that's why i do what i do. that and the paycheck. ♪♪ hi to everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. an unsolved mystery will remain unsolved at the u.s. supreme court, suffering an historic drop in public approval and

trust has just announced that it failed to learn who is responsible for that unprecedented leak of the decision overturning roe v. wade last spring. that dropped opinion would ultimately be the opinion issued by the court in a highly polarizing decision to remove a constitutional right held for 50 years in america. from the "new york times" reporting on this developing story, quote, in a 20-page report, the court's martial said that investigators had conducted 126 formal interviews of employees all of whom had denied being the source of the leak. investigators found no forensic evidence by examining the court's computer devices and available call and text logs. "the washington post" adds, quote, justice samuel alito said that the leak was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody

and it was a shock that led to a changed atmosphere at the court and made his colleagues in the majority, quote, targets for assassination. the threat to the justices, he added was not theoretical because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing us, end quote. with the stakes that high in the view of the justices themselves, the threat of assassination, and the consequences that dire a, quote, changed atmosphere among the justices themselves, today's failure to find the source of this unprecedented leak is all the more remarkable. the failure to find the leak at the supreme court is where we start today. laura jarrett joins us as the table, also joining us, fbi director of counterintelligence, michael steele joins us as well. frank and michael are msnbc

contributors. take us through the news. >> what's most striking about it is how much was done and how little answers they came up with. they basically are empty handed after nearly eight months of investigation, they went through who had access to the opinion in hard copy, they tried to track down the printing logs, they tried to use fingerprint analysis and all of this work, after all of this exhaustive work that's laid out over 18 pages, no answers about exactly who is to blame, which is incredible. as you laid out, the stakes here so high for the court, so much of the court's business is operated through a system of trust, a system that is shrouded in secrecy. law clerks know they have an only to guard this with their lives and even with all of that, they conduct all of the interviews and they can't figure out who did this. and nobody declined to talked to

them which is worth noting. they don't think it is a hack. they looked into that probability. so really very little insight and it appears that this is the end of the road. they say here they're going to follow up on a few things, but you get the impression here, they've done everything they can do, including getting an outside consultant from the former homeland security adviser who he said they think they've pretty much exhausted all of their efforts here. >> did they interview the justices? >> it's interesting, they say they talked to everybody who had access to the documents which would presumably include the justices, but they don't really go into that in this report. they say there's an annex here which they're not including, maybe that could shed light on it. we don't know. it's clear that they were very focused on court employees and law clerks. they thought that might be the likely culprit. but even that, they don't have answers. it's worth noting, i think you get a picture here of how unsophisticated the technology is. when we are printing in this building, we have to use an

ideologue. that's not happening here. they don't have a log of who is exactly taking things when and where. one of the things you'll see coming out of this is tighter gripped on how these opinions are distributed. in the past, it was a system of trust. because the trust has been broken, i think you'll probably see a lot more changes. >> i'm going to add to our conversation supreme court watcher, senior editor for slate as well as an msnbc law and politics analyst. she's the author of a new book "lady justice". your take on this breaking news. >> yeah, i mean, in some sense, you know, unsurprising. i think that the decision was taken to do this in house using the marshal service. probably other choices could have been made to have a different, perhaps more thorough investigation. but i think the takeaway is exactly what you just heard. for a leak that was

characterized by most of the justices as the single most shocking, egregious violation of norms, of trust, it's still being credited for destroying collegiality among the justices, this was a nuclear bomb that went off at the court and now the answer seems to be, so sad, too bad, we don't know who did it. it's pretty amazing in light of how consequential this has been. not just for the justices amongst themselves but for the integrity of the court. >> frank, if a sitting united states supreme court justice believes that a leak could directly lead to his, quote, assassination, why would the court's marshal conduct the leak investigation? >> lots of questions here, no answers. when is an investigation really

not an investigation? when you're told what you can and can't do. you can't do what you need to do or talk to the people you need to talk to solve the investigation and whether it's conducted by professional investigators. let's level set here. there have been some things said that i think we need to clarify. number one, the u.s. marshal service did not conduct this investigation. this investigation was conducted by someone called the marshal of the supreme court. i'm sure she's a wonderful person. but she has no law enforcement training or experience. she's in charge of securing the building called the supreme court building and the justices. that's what she does. that's who they gave this to in this most egregious breach of security in the history of the supreme court, as the court's statement says. something else that didn't happen here, if you want to do a serious investigation, you're going to talk literally to every

person who may have had access to whatever it is that leaked. from what we can see so far, while they may have talked to 200 people, they didn't talk to "x" clerks, they didn't talk to the very universe of people who may have done the leaking and left the court to go onto some great legal job. they didn't talk to those people. they didn't call the fbi because you know what would happen, a real case would have happened. they would have actually had the criminal process. someone stole government property. someone mishandled government records, potentially a crime. they could have had subpoenas of former clerks and former employees, they would have had that leverage over them. they could have subpoenaed phone carriers and internet providers and they could have seen who was talking to whom and when at the media platform that obtained this information. all that could have been done. we still -- according to the "new york times" reporting today, we have no evidence that

the justices themselves were interviewed and let's understand something, this person called the marshal of the supreme court, her boss is the court. they pay her salary. they decide if she gets a raise. what would that interview even look like if it was done? mrs. justice, you're wearing a lovely broach today, could i trouble you with a question? you don't know about this leak, do you? since i got you here, i would like a raise next year if we could talk about that. that's how that would go. so this is not an investigation and there's no serious intent to get to the bottom of it in my opinion. >> so why would a sham -- what you're describing as a sham investigation, why would a sham investigation be ordered if justice alito felt that his, quote, assassination was possible because of the leak? >> well, since we're not in the conjecture business, let's answer it generically.

why would you curtail an investigation? i want to say something. what i've read about this investigation is that within its parameters, and they were significant parameters i just described, it was a heck of an investigation, they tried to look at printers and forensics and i.t. and they conducted a hundred interviews. not a sham, but rather an extremely curtailed investigation that really wouldn't get to the truth. but why would you curtail and put those handcuffs on somebody investigating what happened? because you don't really want to get to the outcome. that's why. >> did they want to get to the outcome? >> i think they do want to get to the outcome. >> who? >> i think the court feels very much invested in having an answer here. i'm sure it was not a pleasant experience to have to issue a report that says we have no answers. the court feels very much it's legitimacy is at stake, it feels very much rocked by the sort of shaken about the trust that was breached here. they call it the worst breach in the court's history. so i think -- i think they do

want to get to an answer. the question of how they went about it and whether there was other steps that they could have taken i think are fair questions to ask. i should point out that they say that they used a team of seasoned attorneys and trailed federal investigators. we'll have to do reporting on exactly who those people were and what their level of experience is. there's no question that the court has a vested interest in getting to the answer of who did this because they have someone to point the blame at. >> if they thought their assassination was likely, why not send it to the fbi? >> that's a fair question. and, you know, there's nothing to say that they won't do a follow-up on this. there's no reason to think if they get a new piece of information, that they wouldn't follow that lead. i think that they -- >> just to be clear, the report has no leads. >> no -- >> don't need to follow. >> for now.

