destruction. that's what he stands for. >> we all know boris johnson -- qassem oppression certify lives. so on this, night we applaud the former prime minister for speaking up and speaking out. he's giving us another reminder that the truth matters. but only if you hear it. we're gonna do our best and tell it every damn night. and on that note, i wish you all a very good night. remove our colleagues across the networks of nbc news thanks for staying up late i'll see you at them to-ites. them to-ites. there has been a ton of movement in the two sprawling criminal investigations into former president donald trump. one that is being conducted by special counsel, jack smith. those two investigations are of course trump's squirreling away of classified documents at his mar-a-lago beach club.

and trump's efforts to subvert american democracy and overturn the 2020 election results. today, eli then b c reporters spotted conservative activist, tom fitting going into the d. c. federal courthouse with the grand jury along with the doj prosecutor who works for the special counsel. fifth, in is the president of judicial watch, the ultraconservative outfit that enjoys suing the federal government to quote unquote, stop government corruption. we don't know which grand jury tom fit in was a close trump ally. which line he appeared today, because tom fit and has the dubious distinction of being of interest to prosecutors in both special counsel and instigations. on the january six front, a few days before the election tom fittin, drafted a statement from then president trump declaring, trump had won the election. even though that election hadn't happened yet. here is how january six committee member, zoe lofgren described the memo this past october. >> the draft statement, which

was signed on october 31st, declares we had an election today, and i won. and the fittin memo indicates a plan that only the votes counted by the election day deadline, and there is election day deadline would matter. i don't election day just outside of 5 pm. mr. fit, indicated that he spoke with the president about the statement. >> tom fitton -- suggested that trump could claim bitten by claiming all the votes that were counted by a made-up election day deadline. and just ignore all the other ballots. which is -- on the mar-a-lago front, cnn reported was tom fitton, who is in trump's here, that you can keep all the documents, they are yours. you own them. watch as it turned, out was just totally blatantly wrong. the justice department grand

jury has been busy. here last week trump's top department -- can cuccinelli, testified before the grand jury invested mailing trump's effort to subvert the election. you'll remember, cuccinelli is a da official that trump asked to seize the voting machines, in key swing states six weeks after election. de cuccinelli declined the honor, but his discussions with trump are apparent interest, federal prosecutors and also this week it was reported that two people who searched trump properties for classified documents, they also testify before federal grand jury in the mar-a-lago probe. >> meanwhile, this list is long, i know but over new york city and another investigation, into the former president trump organization controller, jeffrey mcconney, reportedly testified today before the grand jury investigating the stormy daniels hush money payments. just this, evening the new york times reported that prosecutors are warning that they may file additional charges against presently jailed, longtime trump organization cfo, allan

weisselberg. in attempt to leverage work cooperation from weisselberg, and their investigation into trump. , remember weisselberg serving a five month sentence at rikers after pleading guilty to tax fraud charges. and then there is the looming threat of the fulton county, georgia, criminal investigation. into trump's effort to overturn the election results in that state. a probe that many experts say that voice is the highest threat for trump, fulton county -- recently said the decisions are imminent, regarding indictment after a special grand jury submitted its recommendations to her last month. around juries everywhere, there are a lot of moving parts right now on multiple fronts. in terms of president trump's illegal exposure. at the federal level, there is more than enough for attorney general, merrick garland tumalo. vernon and will ultimately have to make a zeeshan, based on recommendations by the special counsel, as to whether charges are warranted in the two trump investigations.

and now, there is one more thing that merrick garland has to think about. john durham, the special counsel appointed by trump's attorney general, bill barr, to investigate the origins of the trump russia. john durham still on the job. he now reports to merrick garland. if you remember. the two cases john barham brought to trial ended in acquittals. durham has yet -- deep state conspiracy by the intelligence committee to discredit trump. but, the new york times latest reporting on durham, which is a bombshell piece, it shows just how much barr seems to have meddled in the durham probe. and how he was determined to make sure john doorknob covered something, while drinking scotch with john durham on the regular. the paper reported that three senior prosecutors of durham's team, resigned over frustrations and disagreements over the handling of this inquiry. we also learned, about a european trip that barr and durham took, where they

