january 6th insurrection at the u.s. capitol is facing a major obstacle as it enters its second week. the federal district court in which the trial will take place has been struggling to find any d.c. residents who can put aside their deeply negative views of the proud boys. according to the "washington post," one juror said this -- "they conquer through fear and terror." another said on january 6th they "fired people up with a significant amount of dangerous rhetoric and misinformation to engage in violent activities." several other potential jurors have described the proud boys as "white nationalists and white supremacists and white separate ifrts." defense attorneys have tried and failed to have the trials moved out of state claiming that

washington, d.c. residents view themselves as victims of the attack and they cannot remove their bias for what occurred nearly two years ago at the nation's capitol. joining us now attorney and msnbc legal analyst glenn kirschner. rick stengel is with us as well. the jurors are light. they don't have to know about the proud boys to be seated? >> it's okay for them to know the truth and many of them are indicating to the judge they do know the truth about the nature of the proud boys organization. but you they have to be able to set aside whatever their preconceived notions are and agree to decide the case based solely on the evidence that's adduced during trial. you know, the more notorious the defendant or defendants and the more infamous the crime, the longer it's going to take to pick a jury. i had the same experience when i was trying rico cases in that very courthouse against what was the largest criminal enterprise running the drug trade in all four quadrants of washington,

d.c. and they killed 30 people over the course of ten years. it took us weeks to empanel a jury. and here's the thing, nicolle. when we're going through voir dire, the jury selection process, the defense attorney will ask prospective jurors about their views of the proud boys. and once jurors say i have a really negative view and here's why, the prosecutors will then have the opportunity to what we call rehabilitate the jurors and will ask questions like okay, you have these negative views, are you saying that if at the end of the trial, at the conclusion of the case you did not believe the prosecutors had proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for these five defendants, you would still vote to convict anyway because you have some negative views about the proud boys? when confronted with that kind of question, most jurors will say you know what, i actually think i can be fair.

so no doubt it's going to take some time to empanel a fair and impartial jury but it can be done and it will be done. >> are you sitting in this part of the process? i mean, what sort of -- i understand it's the judge that is dismissing a lot of these people jurors. is that the kind of questions that they're getting dismissed over? >> yeah, so i'm not sitting in on this one. i did sit through jury selection and the entirety of the seven-week oath keepers trial. and i will say i listened to the jurors being questioned and some of them being challenged and excused by the judge in that case. it feels to me, nicolle, like perhaps the oath keepers were not quite as notorious an organization as are the proud boys or the perception that people have of the proud boys. and i think that's why this jury selection process is taking a little bit longer. >> i want to show you, rick

stengel, some of the intersections between donald trump and the proud boys. >> president trump tweeted about the january 6th rally and told attendees be there, will be wild. many of the witnesses that we interviewed were inspired by the president's call and came to d.c. for january 6th. but the extremists, they took it a step further. they viewed this tweet as a call to arms. a day later the department of justice describes how the proud boys created a chat called the ministry of self-defense leadership chat. in this chat the proud boys established a command structure in anticipation of coming back to d.c. on january 6th. the department of justice describes mr. tarrio coming into possession of a document called the 1776 returns, which describes individuals occupying key buildings around the united states capitol. >> rick stengel, the threat that they posed on that day and their interconnections with the trump

administration and trump's vision for january 6th and with trump's inner circle they provided security to a lot of his key allies is indisputable. it's all in the public record now. what to you is the importance of this trial? >> well, it's chilling, nicolle, to even hear that. and to go back to your last segment, there's only one legal militia in the united states. that's the national guard. every other militia is an illegal organization. the proud boys are more illegal than even the oath keepers. and they're on trial for seditious conspiracy. there's sedition and there's conspiracy. you have to show that two or more people planned to topple the federal government violently. well, that memo is perfect evidence of that. so the problem is it isn't always easy to prove that.

