other side. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> after spending time in jail, crosby got clean and spent several more decades on the road. during. later making headlines for donating his sperm to fellow singer, melissa etheredge. so she could have children with her partner. tonight, crosby's family says, the 81 year old passed away after a long illness. his wife and son there by his side. his wife jane sharing although he is no longer here with us, his humanity and kind soul will continue to guide and inspire us. his legacy will continue to live on through his legendary music. >> it is safe to say, there will never be anyone quite like david crosby. on that note, i wish you a good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying up late. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. ♪ ♪ ♪

i am going to use a word tonight that i do not use lightly. i am not using it because it's my word. i'm using it because it's mitch mcconnell's. after the first time republicans used there payment national bargaining trip, back in august of 2011. senate leader, mitch mcconnell, told the washington post exactly how he saw our nations stepmom it. quote, what we did learn is this. it is a hostage that's worth of rain summing. a hostage. that is how republicans view this. that is how we should to. here is what happened, five days after mcconnell's hostage statement. >> this was a dark day for the nation's finances, and for millions of americans with a financial stake in the market. the very same americans, who are still processing the fact that our country has lost its top credit rating. here is the damage from today. the dow,

down 634 points. that is the sixth largest point drop in its history. the worst, since await. nasdaq, losing just about 7% of its total value. s&p 500, losing 6. 6% of its value in one day. the president went on television, midday, to reassure americans that the damage was done. the markets continue to drop while he spoke, and the damage continued. it is a bigger systemic problem with the real end in sight. >> that is now known as black monday. it wasn't to our nation's worst financial in the long shot. it is entirely avoided one. the entire history as a nation, the u.s. is always paid stats. it is such a gigantic economy, loaning the u.s. government money has been a safe bet, and a stable investment, around the world, for a very long time. it's all of a sudden stop paying its debts, and that say that would crumble. the global economy would be thrown into chaos. don't mean that there is biker partisan support to make

sure that such a calamity does not happen, ever. in both 2011, in 2013, republicans use that safe bet as a hostage. they threatened financial collapse. now, even we though we never defaulted on her death during those years, the chief economist at moody's analytics found, the sheer uncertainty, created by this republican stunt, across the u.s. economy as much as 180 billion dollars, and 1. 2 billion jobs -- million jobs. >> now, the republican house wants to do this again. they want to do their own hostage crisis. today, the united states hit its debt limit. we can no longer borrow any more money. to keep the lights on, treasury secretary, janet yellen, has been tasked with creative accounting. to move what money we do have from agency, to agency, to pay as many bills as possible. that should keep us afloat for a matter of months, but make no

mistake, our country teeters closer, and closer, to the edge of financial collapse. that is, unless republicans in the house agreed to the routine raising of the debt limit. we can talk about republican demands are, but at this stage, it is fairly unclear. and, may continue to, before sometime. to really understand what can happen here, let's go back to what mitch mcconnell told the washington post in 2011. the full quote said mcconnell said, i think some remember smith thought the default issue was a hostage you may take a chance at shooting. most of us didn't think that. what we did learn is this. it's a hostage that's worth ransom. the hostage metaphor here is apt. this is about people. these people's money, their social services, their retirements, their 401k's. a few years ago, that economist moody's found, another prolonged impasse over the debt ceiling could cause the yost economy up to 6 million jobs. it is wiping out 16 trillion

dollars in the household wealth, and could send the unemployment rate surging. today, this was the advice that they gave to investors. it is there with ample press holdings. make sure that you've got some cash, keep it liquid, in case or a terracotta, me and all investments, and social safety nets can no longer be relied upon, because of a literal, republicans, stunt. a fabricated hostage crisis. the fact that establishment institutionalist like mitch mcconnell, and kevin mccarthy, our, gleefully, willing to embrace the fact that they want to hold the american people hostage, is one thing. but, someone should tell them, they are hostages to. i mean, they may not want to trigger a global financial collapse, but do they really control the party? it took kevin mccarthy