>> there's a report and there's no leads. and alito thought his assassination was possible. something doesn't add up here, michael steele. i mean, i was the communications director on a campaign and there was a leak, i found the leaker in 12 hours. i mean, leak investigations for better or for worse, i guess for worse if you're the leaker, for better if you're the institution, what am i missing, michael steele? >> you're not missing anything. you're trying to wrap your head around something that makes no sense. but you're not missing the parts that really kind of eat at you and that is what we see -- the questions from laura's great reporting and i really do appreciate that. but i think, frank, really kind of laid out the deal here, this is a noninvestigation-investigation. because at the end of the day,

if you have a supreme court justice who says that they are threatened by the consequences of this, that there are -- they're life-threatening situations that could be involved here, that ratchets up this level of investigation on its face. you want to know what's going on. but i don't think they want to know to laura's good reporting here. i don't think they want to know because i think they already know. i think they already know enough to know who, what, when, where and why inside that building. and the worst outcome here is not a judicial one, it is a political one. it is one that steeps this building and its justices in a political vortex that they cannot escape from. sitting at 26% approval among the american people because of the prior bad acts and opinions

and how people are perceiving how this court is operating, you layer on top of this someone within their own ranks, whether it is a staffer or a justice, god forbid, which i do not take off the table here, leaking this for political -- nefarious political reasons, whether to create outcome "a" or outcome "b" around this opinion, that does not create an avenue to further entrust or garner the trust of the american people. so they don't want to know that. so we have an investigation. you know, yeah, we don't know, we did all this stuff, so we don't know and i think that's probably where it's ultimately going to wind up. because anything else just ricochets this institution further down a hole.

this chief justice roberts does not want it to go. >> so let me read this to you, dahlia from gallop, america's confidence in the supreme court has dropped sharply over the past year and reached a new low in gallup's 50-year trend. 25% of u.s. adults say they have a great deal of confidence in the supreme court. that was down from 36% a year ago, five points lower than the previous low recorded in 2014. i probably know more than everybody here about institutions with low public approval ratings from my career in politics. and one thing i know is when you're sitting at 25%, you're pretty desperate on the pr side. is there a case that steele -- that michael steele is laying out a plausible scenario, where someone, maybe even a justice, knew this would be politically unpopular and wanted to get ahead of this and that maybe

someone does know who the leaker was, but because of the motive, they're not going to share it with us? >> i mean, i'm reminded of the last time you and i had a conversation about those approval ratings and we were talking about ethics rules and i think it's exactly the same problem. the reason that the court doesn't have a code of binding ethics rules that binds it is the exact same reason that it failed to farm out this investigation to somebody who could do the kind of meaningful investigation we all agreed didn't happen, and i do think it goes to michael's sort of political point. i also think it goes to this sort of mythological point, both the absence of ethics rules, the absence of an investigation, or a way of a court that has positioned itself as the closest thing to a sacred institution that we all have to believe in because we do, is telling us that it is going to protect the prerogative to look like it's perfect, to look like it's apolitical, to look as though

these are nine umpires calling balls and strikes and there's nothing to see here and every part of this story has been a version of there's nothing to see here. so whether it's true that one of the justices knows and now they're trying to sort of cover it up or whether it's true what you heard, which is they maybe don't want to know what they don't want to know, it's all of a piece with this larger story which is the court with the 25% approval rating wants us to believe that it's made of magic and unicorns and if we stop asking hard questions, they can go back to doing whatever they do. it's a very, very i think to me material piece of evidence that this plan to keep saying there's nothing to see here, we're policing ourselves is utterly failing and in the face of that failure, they keep saying, there's nothing to see here. we're policing ourselves. >> frank, if an organization truly believes that it's -- again, i don't want to get this wrong, judge alito believed that

there was a threat of an assassination attempt on the conservative justices. i guess he had the whip count already. knew they could all be targeted. is there an obligation to take this investigation from the court and figure out who did the leaking that led to a, quote, assassination threat against the conservative justices? >> the question is, who would do that? who has the authority to do that? >> john roberts. i don't know -- >> well, the same john roberts who still doesn't -- hasn't drafted a code of ethics for his court. you want to talk about public perceptions, draft an ethics code, that would go a long way. he's the one who decided this case would be handled by the chief of police, right? that's her job. i'm not making that phrase up or demeaning her role in any single way, the security at the supreme court is fantastic. but in writing, her job is chief of police.

that's the marshal of the supreme court. and she literally answers to the court. they decide if she has a job tomorrow or not. he made that decision. so who is it that would make that referral over there? my understanding is that the fbi offered. they need another politically charged thing like they need a hole in their head. they're like, hey, we're here, great laboratory, criminal process, we're here. no, no, we'll handle this in-house. okay. nothing outside. anybody get interviewed outside? former clerk? anybody? don't think so. so they seem unwilling to do it, nicolle. >> frank, when an institution pretends to want to know the answer to a question and does an investigation that yields nothing, if it still doesn't know the answer, does it ever just say, we're done, we looked, nothing -- i mean, take the

supreme court out of it. a company investigating who's sharing the secret recipe for coca-cola with pepsi. they investigate and say, we couldn't figure it out. pepsi is just going to taste like coke. does any corporate leak get dispensed with this kind of report where we looked, we checked, we found nothing, back to work? >> so i -- i love this question. because the answer on the corporate side is yes. when that happens, when you don't want to get the answer, when the share owners are going to kill you and your stock is going to plunge if they find out the answer, right? so, yeah, acme corporation has horrible security and its trade secrets bleed outside the building. do you want that exposed? you're going to do quiet internal investigation, you're going to put band-aids over the holes and hope this goes away. if you want to use that analogy

to the supreme court, maybe they really don't want the public to know the answer because the public perception is already at a low. >> do you think, frank, last question, do you think someone at the court knows the answer already? >> yes. don't have any special inside knowledge. i'm just saying, looking at the evidence, right, don't want the fbi, don't want criminal process, don't want you talking to anybody outside the building who might know something because they were the clerk that handled this and left, hire some outside contractors, sign ndas with them so they can look at i.t. forensics, get some retired guys who used to do something investigatively and have them sign ndas, and i look at that, it looks like they didn't want to get to the truth here. >> michael steele, i don't like to have these conversations in a silo. this isn't the only alleged

leak. there's an alleged leak that "the times" reported on on the hobby lobby case. but it's the spilling out of information before decision -- an official decision by the court is issued. there is reporting, news reporting and a whistle-blower who i believe has also testified before congress of a spillover in the hobby lobby case as well. do you see an entity that actually wants to get to the bottom of their leaks/previewing of decisions? >> i think the institution is conflicted because of the fingerprints that may be found on that leak. so in the hobby lobby case, you have a situation where a leak was put out into the ether to a specific individual or group of individuals who were supportive and needed to know -- or have the advantage of knowing ahead of time what this decision was going to be, that it was, hey, we're all good here. all the right boxes were checked.

and so whatever background ripple effect that had in the private sector in terms of where money may or may not have gone, what money may have been spent or not spent on something, everybody was checking those boxes, right? just keeping it in that lane. in the alito case, you're talking about a document that would have a profound impact on a very, very tough issue that is ensconced in politics and a potential movement away from an outcome that a conservative court would otherwise give. so then it becomes a political decision. how do we change the trajectory of this opinion potentially, let's put it out here so that we basically block -- you know the word before that, those who think they're going to move this

issue away from a resounding defeat for roe. then you also have another narrative that says, we put it out here to scare a certain group of individuals from getting involved in other activities. so you have all of these things, nicolle, is the bottom line, around these leaks that have political outgrowth and purposes that go beyond the court. and that's the business that the chief justice is most afraid of getting further steeped in and wants to move from the moment he sat in his first hearing for the job to the present day, wants to move this court as far away from that as possible. the problem is in doing so, he's got to expose some fingerprints and to frank's final point that he just made, the will is not to do that because the political

outcrop of that is so destructive of the court. when you're at 25%, it's hard. it's hard. >> laura and dahlia i want to give you the last word because this is your beat. do you think that this is the last we'll hear of the leak investigation into the dobbs decision? >> no. i think it matters a great deal for the court and for the court as an institution. i think that the court has a vested interest in at least making sure that the public feels that it is interested in finding the result. i think we obviously need more reporting on what exactly went on behind the scenes and into the decision about who to pick as the chief investigator. that's worthy of exploration. but i do not think this is the end of the road on a decision that clearly has shaken them. >> dahlia, what do you think is happening inside the court? do you think that there will be

further efforts to find out who leaked the draft opinion of dobbs, or do you think they're done? >> i'm not sure we're going to hear a lot of big public conversation going forward because -- for all the reasons you just heard. i think particularly the chief justice is desperate to bury this and move on, paper over it and hope for the best. but i think people know more than we know and i think journalists will keep digging and i think the court in some sense needs to get to the bottom of this. as you said, not just because of the legitimacy of the court really took a punch to the jaw, but the relationships between the justices are so frayed already this term, this cannot help them. i think if they all feel that they can't trust each other, can't trust the clerks, can't trust the staff, this is only going to further spiral. i think relationships that are already pretty fraught.