and going back to what glenn was saying, the defense attorneys not only want someone who's never heard of the proud boys, they want someone who's never heard of the holocaust, who's never heard of the civil rights movement, who doesn't have strong feelings about that. that's one reason that if you do get a juror like that it's often hard to get a conviction because they're not aware of some of the things that are necessary that they need to have to make that decision. >> glenn, i want to give you the last word and ask you what you think happens next. what does the coming week hold for this trial? >> i think ultimately they will get 12 qualified jurors in the box. they will move into opening statements. and i'm looking forward to watching the testimony of a cooperating witness, an insider, a proud boy himself, charles donoho, who pleaded guilty to obstructing the proceeding, trying to stop the certification of joe biden's win, and assaulting police officers. anytime you can present an insider, one of their own who can point to the defendants on trial and say i was one of them, we all did this together, i took

responsibility for my crimes and here's what those five defendants did, that can be very proufl testimony. >> glenn kirschner, thank you so much for your wisdom and for being here with us to share it. when we come back, how right-wing misinformation in the form of skewed polls led to false predictions of a red wave that of course did not come to pass. pass

i'd like to thank our sponsor liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. contestants ready? go! only pay for what you need. jingle: liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. only pay for what you need. i d d so my y quesonons eouout hicacase.y y son, cacalledhehe bars s fi only pay for what you need. i d d soit was the best call eouout hii could've made.

call the barnes firm only pay for what you need. and find out what your case all could be worth.uld've made. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ only pay for what you need. and find out what your case all when a truck hit my car,ade. ♪the insurance companyed, wasn't fair. eight million ♪ i didid't t kn whahatmy c caswa, so i called the barnes firm. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to k how much their accident case is worth.h barnes. t ouour juryry aorneneys hehelpou

remember all those predictions of a red wave, the wave that was supposed to wash over all of us in november with massive wins for republicans all across the country? >> on election day we're not just going to see a red wave. we're going to see a red tsunami. >> the red wave that's coming is going to be like the elevator doors opening up in the shining. >> another red wave warning meanwhile for the democrats. >> the red wave that started in virginia's going to crest across this nation. >> red wave rising. >> a giant red wave. a giant red wave. >> the wave they're talking about and the wave they're scared of is so big it's going to be a wave election and you're going to lose the senate and i'll bet you $1,000 right now. >> it turned out to be a losing bet, as we all witnessed. but "the new york times" says some new reporting about the myth of a red wave and the fact that it was born out of a flood of polls biased toward the gop, quote, skewered red wave surveys polluted polling averages which were relied upon by campaigns,

their donors, voters and the news media. it fed the home team boosterism of an expanding array of with right-wing media outlets coupled with the political factors already favoring republicans including inflation and president biden's unpopularity. the skewed polls helped feed what quickly became an ines kaipable political narrative, a republican wave election was about to hit the country with hurricane force. joining us one of the reporters sharing a byline on that important piece of reporting, jim rutenberg, writer at large for the "new york times" and its sunday magazine. rick is back as well. i spoke to a knowledgeable election official a couple days before the election and i said is there any scenario where all the polls wrong? he said no. i said what's best case scenario for the democrats? and this red wave seeped into even the non-political analysts who were looking at the data. and my question for you goes back to when you and i first met. i think i was the head of the iowa caucuses in 2004.

i worked on the bush re-election campaign. our polls would never -- they were done by matt dowd, who was a really good pollster. but they would have never been averaged into all the media polls and influenced one way or another the polling averages. how did that happen? >> well, the polling industry's changed quite a bit. that was not too long ago. that's why we both still look so youthful. but you know, it's become people really want to see the polls. people are really riveted by american politics in the way it wasn't perhaps quite the same way back then. and some sites have come along that really serve that want, in some cases that need. and depending on which average you're talking about one of the big averages is 538. nate silver has argued, well, they have a model that sort of carries an account for any kind of partisan skews. the other model, real clear politics, comes to it a little

differently. but either way, what was happening in the final weeks of the campaign was that there were these conservative-leaning polls and they were just pushing this notion way beyond what was apparently indeed some natural heightening and -- >> the unfortunate aspect of it, and i get that politics is a brutal game, is that decisions are made about whether to send tim ryan money or whether to send money into a close race and the narrative determines which candidates get money. so if the narrative is fueled off polls that are wrong or weighted for republicans you may have tipped the balance of some races and your piece makes clear that that's a possibility. >> well, we had republicans and democrats on the record saying that they felt that the skewed polls or the kind of overbullish republican outlook affected some key decision-making. and even -- this was