five days, and 15 excruciating rounds of voting, just erwin himself the speaker's gavel. the idea that kevin mccarthy is in charge, is a myth. now, does kevin mccarthy, does the speaker of the house, really, think that this is a hostage that the most extreme members of his own party would not take a chance of shooting? joining us now, jen psaki, former white house press secretary for the biden administration. she is, also, the host of an upcoming show on peacock. jen, thank you for being here. how does -- >> that was a rundown of everything. i think you scared me a little too. >> when the new york times with his in the mattress, i think we should all be alarmed. this is the united states of america, in 2023, and literally, no one knows how the sense. so, i guess when you look at the tea leaves, when you look at the behavior of house republicans, do you think that kevin mccarthy will make

it out of here, still holding the speakers gavel? >> probably not, alex. kevin mccarthy, first of all, i think it's worth understanding, is not a long time opponent of the debt limit. they are raising three times in the trump administration, and in under the republican presidents, historically, it is in 2013 just happen because democrats, and republicans, didn't want to wrap their economy with this disagreement. i think it is also important where the economy is so vague, as you just alluded to, that's why they don't have a plan on getting this. they promised spending cuts, to the right-wing circus, and those spending cuts, he doesn't even have the votes for. those are all, terrible terrible options. jenna, i am reminded of last week, way back when it was last

week. whenever the speaker's contest is in full weather the full breaking was going down. it's like republicans look on, at the raucous wing of the party it is in indignation that you crazy people, how did all get so insane? but this is how it got so insane. mitch mcconnell, who is the establishment figure, and understand how it supposed to work, it has made a very calculated decision in 2011. they are going to take the united states hostage. once you cross the rubicon, can you really be surprised when they're actually able to go off the cliff? >> no, because they made it something that others would do in the future. that is one of the reasons why we talk to officials at the white house, my former colleagues about this, why they do not want to make

this a negotiation. once you make it a negotiation, like it was in 2011, the markets, and the economy, get scared about the uncertainty. with the economy being downgraded, that is leading to people's retirement, accounts, being diminished, and they want to go back as the most seen people do, and just to a period of time when it was raised, as it has been, dozens and dozens of times in history. the group of people in the party who seem to be controlling kevin mccarthy's agenda, they like the chaos. the chaos, for them, is attention. the chaos, for them, it's fundraising. there is not an incentive to, them crazy enough, that is not making this a chaotic, hurdling towards uncertainty, on the debt limit. >> how does the white house play this? it was looking disgustedly what's happening in the lower chamber, when there's an election for speaker of the house. let republicans

cannibalize themselves. let this circus continue for his many days is it needs to. it's another thing when it's with the full faith and credit of the united states, and there are real world implications in terms of how much it cost us economy, what it does to retirement accounts, and the jobs that are lost. how does the white house play this, and can they just let republicans, basically, circle up in a firing squad, shooting at each other? >> well, look. i know that president biden sees the senate, and the house, differently. maybe because he was in the senate for so long, but it was mitch mcconnell, as much as he was a completely irresponsible actor back in 2011, who pulled together a number of republicans in 2021 to raise the debt limit. now, since that time, donald trump has attacked him, and it's become more of a hobby horse of the right-wing, but we will see. democrats still control the senate. so, their focus is on the house. smoking out kevin mccarthy. kevin mccarthy has said, he wants to negotiate, and that's not a good idea, because that creates uncertainty. what is important

here is to know, and what the white house will keep pushing for, publicly, i would expect, if you are sitting in the white house right now you are, strategically, trying to figure out how to do this, to put pressure on the republicans, to what, exactly, they want to cut. when people hear discretionary spending, most people don't know, exactly, what that means. what that means is, either, cutting the military budget, which republicans do not want to do, and most in this caucus will not want to carve out, or, it means cutting domestic programs. do they want to cut veterans benefits? do they want to cut housing? what about health care? or, the big east, and this is the only way to do the cuts that they want to cut, is social security, medicare, or medicaid. those are entitlement programs. what they are going to do is put public pressure on, they will not