i think they have an internal interest going forward and figuring this out, i don't think they want to perform in public a lot longer. >> i just cannot think of a single institution in modern times that corrects from a 25% approval rating by battening down the hatches. if roberts were serious and had partners on the bench, they would haul laura and her camera crew in, they would be interested in transparency. there's no sign of that. i think we'll continue -- i don't know if there's any institution whose approval ratings are plunging this quickly right now. a remarkable story. so grateful to all of you. >> laura is going to be busy. >> and we're glad she's going to be busy here with and for us. thank you so much for starting us off. thank you so much for that. frank, you're always busy, thank you for starting us off, michael steele is also busy but we got him to stick around a little bit longer. when we come back, it should

not be that hard to call out really, really, really bad behavior. the latest allegations of laws from george santos have hit a new bottom with stories about 9/11 and dogs sick and in need. we're asking again where is the bottom of today's gop? later in the show, members of the far-right militia group the proud boys on trial for seditious conspiracy. where we are on holding everyone accountable for january 6th. all those stories and more coming up next. ies and more coming up next

ever leave your clothes in the dryer and find a wrinkled mess? try downy wrinkle guard fabric softener! wrinkle guard penetrates deep into fibers, leaving clothes so soft, wrinkles don't want to stick around. make mornings smoother with downy wrinkle guard fabric softener. power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools, and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. there are some things that go better...together. like your workplace benefits... and retirement savings. with voya, considering all your financial choices together... can help you be better prepared for unexpected events.

voya. well planned. well invested. well protected. hi, i'm lauren, i lost 67 pounds in 12 months on golo. voya. well planned. well invested. golo and the release has been phenomenal in my life. it's all natural. it's not something that gives you the jitters. it makes you go through your days with energy, and you're not tired anymore, and your anxiety, everything is gone. it's definitely worth trying. it is an amazing product.

♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪ will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us.

a phrase that could be the new official motto for this new republican majority in the house. there is no bottom. stop looking for it. no member of the house exemplifies that better today than george santos. he, of course, is the newly minted republican congressman from new york who is facing -- a laughable number of allegations for fabricating every detail of his resume, laughable, if it weren't all so deadly serious and depressing and shameful. every day brings a new geyser of santos' bald-faced lies. the story has taken a darker turn. there are very few things in american civic life right now that are still sacred and one of them is 9/11. still at the top of the list. it is unfathomable that anyone would lie about being among the ranks of people who were there that day or lost that day.

george santos has claimed that his mother was in the south tower during the attacks on 9/11. that detail about his mom is still up on his official website. he has said that 9/11 claimed his mother's life. nbc news obtained immigration records that show not only was his mother not in the world trade center on september 11th, she was not in the united states on september 11th. she was in brazil on september 11th. how about them apples? what does that say, what new does it say about kevin mccarthy that he's mum? elise stefanik, santos bragging about her endorsement, nothing. speaker mccarthy who handed santos to new committee assignments, nada. it's not that hard, right? we do it every day to denounce

flagrant behavior, including lying. santos' republican colleagues did it last week. they're still standing. saying santos disgraced the house of representatives and saying they do not consider santos one of their congress people. joining us now, nbc news correspondent garrick headache garrett haake joins us on the hill, michael steele is still here for moral support, i guess. take me through the latest. it involves a tragic story about a veteran and his dying dog and i saw your reporting coming out of your twitter feed while i was on the air yesterday. bring me through the latest. >> reporter: you mentioned the 9/11 piece, a hundred pages of immigration documents. i went through them line by line yesterday and they show santos' mom back home in brazil applying

for a visa trying to get into the country. she wasn't successful in doing that until 2003. she was 4,000 miles away on ground zero on 9/11. the idea that you would lie about where you were, lie about where somebody else was on that day is kind of one of the most offensive things you can do to new yorkers who felt that day so personally. that's item one. santos has had no comment about that to any of the outlets who have reported it. the other story is the one about a veteran, a disabled veteran back in 2016 whose service dog had a tumor. he was trying to get help to pay for surgery for the dog. he got connected through his veterinarian with santos' charity called friends of pets united. santos connects with this gentleman. the two of them put a gofundme together. they raised $3,000 for the surgery and long story a little bit shorter, when it comes time for the surgery, santos refuses

to hand over the money. the veteran can't pay for the surgery himself, he ends up putting the dog down. this is at a time when santos was still going by anthony, the other name that he used, its his mother's maiden name. the veteran didn't put it together this was the same guy until he started to see the coverage of santos on television and wanted to tell his story. he said he thought santos' behavior was abhorrent. he thought there was no way this man deserved to be a member of congress. i should add one more thing, santos told a website that that allegation was fake and then today tweeted about it in a very interesting kind of nondenial-denial. in his tweet he says that the story is insane and sickening. he doesn't deny the details of the story. he points to his work with the

charity, talks about other dogs he was able to rescue. nobody disputes that part of it. but santos doesn't actually deny the substance of the veteran's story. >> we're now at a public display of a serious pathology that i don't know that any of us are equipped to analyze adequately. this is disgusting. a dog died that may have died anyway, but it was a candidate for surgery, surgery he was deprived of because santos allegedly robbed the fund of the dog's medical funds. there's a lie about 9/11 which if anything is scared. it's where any of us were that day. when we learned about it and the obligation to take care of everyone that was affected by first responders and families and their kids. so these are two things that

aren't just gross and dirty political lies. they're a travesty and a stain on an already stained republican party. does anyone care? >> well, i mean, listen, we're talking about it and certainly the news is covering every lie, it feels like almost every day there's a new allegation of lies, of kind of george santos' entire story. the real question we should be asking, is anything true that he told the voters in his district to try to get elected. i think the other thing that garrett pointed out here is the strategy that he is employs for the first couple of days when he was on the hill, he said i'm not talking to the press, wait for my side of the story to come out. now you see him employing the trump playbook, this is a distraction, this is insane, using words like that and trying to kind of pivot and see how long he can wait it out.