fascinating. even when their own internal partisan poll, their campaign polls, what have you, were showing a tighter race, especially on the democratic side there was some doubt, maybe we have it wrong because let's not forget that four years ago, eight years ago there was a lot more of a sort of -- the polls were missing republican strength. this year it was the opposite. so there was a lot of doubt. and this building notion of a red wave made people doubt their own that would have led them perhaps in a right direction. >> somehow women's outrage over a constitutional right that we'd enjoyed for 50 years going away had peaked and gone away. and i know from my own life, from knowing women who deleted their ovulation trackers, that the notion that people got over it in a matter of weeks or months was ludicrous. how much did the red wave narrative sort of misrepresent

the political energy around the supreme court and dobbs and abortion? >> i think that's major. and if i'd had another 1,000 words i think and my teammates would have felt the same we'd have gone more into that. because what are elections? yes, people say they're a referendum on the president. people say they're a referendum on the party. but they're also about what does the country care about right now. and when the red wave narrative took over but the country -- we were told the country cared about above all else were crime and inflation. of course those things were also in the mix. but there were also stories and this fell in the mainstream media too, this idea that well, it's not abortion anymore or you know, there was also the threat to democracy sort of piece that we were told where people are really concerned about these denialist candidates talking about changing election laws so they can overturn election results. the narrative of the campaign is more than just a narrative.

it's what the country cares about as we go into a new governance season. so i think that's a pretty big deal. >> you know, rick, i think this is one of the most important stories that's been reported out since the midterms. and i think the other piece that no one has really rumbled with is in this media climate no president will likely ever get above a pretty hard ceiling. i mean, frankly the disinformation on the right is so out of control that maybe presidential approval, tracking with predictive analysis of midterm election results is something we should do away with. >> i would agree. i mean, the red wave rhetoric was a kind of weaponization of imperfect polling. they wanted to have this self-fulfilling prophecy that people just thought that the republicans would win. but i mean, i used to do our polling at "time" magazine for many years, and political polling is kind of broken, right? once upon a time it was people knocking on doors, then people

calling land lines in their houses and once people started having smart phones it was hard to reach people. then people are viewing internet polling now. the reliability of all of that is suspect. and that's one reason you have these agregation of polls because no one trusts any one individual poll. and because people now like to see these kind of polls there's all kind of gimmicks like candidate x has a 78% chance of winning and a meter. it's like i have no idea from a mathematical perspective what that actually means. i'm not sure it means anything. so the system is kind of broken. and i agree with you, we have to kind of look at them all with suspicion. >> yeah. i mean, jim, first of all, with your total own of my age and how long we've been doing this, i applaud you. that was so good. i am old. that was 20 years ago. you're right. the world has changed.

but to you you were on such a roll. i think the mariupol show we did right before christmas is still running in heavy rotation and it's getting good reviews. for this story and that one thank you so much for joining us to talk about them. >> thanks for having me. >> still ahead for us how house republican chair elise stefanik abandoned all of her principles and became an lx-denying, conspiracy theory-peddling maga diehard. that reporting in the "new york times" is next. times" is next 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.

it's what the "new york times" calls one of the most brazen trump-era political transformations. republican congresswoman elise stefanik's turn from calling trump a whack job, and that's a quote according to the "times," to becoming a trump loyalist and one of the biggest proponents of the big lie and getting rewarded for her fealty to trump and his lies by becoming the number 3 house republican. >> i support the continued effort by the trump campaign to make sure that every legal ballot and only legal ballots and legal votes are counted. >> tens of millions of americans are concerned that the 2020 election featured unconstitutional overreach. >> i also want to thank president trump for his support. he is a critical part of our republican team. >> "over dozens of interviews former aides, advisers and friends going back to stefanik's harvard days struggled to