negotiate, and they will try to smoke out exactly what kevin mccarthy, and the republicans, are proposing to cut. >> i'm wondering, from a communications perspective, does the fact that the rockets republican caucus, especially the fact that they're conditioning this as a negotiation, matter? the most often, in the louder that they say that this is a negotiation, does, that in some's minds, maybe moderates, and independents, somehow, shift some part, of the insanity on to democrats? republican saying, they won't negotiate with us, they won't negotiate with us. if we go off the cliff, and they do lose jobs, and there is economic turmoil, does president biden shoulder some of the blame for this? >> i think the answer to that question is, yes. that is why kevin mccarthy went out, and sounded a little say in a few days ago. he said, i just want to have a conversation. i just want to have a negotiation. what is so important for the white house to do, and they are doing this, is this is what you are strategically thinking about in the white house right now. how to make the details clear to the public. the devil is in the details here. there

is not just a pool of money you can cut in the budget. everything has impacts. this is why the white house has decided, more specifically, and democrats are stalking more specifically, about how entitlement cuts, social security, medicare, medicaid, could be on the chopping block. doing this is very unpopular, including, among dependent -- independents, and republicans. if it's just a generic have a chat, it's harder for the white house then it is if it's a specific discussion, whose specific public discussion on what they're trying to do is cut your social security. >> the transparency will be key on all of this. our, reminder barreling towards economic calamity is the outcome that republicans are setting the country on the course for. jen psaki, former white house press secretary for the biden ministration, host of an upcoming show on peacock, and one of my friends, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you alex. >> we have much more ahead this hour. after the supreme court draft opinion that would overturn abortion rights, after that leak, the

court announced an investigation to figure out who leaked the opinion on the press. that opinion is, basically, complete. what did it find? it was handling the classified documents, finding the president's private office, and moving the washington post, byline on that very story. she joins, may coming up next. stay with us. with us. my asthma felt anything but normal. a blood test helped show my asthma is driven by eosinophils, which nucala helps reduce. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. nucala is not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred.

don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. ♪ ♪ this... is a glimpse into the no-too-distant future of lincoln. ♪ ♪ it's what sanctuary could look like... feel like... sound like... even smell like. more on that soon. ♪ ♪

the best part? the prequel is pretty sweet too. ♪ ♪

i screwed up. mhm. the prequel is pretty sweet too. 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. ♪ 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, >> we are fully cooperating and 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.

hoping this gets resolved quickly. you're going to find that there is nothing there, i have no regrets, and i am following what the lawyers have told me and they want me to do. that's exactly what we're doing, there is no there there. >> there is no there there. the response to the questions about the classified documents it is d. c. office and delaware home. well there are several major difference between biden predicament and trump's, such as the clear evidence of obstructive behavior in trump's case, and the seaming respective a lack of obstruction in biden's case. one of the surrounding questions is these administrations can's transparency and communicate with the public. they only learned of the classified documents when cbs news broke the story last week. even though the documents were first discovered on november 2nd, just six days before the midterms. months after the papers were first found. the administration released a statement confirming the news after the cbs report broke, but

a few days later we learned that more documents have been found at the presidents home in wilmington. those documents were found on december 20th. the white house didn't share that information in their first comments to the press, and thus the criticisms of the transparency. today, the washington post posted a detailed insight like about how the white house tried to navigate these discoveries. this reporting offers an account of the administration's strategy in all of this. here it is. early on, biden's attorneys the justice department investigators both that they had a shared understanding about keeping the meta quiet. they had very different reasons. the white house was hoping for a speedy inquiry they would find no intentional mishandling of the documents, planning to disclose the matter only after the justice issued all clear. federal investigators, and for their part, trip ugly try to avoid complicating any probe with a media feeding frenzy. as time went on, it became clear that the white house and the doj were not exactly on the same page and particularly when