i think what it says about the party and politicians in general, it used to be that people would have one of these allegations and one of the party leaders would say, it's time for you to step down, right? that is not happening right now. right now you're just seeing a lot of leadership being pretty quiet, not wanting to weigh in here, saying that the ethics investigation is going to be -- the process is going to move forward here. but you don't have the leadership saying, hey, this is inappropriate. you are unfit to be a lawmaker. i think that is a big shift in the post-trump world. michael steele, they're not just saying nothing. kevin mccarthy gave him two committee assignments. let's be clear, george santos couldn't baby-sit or pet sit in manhattan. he couldn't adopt a dog from the human society, certainly couldn't work at this company. he doesn't vet out to do anything accept be a republican member of congress. the only place he could work with these lies on his resume. >> yeah, what does that say

about the party? what does that say when everything else in society, every other opportunity would be closed off because of these pathological lies, right? and this behavior. and yet he is not only seated in congress, he is given committee assignments and, yeah, people can say, oh, it's the committee on closet doors, but it's still a legit committee in the house, right, that serves a purpose and a roll that legitimizes your office, it legitimizes your title. and the fact that the leadership is sort of sliding and waiting on the ethics probe, to anna's point, you can come out as the leader and say this is unacceptable. and, you know, in fact i'm not going to seat you on any committees until this is cleared up. it's not a question of being proven innocent -- proven

guilty -- you're innocent before proven guilty or whatever. this is not that kind of process. this is like, okay, this is an ethical stain. it creates a cloud around the service of this individual member. it also creates a cloud around the caucus because caucus members have to answer questions about the behavior and the additional lies of this member. so we're going to dial it all down. we're going to sort of sit you off to the side and we're going to let the process unfold and until then, yes, you're a congressman in name, but you're not going to function as one. you're not going to be able to sit on committee hearings and have staff put out reports and press releases on your work until we get to the bottom of this. there are ways and avenues on which this can be handled if the leadership wanted to handle it. >> garrett? >> reporter: i think the tell on this is how far some of santos' closest colleagues are distancing themselves from him. the people we have heard speak

out are all the other freshman from new york without whom republicans would not have a majority in the house. they basically built their majority on the strength of a very good year in florida and new york. and those other new new york republicans are the ones who have called on santos to resign. they along with nancy mace and interestingly enough, one of the trumpiest new members of the freshman class, max miller. if you take those five new york republicans plus mace, you've got the people who have to face the voters who are going to be most skeptical of republicans and their ability to govern responsibility come 2024 and they don't want anything to do with santos. and i think it's so telling too, you don't hear him defended by leadership or by the folks who have made this decision to put him on committees. james comer was on another network saying santos is a bad guy. i think it's very clear that if any one of the five investigations into him that we know about right now, four legal ones or the ethics committee, comes out with an indictment or

something similar, it's not going to take a lot to push santos out of this body, but the sheer shame and headlines are not enough. >> because the republican party isn't repelled by a person who was functioned by two names and counting, who has actions that led to the death of a dog, lied about his mom on 9/11, lied about his resume. it's an unbelievable body of journalism. that's the reason we know about all of this. and garrett, you're a big part of that. thank you for your coverage. up next for us a standoff in washington that could crater the entire economy. we've seen this show before, but this one is different. why? it's the new extremist running the house gop. that's next. running the house gop. that's next. u level up u won't take a time-out one dose of ubrelvy works fast it can quickly stop migraine in its tracks within 2 hours without worrying if it's too late or where you are unlike older medicines,

ubrelvy is a pill that directly blocks a protein believed to be a cause of migraine. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. most common side effects were nausea and tiredness. migraine pain relief starts with u learn how abbvie could help you save. ask about ubrelvy, the anytime, anywhere migraine medicine. trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high, you know how i feel. ♪ ♪ breeze driftin' on... ♪ [coughing] ♪ ...by, you know how i feel. ♪ if you're tired of staring down your copd,... ♪ it's a new dawn, ♪ ♪ it's a new day... ♪ ...stop settling. ♪ ...and i'm feelin' good. ♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia,

and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy, and save at trelegy.com ♪ acoustic soul music throughout ♪ ♪ acoustic soul music throughout ♪ ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy, ♪ acoustic soul music throughout ♪ ♪ acoustic soul music throughout ♪

nothing, it really is something. as an expedia member, you can save up to 30% when you add a hotel to your flight. so you can have a bit more money, to do even less. as expected and predicted, the u.s. hit its debt ceiling this morning and despite the catastrophic risks to the economy, far-right republicans are, indeed, playing games. democrats are increasingly worried that speaker kevin mccarthy can't get his own members to negotiate a deal to raise the country's borrowing limit. the new majority gop has vowed to hold the country hostage unless the white house agrees to drastic unpopular cuts in spending. senate majority leader chuck schumer warned this is not complicated. if the maga gop stops paying our bills, americans will be the ones to pay the price from

rising home costs, interest rates, cuts to social security, medicare and more, it is clear who will pay the price for gratuitous partisan politics, american families. because of how disastrous defaulting would be, congress has always, both parties, no matter what else was going on, they've always been able to figure this out before. been here before. both parties have done this a total of 78 times since the year 1960. let's bring in ali vitali, anna palmer and michael steele are still with us. tell us what's happening up there. >> reporter: this is the battle that we knew was coming. now we get the sense that it's coming sometime around june which is earlier than most people expected it up here on capitol hill. they thought it was going to be a late summer, early fall funding battle that would have been a one-two punch with the debt ceiling and funding of the government. you're right, this is pointing out money that's already been spent. we have never defaulted on our debt before.

it would catastrophic in the words of economists and experts to actually do that. but unlike in the past, the knee jerk response from some key members of the republican conference is not just to raise the debt ceiling and continue paying the bills for things they've already spent money on. it's instead to use it as a bargaining chip. that's not entirely knew for washington, finding points of leverage. but it is a moment where we're going to get to see play out the dynamics of the house republican congress, some of the agreements that kevin mccarthy made with some far-right members of that group for his speakership in the first place. but there's also going to be a really fascinating dynamic playing out on the senate side, specifically when it comes to mcconnell who is of the mind set that the debt ceiling should be raised and mccarthy has to find a way to sell that to his conference. we've seen ideas floated from mccarthy that maybe we could find a way to do a short-term hike for a cap on discretionary spending.

that's a deal and what most democrats are saying, they don't want to make a deal on this. they want to raise the debt ceiling and make sure that the u.s. doesn't go where it's never gone before. nicolle, it's a test for mccarthy, the first real pinch point for him and the one that we knew was coming. but if the herding cats of the speakership battle told us anything, that that is what we're in for too. >> and what ways did mccarthy weaken the speakership in ways that make this negotiation more difficult for him. >> when you look at that battle for him to become speaker and his decision to go to the floor, not once, not twice, but obviou lose, it just shows you he has a different frame of reference when it comes to leadership than speaker nancy pelosi, who the former speaker said, you never go to the floor if you don't have the votes. the interesting thing to watch is, how does mccarthy handle the

different factions of the freedom caucus with some of the more moderate republicans and try to appease them? this is going to be a staring contest. anybody who says they know how it's going to end is lying to you. we reported the white house and mccarthy's team are in early stages of trying to find a meeting. that's going to be the first of what will likely be several sessions. it's hard to understand how exactly mccarthy is going to get his members in line. you have to remember, most of them have never been in power before. they have never been in the majority of the house. this is a very different role than when you are in the minority. if he can have that education phase over the next several months, that's the thing i'm going to be watching. >> it's like watching 4-year-olds drive bumper cars with our economy. stick around through a quick break. michael steele, the last word on the other side. don't go anywhere. side don't go anywhere.

♪ well, the stock is bubbling in the pot ♪ ♪ just till they taste what we've got ♪ ♪ ow, ow ♪ ♪ with a big, fresh carrot ♪ ♪ and a whole lot of cheese ♪ ♪ and the mirror from your van is halfway down the street ♪ ♪ well, you can say that -- ♪ wait, what? i said, "someone just clipped the side view mirror right off the delivery van." when owning a small business gets real, progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we? why, you were fixin' to peel me. [ laughter ] only at vanguard, you're more than just an investor you're an owner. that means that your goals are ours too. and vanguard retirement tools and advice

can help you get there. that's the value of ownership. are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? can help you get there. downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters keep your laundry smelling fresh waaaay longer than detergent alone. if you want laundry to smell fresh for weeks, make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters. ♪♪ over the last 100 years, lincoln's witnessed a good bit of history. even made some themselves. makes you wonder... what will they do for an encore? ♪♪ why give your family just ordinary eggs when they can enjoy the best? eggland's best. the only eggs with more fresh and delicious taste. plus, superior nutrition.