received a credible tip linking trump to success pectin financial crimes. barr assigned that criminal investigation of the former president to john durham. and the public never heard anything about it. until now. bill barr, spoke to the l. a. times last night to defend his handling of john terms investigation. in an attempt to pre spend the eventual report's findings. and regarding that previously undisclosed criminal investigation involving trump. barr said quote, it turned out to be a complete non-issue. really? what happened there? already members of congress are demanding answers, will merrick garland tell the american public. will he release the durham report in full, or in part. joining us now is charlie savage, washington court house manu for the new york times. and the lead byline on this incredible piece of reporting in the times. charlie, thanks for being. here we've been eager to talk

to you since this -- first published. and now we have a fair amount of pushback from the former a. g., bill barr, the subject of this investigation. what is your initial reaction to his affective rebuttals and his overall sense that there is no there there are, in terms of the pressing questions you raised in the piece? >> my first reaction was, oh, he confirms that there is an investigation involving trump, that durham handled. it's interesting, we don't have anybody on the record conforming that before. that was nice of. we still don't, maybe he's right that i went nowhere. we don't know. we just don't know what that thing was. we don't know what steps durham took. we don't know what he found out. we don't know why he chose to bring no charges, perhaps it was as bill barr says, there was no there there. it's extraordinary it happened at. all that no one knew about. it and when it linked with durham's administrate of review

involved to encompassing a criminal investigation, everyone thought that meant he'd found evidence of a crime by the people who'd investigated trump and russia. and the justice department let that miss impression linger when i was this very different thing. at a minimum, it's ordinary that barr confirmed that indeed happened. >> it's extraordinary the fact of the matter is, exactly as you pointed, out the justice department what the impression that this was about the intelligence agencies are not. trump they let that linger. no one had any suspicion it was a criminal investigation into the former president. one of the things that barr -- >> exactly. we don't know if it was into him, or approximate to. ham >> somehow in the sphere of trump, and then the last not about the folks that launched the russia investigation. >> the questionable acts you highlight in the pace, is that the appointment of john durham to investigate this tip into potential financial fraud,

fraudulent criminal activities regarding finances. and bill barr defenses choice of john durham as investigating this saying, the idea that there is a thin basis for appointing durham. it doesn't hold water. can you explain, how and why the times in your reporting suggests that it was actually a thin basis to appoint durham? >> the reason that barr put durham in motion, the first instance was that barr while a private citizen, before trump hires him to be attorney general, he's just watching fox news, he'd come to the conclusion, the hutch, the suspicion, there was some kind of intelligence abuse at the heart of the russia investigation. working in the origins of the russian investigation, the cia had done something, our mi5 had done something, the italian

intelligence service did something. he knew that was the case. he came in as a was concerned, telling his aides he knew this was the case, and he was gonna get to the bottom of this. when he got up -- actual origin of the russian investigation, he didn't buy it. and that's what set durham into motion. what he was saying, it was a technical matter to the l. a. times. which was that at first, it was an administrative review, it was not a criminal investigation. , so when you're setting up someone to look at things. which is an odd thing for the justice department to do. but it happens sometimes. you don't need, a reasonable, factual basis to suspect that there's crimes taking place. you don't need a predicate. so, that's what he said, sets german the motion on his hutch. of course, durbin does eventually open, not just that side criminal investigation that involves trump somehow. but an actual criminal investigation as his hunt for a telegenic abuses, that barr thought was there it's a dead end. -- that he can find. he doesn't close up shop, he

says, in barr decided that they're gonna -- this investigation into a different rationale. which is a hunt for a basis to accuse the hillary clinton campaign of dividing the government by essentially framing donald trump for collusion. it was hillary's fault that the people suspected trump, in russia or wanted to know more about those connections. that was the theory, that they were pursuing. and it was a criminal investigation, they were going to a judge unsuccessfully, trying to get something like -- private emails, and using grand jury powers to get into private emails, of the george soros, you can't do that unless it's a criminal investigation. ultimately, they do bring to narrow indictments against people with some connection to the clinton campaign, running false statement charges, which durham uses to insinuate the conspiracy that he wasn't able to prove or charge. and both of those cases ended in very swift acquittals. and they collapsed in court. his point as well, when this

thing started it wasn't a criminal investigation, so i didn't need a solid basis, just to do it. it's technically true so far as it goes, but it doesn't explain the entirety of what happened here. >> dare i say, it doesn't hold water. paraphrasing the former attorney general himself. charlie savage, washington correspondent in the new york times, thank you for the incredible reporting, we have 1000 questions to ask you, please come back soon. i want to turn out to barb mcquade, -- eastern district of michigan. barbara, great to see. you thank you for being here tonight. i want to continue this conversation we're having about the onus on merrick garland. and his shoulders, i hope they're strong enough. do you think merrick garland is going to release the full findings from the durham probe as much of a nothing berger as it may end up being? what's your expectation given