attorney general merrick garland announced the appointment of a special counsel to investigate biden's retention a documents. quote, biden's aides he did is protocols for conducting searches and reporting additional concern but -- some people remained furious at justice officials, saying that the attorney general named a special counsel to pursue biden even after they did everything that his department asked. joining us now is carol lanning, investigative reporter for the washington post, and one of the reporters on this deep dive into the white house is thinking. carol, thank you for joining me. when you read this accounting, it explains a lot, at least from the white house perspective about why there was not more transparency, why there is not more communication. it seems like the biden administration was trying to be very differential to the doj but, and very much follow the letter of the script i thought

they're both reading from. was there a point where the doj lost confidence in the biden administration? what happened that made the two paths diverge? >> alex, i'm glad you asked. we have no indication, no evidence that the department of justice were frustrated with team biden, grew worried about the degree to which they were cooperating, none. we have no indication of that. what we do have is a recommendation that was kept secret by the federal prosecutor who is leading this review of the handling of these documents, and how in the heck they got from the vice president's government offices, and homes, two places they were not secured. that person, john laotian recommended in the first week of january in appointment of special counsel. just as he was about to leave the department. there's no indication of us here at the post, the team that worked on this, that he

recommended it out of some concern or fear that he was not getting all of the answers he needed to. in fact, what our story discovered is that from the perspective of both the department of justice and biden 's personal attorney's, they were keeping this thing low, they were staying under the radar. four different raisins, as you say, but from sources on both sides, they both believed that the biden administration is doing things that needed to be done. reporting voluntarily the finding. a classified records. following the department of justice's instructions and protocols for how to search locations later, and had to report what they found, for example after they discovered some more classified documents from biden's vice presidency in biden's personal home and garage in wilmington. everybody needs to take a breather about this idea that the special counsel was

appointed because there is something funny or rotten in denmark. in fact, it's very plausible to me, and we have some people that have told us this, not to the degree that i think we can say it is a fact, but we've had people tell us that -- and i think it's plausible, that the special counsel was appointed by garland because merrick garland is extremely sensitive to the notion that he needed a special counsel to investigate a former president, and he probably needed one to investigate the documents handled and retained by a current president. both of them appear ready to be in a major contest to run for president again. >> that is quite a concession to optics, because in the detailed reporting that you guys offer in your story, at every turn of this investigation, the retrieval of documents, whatever you want to call it. the biden administration is

going out of its way to be deferential to the doj. i one point, they stop asking its own staff how these documents might have gotten misplaced, or taken out of the white house, or not returned to the proper receptacles, if you will. because they are worried that there would be the impression that the white house is trying to tamper with witnesses, even though that is a completely plausible line of questioning if you're trying to get to the bottom of this. at every turn, there's a very reasonable explanation for why the white house has behaved the way that it has. it's not imagine that while speaking with members of the biden white house, there must be an exorbitant amount of frustration given the scrutiny that they are under, and the assignment of a special counsel. >> absolutely. there is anger. even though i believe, alex, and i've talked to some sources inside of this team, and i mean the team that is with joe biden

and hoped for his reelection. those sources say that there are plenty of people angry about the employment of the special counsel, but they're also folks in the same group that recognized garland might have felt like his hand was forced, and felt like this was a possibility that this might happen. strictly because again, the person holding the records in his personal home, and holding them in his former office, even though he is surprised by them being discovered, these are both properties controlled by him, and these records for from his vice presidency. i want to emphasize two things that you make me think of, alex, with your good questions. one is, absolutely, the biden team was thinking about the rulebook, the law, let's do everything justice wants, let's get this cleared up. let's not get into any mess the way that donald trump got into a mask by pretending that he