which is now more important than ever. ♪♪ realtor.com (in a whisper) if we use kevin's college fund, we can afford this house. the house whisperer! this house says use realtor.com to find options within your budget. good luck young man. realtor.com to each their home. everybody is back. michael steele, i promised you the last word. where do we go from here? >> let's deal with the last topic on the debt ceiling real quick. i think the bottom line is, the democrats in the senate, the white house, put the bill to raise the debt ceiling in play every day. have republicans -- where is the -- what are you negotiating for? it's like having a credit card that's overspent and saying, i

want to negotiate. just pay what you owe. just pay what you owe. thespending part will get discussed in the fall when it's time to look at the budget. i don't think there's a lot of drama here beyond the drama that some folks want to make out of all the numbers. the numbers are plain. pay the bill. >> michael steele, you sum it up perfectly. thank you so much for spending time with us on what continues to be an extraordinary day of news. coming up, members of the far right proud boys are on trial today for trying to overthrow the u.s. government claiming they are just scapegoats and how january 6 ultimately went down. we will bring you the latest after a quick break. don't go anywhere. don't go anywhere. is the #1 het failure brand prescribed by cardiologists. it was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. don't take entresto if pregnant;

it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. 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.

we arrived at the mall and observed a large contingent of proud boys marching toward the capitol. we filmed them and almost immediately i was separated from my colleagues. i documented the crowd turn from protesters to rioters to insurrectionists. i was surprised at the size of the group, the anger and profanity. for anyone who didn't understand how violent that event was, i saw it. i documented it. and i experienced it. i heard incredibly aggressive chanting, and i subsequently shared that footage with the authorities. >> it's 5:00 in new york. that man is a documentary

filmmaker. he has been a guest on this show. he was a witness for the january 6 select committee. that was some of his public testimony. it came during his first public hearing. he provided his firsthand knowledge of what members of the proud boys were doing on january 6, on the day of the insurrection, at the time of the capitol attack. he was working on a documentary about division in america and following the actions of the proud boys very closely. today he is a witness in the seditious conspiracy trial for five members of the militia group. prosecutors allege the proud boys leader and four other top members of that group, quote, did knowingly conspire, confederate and agree to persons known and you known to the grand jury to oppose by force the authority of the government of the united states and to delay the execution of any law of the united states.

this trial comes almost two months after two members of the oath keepers were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, the most high profile convictions so far in the sprawling january 6 investigations. a striking argument coming from the proud boys' trial defense is their attorneys using this attempt to shift the blame and blaming the violence on donald trump, calling out the fact that he hasn't yet been charged. on this we agree. president trump told these people that the election was stolen, declared the lawyer for the proud boys leader last week, during opening remarks for his client's trial on charges of seditious conspiracy. they believed they were acting on behalf of donald trump. "washington post" asking this

question, although charges have been brought against more than 930 individuals in the january 6 attack and a special counsel is investigating trump, thursday's dueling opening statements in a federal court crystallized a question unanswered after two years. who should ultimately bear the greatest criminal responsibility for that day's events? questions of accountability swirling as members of the proud boys face seditious conspiracy charges is where we begin with some of our most favorite experts and friends. mary mccourt is back. joining us, former republican congressman david jolly. with me at the table, rick stengle. mary, i had albuquerque district attorney mr. bregman here yesterday. it got me thinking.

a new mexico plan plots the shooting of election official homes. within weeks an investigation is conducted and the rule of law now has put in motion a prosecution of that new mexico man. in san francisco, a san francisco man enraptured by conspiracy theories targets the home of the speaker of the house and brutally attacks her husband. the san francisco man is arrested and faces criminal prosecution. a florida man plans the assassination of america's vice president. he is still stuffing his face at mar-a-lago. >> before we get to the legacy of the department of justice, i think it's important to keep in mind the investigation is ongoing. it is moved into working its way

up from the foot soldiers, whether they were the foot soldiers on january 6 who attacked the capitol or those who have otherwise acted out in response to former president trump's claims of a rigged election, a stolen election and general election deial two years after the election he lost in 2020. those are the things motivating the san francisco attacker as well as the new mexico attacker, himself a failed candidate for state office. it's appropriate, of course, to prosecute these -- all of the individuals that you have discussed, including those who attacked the capitol on january 6, including the proud boys, who are now trying to shift the blame to trump. all of these people are responsible for their actions. they all -- the evidence appears to be so far based on what we have seen publically to show that they engaged in their crimes knowingly and without any

duress from the president -- the former president. he wasn't making them do these things. they are able to act on their own free will and they did so. it's appropriate they be prosecuted whether by local authorities or federal authorities. that said, you are right, we need to have accountability at higher levels. that accountability does need to extend to former president trump, if the department of justice is able to amass sufficient evidence to prove the elements of any crime against him beyond a reasonable doubt. that applies whether we are talking about inciting the insurrection, inciting the sedition, the obstruction of the certification of the electoral college votes. it also applies to whether -- the separate investigation into him, whether he willingly and knowingly took classified documents to mar-a-lago and kept them there even when they were -- their return was sought. it applies to other aspects of

undermining our democracy that fed into the attack on the u.s. capitol, like the fraudulent elector scheme. i'm not ready to give up on the department of justice. i'm not ready to say their legacy has been completed. we have ongoing investigations, including with the appointment of special counsel as well as the ongoing investigation being led by the d.c. office of the department of justice, d.c. u.s. attorney's office. i'm still hopeful that those investigations will lead to accountability for trump. it's something, honestly, that even immediately in the aftermath of january 6 myself and others were calling attention to the fact that there is substantial evidence here and more to be investigated about what his knowledge was of what was being planned for january 6, whether -- what his level of knowledge was about how people responded to his entreaties to come on january 6. i wrote about that about two

weeks after january 6. now two years later, we have seen abundant evidence he was fully knowledgeable about what was planned and was encouraging it. >> mary, you are one of the most senior former doj officials that we as the public have access to. i wonder if you can help us understand why all evidence -- public facing -- suggests they were not looking at donald trump until around the time that cassidy hutchinson testified publically. >> well, i don't know that that's the case. i understand that that's what it looks like from what's publically available. but i also know from the amount of time i spent as a prosecutor and in the department of justice that the department works pretty hard to keep things out of the public eye while it's investigating. they are not going to be the ones, generally, who come forward and say, we have issued this subpoena or we have issued -- we have obtained a

search warrant for electronic records. they are going to keep that quiet. they are going to speak through their pleadings, as ag garland says so frequently. they will speak through their court documents. he made a few exceptions to that this year in the public interest, partly because he was appointing a special counsel and needed to explain the reason for that and partly because i think on each anniversary of january 6, he felt it is important to update the american public by letting them know that the department intends to follow the facts and evidence where it leads no matter how high and no matter how long it takes. the way you would know about things if it's not being told by the department of justice is if people who are subpoenaed talk about it. if the press that camps out outside the courthouse every day looking to see who goes in and out of the building reports about people who they think maybe were going to testify in the grand jury or people who

testify in the grand jury talk about it. some of the types of search warrants that can be used are things that are actually ordered not to be made public. i'm not ready to say that the department wasn't looking at donald trump until cassidy hutchinson testified. >> that's reassuring. the entire mueller investigation was conceived of, staffed up, located in, conducted and then a report written hundreds and hundreds of pages in less than that passed since january 6. do you think that amount of work has happened and we don't know about it? >> i think that amount of work and more has happened. one of the big difference -- the mueller investigation was a huge investigation. it involved a lot of people and it involved an amazing amount of digital evidence as well as other evidence. it did, as you may recall -- there were indictments returned during the course of that

investigation. particularly some really important charges against different russian entities involved in the interference with our election as well as others. here though we have had 950 prosecutions in the course of this investigation, which is a staggering number. the resources that it takes from the department to do that are really unprecedented. certainly in my entire career there, but i think in all of history of the department of justice. it's just so big and the evidence is so incredibly voluminous. it seems like everyone had a cell phone and was reporting what happened on january 6. then beyond what happened that day, you have all of the things leading up to it, including not just planning for the attack or incitement of this type of an attack, but also the entire fraudulent elector scheme and the other efforts to overrule the will of the american people in casting their votes in the election of 2020.