the controversy that clearly surrounds that? >> -- of course we don't know what might be contained within a final report. it's being written right now. but merrick garland needs to be very careful here. i can imagine that his instincts, especially given his desire to restore integrity, independents to the justice department. it might be simply to disclose this in the interest of transparency. here's what john durham fat. here you go, it's out. there i think he needs to be careful to make sure that he's not assisting and enabling disinformation. coming into the ecosystem of, under the guise of, this official justice department report. there's a worry about that. of course, it depends on what's annette. but to the extent it does what john durham is already done indictments. it's throwing in a lot of extra verbiage to dirty up people who

wants to dirty up. merrick garland needs to be careful about whether he allows that to be released. >> especially given the way durham, garland has behaved in recent lakes, regarding the document saga that president biden and former president trump's respectively appointing special councils to both of those in a bid to show equanimity in the justice department. one wonders what he does with the hop data like the durham probe, right? at the same time we have to congressman saying, there needs to be an inspector general investigation into the durham probe. you have layers here. do you release the findings of the durham investigation, and launch an investigation into the investigation into an investigation? what options does he have here. does he need to do both, and how convoluted could that be? >> i think merrick garland has a responsibility to see what it is that john durham wants to

release and ask him to support those conclusions. so that he feels satisfied that he can release these out into the world and so i don't think merrick garland needs to make a decision of an either or. he can ask john durham what's in there, let the basis for disclosing at. and disclose only that which he thinks will be helpful in setting the record straight. but the origins of this, the durham investigation are really concerning. we already had an inspector general's report that found that the russia investigation was improperly opened. and then we have barr asking john berman to kind of repeat the work but clearly with an agenda. and in search of a conclusion and in search of a factual basis and so that alone i think makes me very skeptical of what john durham might also report here. the same way we saw william barr distort the findings of robert mueller and his report. the distortion, misleading

where the words of a federal judge who william barr's statements about that. i'm concerned that that's what will be contained in john durham's report as. while, so merrick garland has some responsibility here. to make the hard decision and maybe that decisions do not let this be released into the public domain. maybe that decision is to investigate further and make sure there is a factual basis for what he has to say. >> what tough decision to make it such a fraught time for the doj i we talked about the beginning of the show about the unbelievable number of investigative walls that seem to be closing in around trump world. i just want to go to the sort of breaking news we have this evening. the attorney generals office, manhattan prosecutors are trying to basically ratchet up the pressure on a man who's already in jail. who has a very important information regarding trump

organization finances. and i'm speaking about allen weisselberg. there's long been talk about whether prosecutors might try and, we pressure him with further jail time to get him to finally flip on trump. that appears to be happening now, if we believe the reporting from the new york times, i have no reason not to. what's your assessment of that, and is at the right time to be really going for broke on the stormy daniels hush money, given everything else that's happening in the world of investigation pertaining to donald trump? >> yeah, stormy daniels and i think that's the trump season one, aren't we on season five now? it's really going way back in time. it does seem that that investigation has been resuscitated. and if you think about what that hush money payment was, and the timing of, it it was really on the eve of the 2016 election. at a time when the access hollywood tape come out. so, that information could be devastating to the campaign. so, to fail to disclose that he

made that expenditure on behalf of the campaign. it's a crime. i don't fault -- looking into. it and if they can put together a case that maybe they do. i just don't know that -- is the guy that's going to finally flip on donald trump. he already had an opportunity to do. it any refused to do it. maybe he knows more about this. and he didn't know other things about -- it seems like he's been -- remain loyal to donald trump. and is even willing to go to prison for him. so, i don't know that he's gonna budge. but i suppose it's worth a try and it seems they have other witnesses in the form of michael cohen, the controller of the trump organization. maybe they can do it without. on but i suppose it's worth exploring to determine whether allen weisselberg has information that can be valuable in the investigation. >> allen weisselberg is -- as we speak. barr mcquade, former u.s. attorney for the eastern

district of michigan. it's always great to see you, thank you for your time tonight. we have lots to get to this evening. including the truly unbelievable first days of the republican led 118 congress, and how democrats should conduct themselves. for the next two years at least. speaking of, which house republicans voted today to strip congresswoman, ilhan omar, of the house committees seat decrying antisemitism while totally ignoring the same problematic language and behavior from members of their own party. that's next. second date, wish me luck buddy. mouth to mission control. we have a denture problem. over. roger that.