didn't have any classified documents, and refusing to turn them over, by trying to brow beat his lawyers, some of them who've used to agree that all of the classified documents had been returned. biden and his team wanted to avoid that, but let's not not pretend they are not political actors. they did not want this to lead. they didn't want any of this information to come out until they had an all clear, which they had good reason to think that eventually they would have an all clear. how is this so different? all of the ways you said. joe biden's lawyers found this information and that day they notify the national archives. they ask what we can do, what do you want has to do, the search for records, exhaustingly return anything that might be problematic. there's no criminal exposure here that i can see in any of the reporting that we have done for joe biden, or even for some of the people that packed up

the records. criminal exposure is when you have intent, and that's not the problem here. to that end, you mentioned that biden's longtime assistant is worried that she might be one of the reasons that these documents were moved into his office. but the vice president, now president literally might have had nothing to with a new case. >> that's right, i want to emphasize, alex, she has confided to associates that she is very worried that she caused a part of this unnecessary wound for her boss. she's the executive assistant for joe biden, who helped pack some of these records, and shipped them to a transition space and then relocated some of these boxes of papers, a mismatch of various political records, planning documents, policy documents, to the pen biden center. she feels like she might be at the root of this, and is not sure. again, of course thinks it's an innocent mistake, and it just happens to be costing joe biden a lot in local capital right

now. >> will we heard the presidents response today, there is no there there. this is important reading to back up that version. carolyn ng, thank you for your time tonight and great reporting, as always. >> thank, you alex. >> still ahead tonight, one of the figures from -- he tried to keep donald trump in office in 2020 has a new version of events with what really happened in the weeks leading up to january 6th insurrection. we'll tell you all about that. up next, it's been more than eight months since the draft opinion of the supreme court's ruling reversing decades of abortion rights. still, after months of investigation, there is no suspects. how thorough really was that investigation? stay with us.

hello, world. or is it goodbye? you know, it seems like hope and trust are in short supply. [clap] now, as businesses we can blame and shame. or... [whistles] we can make a change. [clap] we can make work, work for our communities. create more equal opportunities. [clap] it's time for business to show its true worth. because it's not goodbye, world. it's hello, team earth. [clap]

when it was time to sign up for a medicare plan... mom didn't know which way to turn.

but thanks to the right plan promise from unitedhealthcare she got a medicare plan expert to help guide her to the right plan with the right care team behind her. ♪ wow, uh-huh.♪ and for her, it's a medicare plan with the aarp name. i hope i can keep up! the right plan promise, only from unitedhealthcare. get help finding your plan at uhc.com/medicare.

♪ 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, >> after may 2nd, protesters 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.

taking to the courts to make a decision. the whole country already had access to every word of it in print. a draft opinion in dobbs versus jackson women's health, overturning roe v. wade being published by politico. the notions were high, and people were on edge including the justices of the supreme

court themselves. chief justice john roberts called the leak a betrayal of the confidences of the court, and tasked the marshall have the court with investigating in. tonight, the court investigated, and say that they -- the court released this statement. after months of diligent analysis and forensic evidence, interviews with almost 100 employees, the marshals team determined that no further investigation was warranted, with respect to many of the 82 employees who had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion. the marshals said that her team conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, and they all denied leaking the draft. well they determined that the courts iced tea systems were not breached, the marshals said that working from home during the pandemic, maybe leaving gaps in the courts security policy. it created an environment where it is too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the cords i. t. networks. increasing deliberate and accidental disclosures of court

sensitive information. even though they have no suspect, the court team promises to follow any new information, wherever it leads. investigators, continuing to review and process electronic data being collected, and a few other inquiries remain pending. to the extent that the initial investigation leads new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them. apparently for good measure, the court asked former bush administration homeland security secretary michael chertoff to conduct a review of the investigation. he found that it was conducted thoroughly, and at this time, i can not identify any useful investigative measures. i can. from what we can glean, the investigators don't appear to have talked to the justices themselves, or to their spouses. they did not check their electronic communications, so we very much still have a whodunnit on our hands. it seems we have reached a breaking point with that. joining us now, melissa murray,