it's a massive investigation, bigger even than the mueller investigation, i think, by quite a lot. i know that people are impatient. i am, too. but i certainly haven't given up. i think that we will see accountability or efforts to bring the former president -- to hold him accountable, whether it's through criminal charges, whether it's through a report that explains his role. we also may see some accountability from the state level out of georgia even completely separate and apart from the department of justice. >> i think people are quite patient. i think merrick garland has a great deal of good will. i think the democratic party is extremely patient and trusting in institutions. i think that it's a political observation of mine that this justice department may have made the assessment that restoring

the rule of law meant pursuing cases into hunter biden and not touching donald trump. i had heard that from current and former senior doj officials that that would be the world view. i wonder what you think of that. >> i think we already his effort to be scrupulously even-handed, even though -- we talked about this before. there are big differences between the investigation into former president trump's handling of classified documents and the investigation of biden's handling, or those potentially around him, handling of classified documents. the attorney general decided to appoint a special counsel with respect to both of those investigations. i think this is about restoring confidence in the institution of the department of justice, restoring confidence in its commitment to act independently of politics and independently of

the white house, without fear or favor, to follow the evidence and facts where they lead. that is all part of restoring rule of law, which was really so drastically harmed during the trump administration. i think many people feel that way across the political spectrum, frankly, that we needed to re-establish that type of integrity, faith in the integrity of the department of justice. >> david jolly, i want to bring you in. this climate against which i think people are looking at the two-year mark and looking at the prosecutions in new mexico and san francisco -- the new mexico man accused now and set to be prosecuted for being the, quote, mastermind behind four targeted shootings and the perpetrator of the attack on paul pelosi, is because in both those prosecutions, they have cited the national conversation around election denialism.

we have an international conversation now. one of our chief exports is coups and insurrections. i have been to brazilia. these are government buildings so heavily fortified, the thought of them being overrun is mind boggling. what do you make of this inflection point and of this first look into the proud boys' defense, invoking donald trump's instruction for the proud boys to be there? >> that's right. if you take the other cases of political violence, there's a citation to the voices of leadership who have said an election was stolen or your way of life is being taken from you, your culture is taken away from you. you can't draw a direct thread of culpability to the elected official who perhaps created that environment. in the case of january 6, the words of the proud boys' attorney ring true, which is, my clients were acting on behalf of the sitting president of the united states, because in that

case -- these are not the three legal elements, but let's lay this out. donald trump, a sitting president, laid the predicate with the big lie. he told the country, he told his supporters, this election was fraudulent and taken from me. that was the predicate. he issued the invitation. come to washington on january 6. a date nobody would have otherwise known was a date of any significance. he said, it will be wild. then he issued the charge. he took the stage and said, go to the capitol with strength, not with weakness. they are only going to listen to strength. while he is broadcasting that mike pence is about to do the wrong thing. the attorney for the proud boys, a neofascist organization that believes in political violence says, hey, my clients were doing this for donald trump. consider that a sitting president of the united states built a coalition that day that included neofascists who intended to use political violence. he built that coalition to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power and keep himself in office. that is seditious conspiracy.

i think the questions around merrick garland and doj have to also include this question about the gravity of charging or not charging a former president for actions while he was a sitting president. it will change the course of american history if, indeed, donald trump is indicted on -- sedition is a massive charge. many people believe merrick garland should. i'm in that camp as well. it changes the course of american history and american politics. it takes us into a very new but dangerous chapter, but perhaps an important one to prove that law and order still stands. >> david jolly, this is from the judge's opinion in charging a capitol rioter, mr. mcandrew. having followed then president trump's instructions, which were in line with her stated desires,

the court therefore finds defendant intended her presence to be disruptive to congressional business. if judges and courts and juries are tieing the criminal acts of the insurrectionists themselves to the direction given by donald trump, isn't this -- you have congress, they have referred him criminally four times. you have a judge who said felonies have been committed. you have judges in the rioters' cases tieing trump without any doubt into the conduct of the criminals. aren't we already there? haven't we crossed over? >> i believe we are. i think mary and others who have had direct experience, have been inside the building, will have a greater appreciation for this. clearly what the attorney general and the team of prosecutors has to know that they're going to get right is if you believe the elements are there, you really have to know you are going to be able to prove them. charging a former president, if

you don't actually have the evidence to prove the legal elements -- we know under the spirit of the law that donald trump is guilty of seditious conspiracy. we saw it with our eyes. under the four corners of the law, that's where the attorney general has hard decisions to make. many people believe he shouldn't bring charges. certainly, those professionals might disagree. >> rick, let's be blunt about where we are. the appointment of a special counsel to look at the then vice president's handling of classified documents has taken some of the energy and wind out of the sails of the analysis that that case was more straightforward and likely to result in charges against donald trump sooner than the january 6 probes. i have no idea if that's true or not. that's the dynamic and energy field as i analyze it and cover it and exist in it. i don't know that i ever really thought that in garland's view he would view any of these as

open and shut or easy cases to bring. i guess having worked in government -- you worked at the highest levels in the state department. i worked at the highest levels of the white house. i guess the principals i have the most questions about are the handling of classified documents. if the rule of law has no reaction to donald trump -- his latest -- i don't know what we call them. he doesn't just admit to taking classified documents. he calls them keepsakes in cheap folders. we are beyond confession. i think the confession came with sean hannity. he is bragging about the crimes and insulting the folders and the price of them in which the classified documents were contained that he took to mar-a-lago, something he doesn't deny when he says they are, quote, mine. on the insurrection, exporting an insurrection to brazil may fall out of the headlines, but not for brazilians. they are dealing now with the

fact that the rule of law in america holds donald trump harmless for the insurrection he plotted. >> i do know one thing, that david jolly should be the prosecuting attorney in the seditious conspiracy trial of donald trump. he did a fantastic opening argument there. the big theme is, the rule of law has to hold. the argument in the proud boys case, where the attorney says, donald trump was responsible for it, well, both are true. donald trump is responsible for it and the proud boys did permit seditious conconspiracy. i hope the justice department will eventually get to the big guy. it's a delicate matter indicting a former president. merrick garland has a judicial temperament. i think the rule of law has to be seen to be working.

remember, the problem of extremism in america is not going to be solved in the courts. the courts have to show that rule of law matters. that will begin to unwind extremism. that's what we are talking about. i think that has to happen. >> mary, i will give you the last word. >> well, you know, i also would reiterate the points that have been made by both david and rick, which is that it is a big bit of business to indict a former president. even though i very much think there will be accountccountabil know the department of justice is thinking about the long-term -- both the short and long-term implications of that. there's no doubt the former president will call on the mob if he is indicted. that means if he is indicted for mar-a-lago, for january 6, fraudulent elector scheme, any of that, he will call on the

mob. he has indicated as much. the department needs to be thinking about those things. they need to be thinking about what we are already seeing taking place, which is the sort of tit for tat. as soon as the house changed hands, just a week ago, we saw the new subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, which looks like -- this is where i think you can use the term witch hunt. looks like they are on a witch hunt to see if they can turn up something really just to try to turn up the heat on the department of justice and those in the federal government who are just doing their job. i think the department will be thinking about, what does this mean for the future? what if someone like a trump or trump himself were to be in office again? it's appropriate for them to consider all of those things. >> mary, david, thank you very much for starting us off. rick sticks around longer with me. the head of the fox news

empire, rupert murdoch is being deposed in a defamation network lawsuit. we will talk about that. more on the incredible finding from the u.s. supreme court today. the investigation into the leak of the decision to overturn roe v. wade found nothing, zilch. when your v-neck looks more like a u-neck, that's when you know, it's half-washed. downy has 7 benefits that condition and smooth fibers so clothes look newer, longer. feel the difference with downy.