identify any of her deeply held political beliefs at all. most recalled instead her generic loyalty to the republican party, her intense competitiveness, and her unerring ability to absorb what she thought people around her wanted and reflect it back at them." let's bring in the author of this great new piece of report, nick confessore, "new york times" investigative reporter, also an msnbc contributor. what's so brout'll, it's so sycophantic trump doesn't even seem to like it too much, nick. >> well, trump is not stupid and he knows when somebody's operating. and according to our sources, look, he likes watching people defend him. trump loves watching his former critics come to his side and making them come to his side, as in the case of elise stefanik. he doesn't trust her. and it's interesting to understand that in this party with trump loyalty really goes one way and it's the final irony

of the arc she has taken to give up so much, to give up her friends, her mentors, her ideals and idealism in order to gain a little more power and rise in leadership. she has that power but, you know, for what purpose i think is the question the story explores. >> it's full of rich reporting. you report that paul ryan told associates he considers elise stefanik the, quote, biggest disappointment of his political career. explain. >> look, paul ryan was her mentor. he encouraged her to run for congress. he believed she was a young person in his mold, smart and thoughtful, energetic, public spirited, would focus on big ideas. and that's how she molded herself in her first years in the house. she was going to be the millennial republican who would push the party to the right place on national defense but also climate change, immigration reform, other issues. and what happened was she found

that in the fever years of the trump presidency she didn't really have the traction she thought she would. she didn't like being in the house, especially in the minority. she didn't like the commute. she didn't like the fund-raising. she didn't like the tea party people in her own party. she didn't like trump. and it was clear that it was trump's party. and so she made a decision at first with his first impeachment which she thought was wrong on the merits and unfair to turn a little bit. and what she found when she went out there and really swung for the fences, applied all of her intelligence and smarts and work ethic to defending president trump, she could raise millions and millions of dollars. and if she took up his tone and his twitter style and his issues and eventually the conspiracy theories that animate his base like replacement theory and the big big lie, she could rise in power and keep raising money, and so that was, like, a drug, i would say, and she's continued on that path. >> so, rick, hold this thought of the drug and the conspiracy

theories and the trump defender in your mind while i read you this paragraph from nick's reporting. "stefanik asked about serving in a pete buttigieg administration. she closely watched the democratic presidential debates, sometimes offering through a friend working on his campaign unsolicited advice for mr. buttigieg. even weeks later, she publicly defended trump, she was mulling over pass for advancement. she asked the friend whether buttigieg might consider her for a cabinet job. the friend, incredulous, told "the times" the idea was never sent up the chain." the friend should some day receive a presidential medal of freedom. what do you make of this caricature of a modern american political operator? >> it's a terrific story, by the way, but even when you hear elise speak, and even in the

set-up to the story, she does choose her words very, very carefully. when she says she's against illegal votes, well, everyone's against illegal votes. illegal votes are illegal. she carefully parses everything she said. i mean, it's delusional for her to ask whether she could be a cabinet officer in the pete buttigieg administration for a thousand different reasons, but she's obviously feels like she's somehow threading a needle that will not make her infamous among people on the left, but that just seems kind of crazy. i'd like to hear what nick says about that. >> nick, to you. >> look, i think when somebody's ambitious becomes unmoored from a sense of their ideas, which happens a lot in politics, it can be dangerous, and you can lose your sense of, like, kind of where you really are, and i think that elise stefanik, you know, part of what i found reporting about her was that she's never wanted to really

admit that she's made a change. her public statements are always that she hasn't changed. she's just doing the bidding of her constituents and their will, and so there's been no change. she's never told a conversion story, and i think that's what has held her back a little bit. she was toying around with running for house whip over the summer, promotion from her current job, and she found she didn't really have the base she would need to go against the more hard-core conservatives who were running who had better records. i will say, back to january 6th for a second, to both of you, she wrote an open letter to her constituents on the morning of january 6th to justify her objection, you know, to the certification, and it references so many debunked ideas and allegations about dead people voting in atlanta and unconstitutional rule-breaking in pennsylvania, so she may have tried to thread the needle at