university professor at the school of law. and an msnbc legal analyst. melissa, the last time we talked, it is juicy. what happened? also, how is this the conclusion of the investigation? >> it began with a bang, and it's ended with a whimper. let's start. the whole idea of having the marshal service investigate this leak is by itself eyebrow raising. the marshal service is part of the court, but it's really just there to provide physical security to the justice system, not like the fbi with a broad investigative method. it's clear that the highest court in the land with all of these resources from the government at their disposal, chose to use an arm of the court that is not equipped to do this. you see it in the report how they had to consult external, sources, help with some of the forensic issues, it's not clear

that this was the best use of the marshals time, and may mean that the investigation might be best done with some other body. it's almost like they didn't want to get to the bottom of it. >> who knows? it is an interesting way to wind all of this, especially at a time where the court is experiencing its lowest approval ratings among the public in the years, and so this is a court where much of the public believes that its work is animated by politics, not law. here is an opportunity to really investigate and get to the bottom of this. and to be transparent with the american public. instead, we've got more opacity here. we don't know if the justice were interviewed, we don't know anything. we do know that some of those interviews cited affidavits, saying that they haven't disclosed the information, haven't been a source of the leak. then they later had to come bag and annotate their affidavits,

because they realized they had actually discussed this decision in the vote count with their spouses in partners. you wonder, was that widespread, where other people discussing this with their spouses and partners? why don't we know that? >> ever got we had two glasses of, one about to watch game of thrones, and i just sort of forward and heard the attachment of the dobbs opinion. this is the first time, the second time that a major opinion like this got leaked ahead of the final ruling. it seems to me not coincidental that both of these opinions are ones that are highly controversial, that are not favorable to liberals, progressives, democrats. the first one was apparently leaked by samuel alito, the hobby lobby decision. and yet from what we understand, he has not been interviewed in all of this, it's literally like here is a guy that likes to set fire to buildings, he is an admitted arsonist, but in this lading building fire, we're not going to ask him anything about it.

how could they not specifically ask the people named in press and reporting and having an interest in leaking opinions. >> this is -- whether you believe that justice alito leaked the hobby lobby opinion in 2014, whether you think he's the source of the leak, we don't know. the question lurks out there, because of the reporting by the new york times, joe back earlier this last year had this whole exposé on the campaign of influence of the supreme court with justice alito, and some of the other juror conservative justices at its center. it is associated with the leak, and you don't talk to the justice system, and you're not forthcoming with the public about whether or not you talk to the justices. just a very silly, unforced error. another was an unforced. it does bring to mind that the point of this, when would think is the john roberts attempt to restore the integrity of the court.

i think it's done the opposite way, adding another layer of skepticism to whether or not -- about the intentions of the court, and how partisan it has become. not specifying whether or not they have talked to the judges is one thing, and then closing the book on it seemingly with michael chertoff playing this strange advisory role, saying nothing to see here folks, i'm not a detective but i have plenty of questions. >> well that is so interesting to me because as you say, the former secretary of homeland security, he has an experience in security breaches. he has a consulting firm, and they did not ask him to conduct an independent investigation. instead, they asked him to review this investigation, which by their own admission, required some additional expertise, because they didn't have it in-house to do it. why wouldn't they just allow him to do an independent investigation, external independent investigation instead of this far out report that seems to be like, nothing to see here -- a lot of wasted capital with the public.

>> i would say there is at least one person who knows the leak. that person works for politico, and there are two people bylined on that story that broke. they know the truth. putting people under the scrutiny of an affidavit is really important. there's somebody that knows the truth in all of this. >> they've been active on this, i'm the reporter -- one of the reporters they broke the lead initially. they reported on this conclusion of the investigation, which you might take it at some high-level trolling from politico, i'm never revealing our sources. but they must know, they must have at least some change of causation that can eventually get to the person who is the source at the court. we do know it's at the court, is that it wasn't an external hack. no need to look a broad. it was incoming -- >> thank you. melissa murray, professor at

school of law in new york, hosted podcast, strict scrutiny. i hope the next time you come here, we will actually know who the leakers was. >> probably not. >> one of the alleged mastermind behind the scheme to keep president trump in power in 2020 claims that what everyone else says happened did not actually happen. barbara mcquade joins us to discuss. that's next. that's next.