ubrelvy helps u fight migraine attacks. u rise to the challenge. u won't clock out. so u bring ubrelvy. it can quickly stop migraine in its tracks within 2 hours... ...without worrying if it's too late or where you are. unlike older medicines, ubrelvy is a pill that directly blocks a protein believed to be a cause of migraine. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. most common side effects were nausea and tiredness. migraine pain relief starts with u. learn how abbvie could help you save. ask about ubrelvy, the anytime, anywhere migraine medicine. if you have this... consider adding this.

an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients. so if you have this... consider adding this. call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. ♪ i screwed up. for your free decision guide. mhm. i got us t-mobile home internet. now cell phone users have priority over us. and your marriage survived that? you can almost feel the drag when people walk by with their phones. oh i can't hear you... you're froze-- ladies, please! you put it on airplane mode when you pass our house. i was trying to work. we're workin' it too. yeah! work it girl! woo! i want to hear you say it out loud. well, i could switch us to xfinity. those smiles. that's why i do what i do. that and the paycheck.

they were flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist. >> i assume you are getting to

the bottom of exactly what dominion is. >> there's much to understand about smartatic. >> the dominion machine that is as filled with holes as swiss cheese and was developed to steal elections. >> someone decided to allow those interviews to happen and be aired and to let those lies and conspiracies be broadcast on fox news and has landed fox news in hot water with a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit. it's for several of its most prominent anchors and managers to answer for their roles in pushing conspiracy theories that were proved deadly about the 2020 election. today the result of major procedural victory for dominion voting systems ahead of a trial in april. attorneys for that company are questioning fox chairman rupert murdoch under only.

they are building a case that they knew allegations about dominion were false. a judge last year deied the request to have it dismissed because he said the executives may have acted with actual malice. that's the standard. in letting those falsehoods air. fox news argues its coverage is freedom of the press. joining our coverage, writer for "the new york times" jim rutenburg. dominion is running a tight legal and pr operation. my understanding is that before they say or do anything in either arena, legal or public, they have all of their ducks in a row and everything locked down.

as you have watched this case progress, where do you assess it right now? >> first of all, the fact that it is this far along is sort of unbelievable. these sorts of cases don't get this far. what that speaks to is the fact that, a, dominion, according to almost every legal expert, has a real solid case here. neither side is going to blink. this is not going to go to settlement. what you have right now -- this extraordinary moment, the most extraordinary moment for rupert murdoch since the hacking case years ago in that he is appearing at a formal proceeding to discuss this. unlike many years ago, people might remember when mr. murdoch was in a proceeding in london, speaking publically, this is behind closed doors. we may never see much of what is said here. it's an amazing moment that speaks to how strong the dominion case right now appears

to be. >> jim, to your point, here is some reporting from your colleague jeremy peters in december. s in december talk about their knowledge of the fact that there were lies being spread on their air helps dominion get to actual malice. >> well, first of all, that right there was an example of how the dominion lawyers have artfully dribbled some of the

pieces of depositions out in courtrooms. we have a little visibility. not the full context, which we all hope to see. what they're trying to establish is the law says you have to prove actual malice. one way to do that is to show that there was such knowledge that something was untrue -- for instance at a news organization at fox -- that using that information represented reckless disregard for the truth. people knew this was untrue, and they went forward with it and let the allegations sit out there on its air that that could be -- fall into the malice category. it's a very high bar. what fox news is arguing is, this is covering the news. this was what the president himself was saying, his lawyer rudy giuliani. we're just covering the news. dominion collected enough evidence that judges have allowed this to move forward.

>> we covered the news that trump was awash in delusions that he hadn't lost. it was international news. the first american president not to concede defeat after the election was called by every decision desk, first fox news. i want to show you some of the evidence that exists out there of giuliani and barr saying they never believed any of this hogwash about the voting machines. let me read it to you. i do not think the machines stole the elections. barr said, i found dominion to be among the most disturbing allegations. disturbing in the sense that i saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations. i thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has become detached from reality. the white house deputy counsel, quote, i never saw any evidence whatsoever to sustain the dominion allegations.

>> no reasonable person would take the argument seriously. i think this is the malice standard. i think the most incriminating thing is the sean hannity remark saying, i didn't believe it for one second. that's a news organization, that person on the air saying what he is saying to the viewers is not something he believed. that should be the end of the news organization. i think rupert's testimony is not as critical. he can say, i don't know. i just watch it and i'm interested in what's most sensational. i think the testimony of the anchors, that they didn't believe it, is absolutely incriminating. it establishes. defamation is hard to prove. i think that's it to the rights. >> thank you. we will continue to call on you as this case moves forward. thanks for being part of our conversation today. a stunning revelation hidden inside a new report on the

supreme court's investigation into the leak of the decision to overturn roe v. wade. that conversation is next. in two seconds, eric will realize they're gonna need more space... gotta sell the house. oh...open houses. or, skip the hassles and sell with confidence to opendoor. wow. request a cash offer at opendoor.com ♪ what will you do? will you make something better? create something new?

our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you. ( ♪♪ ) 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. your heart is the beat of life. if you have heart failure, entrust your heart to entresto, a medicine specifically made for heart failure. entresto is the #1 heart failure brand prescribed by cardiologists. it was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. and just imagine where a healthier heart could take you. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby.

don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. entrust you heart to entresto. people remember ads with a catchy song. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's a little number you'll never forget. ♪customize and save♪ only pay for what you need. ♪liberty liberty liberty♪ ♪liberty♪

♪ every search you make ♪ ♪ every click you take ♪ ♪ i'll be watching you ♪ - [narrator] the internet doesn't have to be so creepy, the duckduckgo app, lets you search and browse pria blocking most trackers all forf your search history is never tracked, so it can't be shared. and when you leave search, duckduckgo helps keep companies from watching you as you brows. join tens of millions of people making the easy switch by downloading the app today. duckduckgo, privacy simplified. we are following the late breaking news from this afternoon out of the supreme court. the long awaited results of the supreme court's investigation into who leaked the draft opinion last spring that ultimately overturned 50 years

of established precedent from roe v. wade. earlier today, the supreme court announced essentially that it tried its hardest and could not find the leaker. oh, well. never mind. the investigation was conducted not by the fbi or law enforcement but by the marshall of the supreme court. that was by design. that person is in charge of security at the courthouse. that person reports to some of the same people she was tags tasked with investigating. questions whether that was too restrictive, a conflict of interest. there's one detail that's worth digging into deeper. at the conclusion of the initial interviews, each employee was asked to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury, affirming he or she did not disclose the draft opinion to any person not employed by the supreme court. a few of those interviewed admitting to telling their spouses about the draft opinion or vote count.

so they annotated their affidavits to that effect. they told their spouses? that's interesting. let's bring in former maryland congresswoman and msnbc contributor donna edwards. frank figliuzzi made the point in the last hour -- i actually went back and looked at alito's comments when the leak happened. alito was worried about an assassination attempt on the conservative justices. we should all, no matter our partisan divisions, take any public official who is concerned about an assassination attempt very seriously. i wonder if it can be true that there was a fear of assassination attempt and also true that this leak that led to the threat of assassination did not result in a referral to the fbi to investigate. >> that should have been the handoff right there to investigators who are able to dig through forensic and other

details and to try to figure out what happened. merely signing an affidavit -- if you are a liar and you sign the affidavit and you are still lying if nobody does anything to test the truth or veracity of the statement you have made. look, the report is, i think, 20 pages. it's not very long or very detailed. we don't even know, for example, whether the justices themselves were interviewed. we don't know whether past clerks were interviewed. it talks about interviewing 97 employees. the standard for disclosure of information is different for employees. we are not sure other than a broad ethical standard, whether there is one for justices. i think there's a lot that we don't know. unfortunately, the supreme court's approval ratings and trust of the american public is down in the tank.