first when. when i asked her if they were true, i got nothing back. >> it is a story of audacity. it is a story of this moment in republican politics. it is wonderful reporting. nick confessore, thank you for being here to talk to us about it. and rick stengel thank you for spending the hour with us. another quick break for us. we will be right back. us. another quick break for us we will be right back. descovy for prep, the smallest prep pill available, is a once-daily prescription medicine that helps lower the chances of getting hiv through sex. it's not for everyone. descovy for prep has not been studied in people assigned female at birth. talk to your doctor to find out if it's right for you. descovy is another way to prep. descovy does not prevent other sexually transmitted infections, so it's important to use safer sex practices and get tested regularly. you must be hiv-negative to take descovy for prep. so, you need to get tested for hiv immediately before and at least every 3 months while taking it. if you think you were exposed to hiv or have flu-like symptoms, tell your doctor right away. they may check to confirm you are still hiv-negative. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid

and liver problems. the most common side effect was diarrhea. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking descovy without talking to your doctor. ask your doctor if descovy for prep is right for you. get help paying for descovy for prep. learn more at descovy.com. avoiding triggers but can't keep migraines away? qulipta® can help prevent migraines. you can't always prevent what's going on outside... that's why qulipta® helps what's going on inside. qulipta® gets right to work. in a 3-month study, qulipta® significantly reduced monthly migraine days and the majority of people reduced them by 50 to 100%. qulipta® blocks cgrp a protein believed to be a cause of migraines. qulipta® is a preventive treatment for episodic migraine. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and tiredness. learn how abbvie could help you save on qulipta®. dad and i finally had that talk. no, not that talk. about what the future looks like. for me. i may have trouble getting around, but i want to live in my home where i'm comfortable

and my friends are nearby. i can do it with the help of a barber, personal shopper and exercise buddy. someone who can help me live right at home. life's good. when you have a plan. ♪ ♪ get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds. want your clothes to smell freshly washed all day without heavy perfumes? try downy light in-wash freshness boosters. it has long-lasting light scent, no heavy perfumes, and no dyes.

finally, a light scent that lasts all day. downy light! ♪ well, the stock is bubbling in the pot ♪ ♪ just till they taste what we've got ♪ [ tires squeal, crash ] when owning a small business gets real, progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we? [ cheering ] as a member of the press, let me try to clear up some of the things that you say aren't true. you write in your book, "my backers in iowa did a terrific deal that allows me to come out stronger than ever. i see the deal as a great victory and eventually the rest of the world will too." being on the verge of bankruptcy, being bailed out by the banks, skating on thin ice and almost drowning, that's a businessman to be admired? >> it is safe to say that no one did a tv interview quite like barbara walters did.

a trail blazer in the world of journalism, walters passed away on friday at the age of 93. she was not just the first female co-host of the "today" show. her masterful, riveting interviews with the likes of fidel castro, richard nixon, monica lunskey, and sean connery just to name a few, were must-see tv. she was an invaluable source of support and advice for countless women in the business. i'm very fortunate to call myself among them. she gave me advice when i was down, and you always remember the people that call you in those moments, and for me, i was lucky that one of them was barbara walters. quick break for us. we'll be right back. a walters. quick break for us we'll be right back. might be painful, embarassing, difficult to talk about, and could be peyronie's disease or pd, a real medical condition that urologists can diagnose and have been treating for more than 8 years with xiaflex®, the only fda-approved nonsurgical treatment for appropriate men with pd.

along with daily gentle penile stretching and straightening exercises, xiaflex has been proven to help gradually reduce the bend. don't receive if the treatment area involves your urethra; or if you're allergic to any of the ingredients. may cause serious side effects, including: penile fracture or other serious injury during an erection and severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. seek help if you have any of these symptoms. do not have any sexual activity during and for at least 4 weeks after each treatment cycle. sudden back pain reactions and fainting can happen after treatment. tell your doctor if you have a bleeding condition or take blood thinners as risk of bleeding or bruising at the treatment site is increased. join the tens of thousands of men who've been prescribed xiaflex. make an appointment with a xiaflex-trained urologist. visit bentcarrot.com to find one today. 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. thank you so much for let us into your homes during these extraordinary times. we are grateful. "the beat" with ari melber, who is back, starts right now. he has a huge show. tonight he's joined