♪♪ 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? ♪♪ >> two days after the 2020

election a far-right lawyer desperate to help donald trump overturn the election result share the following email. what would you say about a state legislators and designating electors? you'd be the person to write a, and maybe get others to sign it. the john in that email is john eastman, the constitutional expert the came essential -- we don't know how eastern reply to that email but ultimately report to memos outlining his plot to create fake slates of electors in seven swing states. he used them to pressure pence to swing the election for trump. in the days before january 6th, he wrote that leaky pens begin to open and count the ballots, starting with alabama. at the end, the dispute in seven states, given the fake

electors. there are no electors that could be deemed validly appointed. that means the final number of election -- is 454. a majority of the electors appointed with therefore be 228. there are at this 0. 232 votes for trump, and 220 votes for biden. pence gavels president trump as reelected. we've known about this for sometime now, but still, wow. eastman wrote a second memo, outlining wargames scenarios should pence reject the fake elector plot. despite all of this evidence, and despite with the january 6th committee has uncovered about the plot, john eastman has told the new york times that he is actually the reason that a more perilous outcome did not happen. seriously, he's catching himself as a hero in the story. on january 4th, he helped convince trump that pence did not have the power to pick whomever he wanted as

president. his advice was only that he should pause the certification of the election, giving legislators more time to consider fraud allegations in certain states where trump had lost. the problem with eastman's version of events is that it differs greatly from what others are saying, including vice president mike pence. the former vp said that on january 5th, simply reject the rightful electors from those seven swing states. who do you believe? next week, january 24th, they will determine whether to make public trump's efforts to steal the election in that state. the focus of that investigation has been fake electors plots, and john eastman as a potential target. joining us now is barbara mcquade. the eastern district of michigan, and now professor at university of michigan law school. thank you for being here

tonight. let's first get yours thoughts on john eastman's contention that he has somehow saved us from more certain peril in all of this. >> alex, there is a reason that lawyers often tell kind underinvested gagen ought to say anything out loud. you might say something foolish that could be used against you later. he took that advice, john eastman when he was testifying before the january 6th committee, invoking his fifth amendment right against self incrimination. when he's talking to the press, he's got a story and an explanation. when it matters, when he could be held accountable for his lies, he chooses not to answer those questions. >> that is a tall right there, also in effect that this was inconsistent with what we were hearing from mike pence, his aides, and with others in the white house. in the end, it's going to be difficult for him to persuade a jury that he is the one telling them the truth, and everyone else's line. >> why even bother? do you think it's because he feels the pressure? because he feels like he's in greater legal peril as time

goes on, and this will somehow convince somebody out there? what is the point of potentially lying to the new york times at this stage of the game? >> i don't know. maybe it's to try to try out some defenses and see if they can fly. this is a less of a risky form to say it in the public domain, as opposed to in a court of law. and see how it flies. it's not something that i think any lawyer would advise, i think any lawyer would advise him to keep his mouth shut, because when you start to see things in the public domain, people who know better might come out and refute you. it also kind of locks you into a corner. anything you say, even to the new york times can be used in court. he could be cross-examined with that. a lawyer could say, is it true that you told the new york times x y and z. it puts up in an opposite position with having to confirm it. you can invoke the fifth amendment as well, but i think that the fact they are talking in one form and have to be