you would think that the justices, particularly chief justice roberts, would want to get to the bottom of this in the most transparent and thorough way possible, because he came in saying he wanted to restore confidence in the court. this report does nothing to restore that confidence. >> rick, this is from gallop, a polling organization. 25% of u.s. adults said they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the u.s. supreme court. that's down from 36% a year ago. 5 percentage points lower than the previous low recorded in 2014. whether they want to acknowledge it or not, it's an institution in crisis. 25% of adults have a great deal of confidence in it. this isn't the only leaked story with the supreme court. nor is it the only sort of touchstone to something associated with violence.

ginni thomas was a witness to the january 6 select committee investigating the insurrection. how do you assess the health of the institution of the supreme court? >> it's a good question. some of this is due to the fact that it is a separate and equal branch of government with congress and the executive branch. in some ways, it's the most immune to change. look at what we saw about the ethics rules for justices. there are hardly any. there need to be. i think there should be term limits for the supreme court. the chief justice has been slow to evolve. this is an example in the sense that it's an investigation that doesn't really want a result. that is to protect the traditions of the supreme court, i think. it is a separate and equal branch. it's not that easy to go to the fbi or another investigative branch that's outside of the supreme court. it does seem like chief justice roberts wants to protect what he sees as that old-fashion

integrity of the court, which the american people no longer have trust in. >> i'm going to break some news to john roberts. nothing that donald trump mangles as much as he mangled the court. he made three appointments to the court. he is up to his shoulders. he is in it. his hands are deep in the united states supreme court. nothing he maneuvers and reshapes that significantly is unchanged. the congress, we talk about and cover because there are cameras and journalists everywhere. we can see with our eyes trump and trumpisms and the effect of the insurrection on pulling the right not farther to the right, that's the incorrect frame, but away from the rule of law, away from the truth and fully in the hands of liars, insurrectionists and extremists. we don't have visibility into what trump getting into his elbows in the supreme court did. we know this. it demolished its trust,

approval and credibility. you have 25% of americans saying they have trust in it. that is as grave of a problem as things going on that we don't see. what do we do about that if they don't want to fix it? >> if you just go back 20 years, you have the drop in approval -- it's almost a complete reversal in terms of the trust that the american people have in the court. we have an institution that as rick said is a separate and equal branch of government. but that means that john roberts and the justices actually do have the ability to seek an outside independent investigation of its branch of government to determine what happened in the case of this leak and other leaks. i think not to do that just feeds into the frenzy that the american people already feel about congress, about the executive branch and now about the supreme court. the court now is actually

contributing to the lack of confidence that the american people have in our core inspy -- institutions. >> one regular on this program thinks there's a reason we didn't get to the answer or if there's an answer we don't know what it is. i will ask both of you about that on the other side of a quick break. that on the other side of a quick break. 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. love you. have a good day, behave yourself. like she goes to work at three in the afternoon and sometimes gets off at midnight. she works a lot, a whole lot. we don't get to eat in the early morning.

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

you'll receive this limited edition t-shirt to show you're part of the team that's helping feed kids and change lives. if you're coming in hungry, there's no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. so starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible. whether kids are learning at school or at home, your support will ensure they get the healthy meals they need to thrive. because when you help feed kids, you feed their hopes, their dreams, and futures. kids need you now more than ever. so please call this number right now to join me in helping hungry kids or go online to helpnokidhungry.org and help feed hungry kids today. we are back. rick, what do you think will happen? do you think a real

investigation is one desired and two warranted? >> having been around washington a long time, i think all leak investigations are fool's errands. they never are satisfactory. am. >> i'm not weighing in on the leaker. i think you are right about leak investigations. as an operational matter, most leakers are found. they plead their case afterward. if it's moral, we will cover this. this didn't even get there. >> yes. if the leaker is to be revealed, the leaker will reveal himself or herself. it won't be through this investigation. ugh this investigation.

there are times when the person who should be asking the question doesn't ask the question because they don't want the answer. >> yeah, i mean, i ran a shop and something was leaked and we found the answer in about six hours. en you know, i mean, it's not a hard thing to find. i actually would agree that the why and the morality, and there's a bucket of press freedoms we haven't touched. those are complicated. this part isn't, though. if they really thought an assassination was possible of justice alito and the conservatives, why wasn't this turned over to the fbi? >> well, they could have. that is the whole point. >> they still can. >> they actually could have and they still can turn the investigation over. turn over whatever the marshall

uncovered thus far and allow somebody independent who has the investigatory stills to look into this. because as you said, it is possible to find leakers. you examine the phone records of everyone. you talk to employees and former employees. you talk to the justices. there are ways to get to the truth. but not if you don't want to reveal the truth. >> last word? >> well, i'd ask dondonna, why that? why would someone not want to reveal the truth? >> again, we don't know who the leaker is, and it could reach the highest levels, and there could be a reason that one would not want to reveal that. look, i want to know for the integrity of our system. i want to know. and i think that if the court has any idea that it wants to recover itself from the

bottomless pit they continue to sink into, they will allow this investigation to proceed in a way that investigations -- real investigations should. >> donna edwards, thank you. rick, thank you. we'll be right back. ck, thank y. we'll be right back. [ tires squeal, crash ] when owning a small business gets real, progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we? [ cheering ] ♪ this feels so right... ♪

adt systems now feature google products like the nest cam with floodlight, with intelligent alerts when a person or familiar face is detected. sam. sophie's not here tonight. so you have a home with no worries. brought to you by adt. doesn't your family deserve the best?

eggland's best eggs. classic, cage free, and organic. more delicious, farm-fresh taste. plus, superior nutrition. which is now more important than ever. ♪♪ lomita feed is 101 years old this year and counting. i'm bill lockwood, current caretaker and owner. when covid hit, we had some challenges like a lot of businesses did. i heard about the payroll tax refund, it allowed us to keep the amount of people that we needed and the people that have been here taking care of us. see if your business may qualify. go to getrefunds.com.

life... doesn't stop for diabetes. be ready for every moment, with glucerna. it's the number one doctor recommended brand that is scientifically designed to help manage your blood sugar. live every moment. glucerna. an update today on buffalo bills player damar hamlin and what doctors are calling a remarkable rover.

coach sean mcdermott telling reporters hamlin has been visiting the facility almost daily just days after being released from the hospital. players say hamlin's presence is giving them a big boost at what is a crucial time in the season for the bill testimonies team so set to host the cincinnati bengals sunday in what is their first meeting since his cardiac arrest on january 2nd. we'll be right back. 2nd. we'll be right back. is detect. sam. sophie's not here tonight. so you have a home with no worries. brought to you by adt. realtor.com (in a whisper) can we even afford this house? maybe jacob can finally get a job. the house whisperer! this house says use realtor.com to see homes in your budget. you're staying in school, jacob! realtor.com. to each their home. >> 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. ♪ ♪ what will you do? ♪ what will you change? ♪

will you make something better? ♪ will you create something entirely new? ♪ our dell technologies advisors provide you with the tools and expertise you need to do incredible things. because we believe there's an innovator in all of us. so... i know you and george were struggling with the possibility of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath. a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure, spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home. a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces, convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage™ to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day.

they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself. stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to receive 50% off installation of your kohler walk-in bath. and take advantage of our special low monthly payment financing. thank you so much for letting substance abuse your homes during these truly extraordinary and mind bending times. we're so grateful you're here every day. beet with ari melber