silent and another, it's very difficult. there's also the argument that he's waived his fifth amendment right against self in the incrimination with regard to what he said to the new york times, and what he might have to repeat in the court. we'll see if he can stand by then when he's under oath. >> where do you think his greatest legal peril is? we know that eastman has been dragged into the fulton county investigation. with the january 6th committee of course itself referred eastman by name to the doj on a range of criminal charges. how do you see -- i mean, where do you see the biggest threat coming from? >> i think that they are both big threats, but it seems like georgia is the most imminent. one is just the aggressiveness of fani willis, but also the other in her investigation, it's a little bit more constrained, a little bit more finite, she's only looking at the events that occurred in georgia. i think there's a very strong likelihood that this grand jury would recommend charges, and if so, he's an instrumental player in all of this. he's the architect of this

plot. i think there's a very strong chance that you could be indicted, there and that could come very quickly. i don't think that that means there is the only place where he could face criminal exposure. in the federal investigation, i think that he can face exposure for his conduct in georgia and all of these other states were fake electors were solicited. he is right in the heart of this, he read from that memo, we know what mike pence was saying on january 5th, which is very different from what john eastman is saying. also alex, i will tell you that the treasure trove of evidence is somebody's phone. people send all kinds of text messages, write notes to themselves, and i could be very perilous for john eastman. >> former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, barb mcquade, thank you as always, barbara. >> thank, you alex. >> we'll be right back.

i get bladder leaks. it's just a new way of life for me. the always discreet pad is super comfortable. it feels like it's barely there. look at how much it holds, and it still stays thin! i've looked at myself in the mirror and i can't see it at all! that's the protection we deserve!

research shows 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. did you know that liberty mutual custo— ♪liberty mutual♪ ♪ only pay for what you need♪ ♪only pay for what you need♪ ♪ custom home insurance created for you all♪ ♪now the song is done♪ ♪back to living in your wall♪ they're just gonna live in there? ♪yes♪ only pay for what you need. ♪liberty liberty liberty♪ ♪liberty♪

(jennifer) the reason why golo customers have such long term success is because we focus onberty♪ real foods in the right balance so you get the results you want. when i tell people how easy it was for me to lose weight on golo, they don't believe me.

they don't believe i can eat real food and lose this much weight. the release supplement makes losing weight easy. release sets you up for successful weight loss because it supports your blood sugar levels between meals so you aren't hungry or fatigued. after i started taking release, the weight just started falling off. since starting golo and taking release, i've gone from a size 12 to a 4. before golo, i was hungry all the time and constantly thinking about food. after taking release, that stopped. with release, i didn't feel that hunger that comes with dieting. which made the golo plan really easy to stick to. since starting golo and release, i have dropped seven pant sizes and i've kept it off. golo is real, our customers are real, and our success stories are real. >> there is a new allegation why not give it a try? about george santos's mysterious past, and it is chock full of hypocrisy. according to an ex friend of

george santos from brazil, the openly gay new york congressman used to perform in drag back in the day. he even had his own drag queen persona called cadara. he denies ever having been a drag performer. there's nothing wrong with participating in the drag tradition, or having their own direct persona. a secret drag passed is a problem for anybody who's looking to get ahead in a party that has gone out of its way to attack and vilify, and legislate against anybody whose gender presentation does not match their biological sex. over the past three years, republicans have zeroed in on drag performers as part of their anti lgbtq agenda, blasting them as groomers and pedophiles. republican representative mike johnson has even introduced federal legislation called the stop sexualize a shun of children act, which specifically targets drag queen story hours, public events were dragged performers volunteered to read children's books at local community spaces.

full-fledged supporter of the anti drug panic. he has endorsed runs that ron desantis's don't say gay bill, which specifically targets drag performers as part of anti lgbtq agenda. and in an interview last year with the news outlet, he promoted his party's new favorite flavor of moral outrage by falsely claiming, quote, there are a total of 300 directions per day in new york city schools. >> no they're not, well beyond george santos complaining about anything in his past. maybe the best we can hope for at this stage is that cadara will make her own triumphant return to make a stand for all drag queens within the republican party. a certain former new york city republican would make an excellent drag mother.