with polident cleanser and polident adhesive refresh and secure for any close encounter. if your mouth could talk it would ask for polident and poligrip.

over 5 million people have fallen in love with a portable blender. blendjet 2 gives you ice-crushing, big blender power on-the-go. so you can throw in your favorite ingredients and blend up a delicious smoothie anytime, anywhere. blendjet 2 even cleans itself. just add water, a drop of soap, recharge quickly with any usb port. ready to fall in love? order yours now on blendjet.com

♪ 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. (upbeat music)

>> it was 2019. and newly-elected minnesota congressman, ilhan omar, responded to a tweet about the role of israel in american politics, with six words. it's all about the benjamins baby. it was a reference to the 1997 puff daddy song, all about the benjamins. and the subtext was that donor money was responsible for the outsized role that supported israel plays in u.s. politics. the tweet played into age-old antisemitic stereotypes about jewish people using money to control political leaders, congresswoman omar was called out for the, tweeting quickly issued an unequivocal apology. but now four years later, kevin mccarthy and the republican house are using that tweet as

justification for their latest act of retribution. today house republicans voted along party lines to strip congresswoman omar of her committee assignments on the house foreign affairs committee. the resolution specifically cited that four-year-old tweet as a central example of why the action was justified. if you had just fallen from the sky, you might think that manthorpe of a can party had a zero tolerance policy for antisemitic tropes. like one is about jewish people controlling politicians with their money. but anyone who spent the last seven years on this planet, who hasn't fallen from the sky, knows that's not the case. take for, instance this tweet sent by speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy during the 2018 election. we cannot allow soares, steyer, and bloomberg to buy this election. get out and vote republican november sex. hashtag maga. the people mccarthy -- are here are george soros, tom speier, and michael bloomberg, all jewish billionaires who are regular this subject of that same anti-semitic trope about jews controlling politicians.

here's candidate donald trump in 2015 speaking to the republican jewish coalition during a candidate for him. >> i'm in a different position than the other candidates, because i'm the one candidate i want any of your money. i don't want your money, therefore you're probably not gonna support me. that's why you want to give me money, okay, you want to control your own politician, that's fine. >> donald trump told a roomful of jewish republicans, he thought they were using their money to control politicians. throughout his presidency, trump regularly amplified antisemites on social media, he called nazis who chanted, units will not replace us. he called them very fine people. remember a few months ago, and trump invited antisemitic hip pop artist, was ye, and a nuance white supremacist holocaust an eye or to die notice. well mccarthy in trump -- republicans. their leaders of the party in fact. and then their congresswoman

marjorie taylor greene, an ally of speaker mccarthy, who famously promoted an antisemitic conspiracy theory that blamed jewish space lasers for wildfires in california. both congresswoman greene, and paul gosar, attended events hosted by the very same holocaust denying what supremacist that trump had over for dinner. but instead of punishing them, as he did ilhan omar, speaker mccarthy rewarded both gosar and green, and this congress by giving them back committee assignments that had previously been taken away. it's clear that, that today's vote on congresswoman ilhan omar, isn't about condemning antisemitism. she seems to have been sought out for different reasons. and today, congresswoman omar may clear, despite the -- to build our power. she wasn't going anywhere. >> is anyone surprised that i'm being targeted? is anyone surprised that i'm

somehow deemed unworthy to speak about american foreign policy? or that they see me, as a powerful voice that needs to be silenced. my leadership and voice will not be diminished. if i'm not on this committee for one term. my voice will get louder and stronger, and my leadership will be celebrated around the world as it has been. so, take your votes are not. i'm here to stay, i'm here to be a voice against harms around the world that advocate for a better world. i yield back. >> we'll be right back.

want your clothes to smell freshly

washed all day without heavy perfumes? try downy light in-wash freshness boosters. it has long-lasting light scent, no heavy perfumes, and no dyes. finally, a light scent that lasts all day. downy light! >> woman: why did we choose safelite? >> vo: for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. we went to safelite.com. there's no one else we'd trust. their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our car's advanced safety system. they focus on our safety... so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

♪♪ alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders. that's what u.s. bank is for. and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura? that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno? fres-yes. encinitas?

yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole? i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. >> breaking right now, house u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power. republicans investigating president biden's climate star, -- his talks with the chinese communist party may be undermining our economy and threatening our u.s. foreign policy. >> that's a real thing that happened today, republicans in the house oversight committee announced an investigation into john kerry. -- the country that the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. yes, really. that happened. this week, the week after multiple mass shootings, some republicans in the house have

started wearing little assault rifle pins on their lapels. as if they're american flags. yesterday, house natural resource committee meeting for that committee got heated, not because of a policy disagreement, but because multiple republican members insisted they should be able to bring loaded guns into committee hearings with them. yesterday was also ohio congressman, jim jordan's first hearing as the head of the judiciary committee. the hearing was literally titled, the biden border crisis part one. implying there will be more parts to come. like fast and furious or fletch. that hearing started with a fight over how many times a day congress people need to say the pledge of allegiance to show how patriotic they are. again, yes, really. this is how business is being conducted in the house of representatives. today, jim jordan also announced that next week, he will hold his first hearing as chair of the so-called, house subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government.

so, get ready. there is a lot more of this coming. it is all nonsense. it is all trolling. there is no real policy there. but there is messaging. lots and lots of very loud messaging. how should democrats respond? joining us now is the man who is with all the answers, robert -- former white house press secretary for president obama. robert, it's so good to see you. i'm sorry we have to be talking about the utter insanity here. but what is the careful act that democrats do? on one hand, they have to show their serious about governing. they have to stay above the fray. on the other hand, republicans are going to try and bait them into these symbolic votes, for example, today they had a vote to condemn the horrors of socialism. for real. and 109 democrats voted for it. this is messaging, and it's empty, but it still messaging. what's the right call here? from a strategy perspective? >> well, look. i think we saw the beginnings of this, the very beginning of the congress getting organized,

we realized there is some enormous personalities now in the republican caucus. the speaker not really in control of those personalities. and a lot of different people's agendas are going to get forced through, you're going to see a lot of hearings like this. we know from the last election, republicans felt outside of the mainstream to a lot of swing voters. we know from the early polling, the nbc poll just this past weekend, the american people already think that the republicans are going to overreach on investigations. if you're a democrat, let them overreach on investigations. be focused on your messaging around the issues that are most important to people. good jobs. affordable health care. affordable medicine. affordable education. making sure that the legislation that democrats passed during the first two years of the biden administration is implemented well. i would say, focus on the issues that we know the

american people care about the most. try to highlight the chicanery and insanity, because this is the group that is going to represent the republican party and demonstrate to the republican -- the american people, excuse me. for the next 15 months, what the republican vision is like. and it's worked out well for the last two democratic presidents that have played off of new republican congresses. they both went on to be reelected. >> it sounds like you think the chicanery, such as it is, is so well articulated, shall we say, that there's not -- the republicans can only muddy the waters so much. i wonder if you think that extends to the debt ceiling. here is an example of republicans trying to lead the country off of a cliff into financial catastrophe. but you can already hear, and even from moderate senate democrats, that there needs to be some sort of negotiation. that biden can't be seen as

just having a hard line and not communicating with the people who are basically a suicide caucus. even today, joe biden, i wanna play the sound, this is joe biden talk about initial talks he had with kevin mccarthy. let's hear what the president had to say about this. >> let's just join hands again a little bit. let's start treating each other with respect. that's what kevin and i are going to do. not a joke. we had a good meeting yesterday. i think we've got to do it across the board. doesn't mean we have to agree, fight like hell, bullets treat each other with respect. >> robert, i get biden's posture in this. this is his brand. to stitch the country back together. at the same time, saying we're gonna respectful conversation implies that the conversation itself is worthy of respect. and from what i can tell, what republicans are trying to do, is absolutely insane and not worthy of respect. how do you play this if you're in the white house? >> well, i think you do it as

they're beginning to do it now. i wouldn't confuse even a cordial meeting for a negotiation. i think the president is going to be very stern on making sure that both republicans in the house and the american people understand the obligations around the debt ceiling. and what can and should happen, which is, if republicans want to have a debate and a discussion about spending, and if we want to do that as an american people, there's a budget and appropriations process in which we can do that. we can talk about wasteful spending. we can talk about big tax cuts. but there's a process for that this outside of the debt limit. and outside of what really hangs over an improving economy. look, in some ways, joe biden ran on being the grown-up in the room. i think joe biden and democrats are going to have to be the grown-up in the room and show

the american people what they're all about. now, that may not make some people on twitter happy, it may miss the opportunity to be overly snarky. or point out different things. i think the american people, particularly when it comes to something as seriously as the debt ceiling, want to see a serious group dealing with it. i think that's the role biden and democrats are really focused on. >> what does he do when he walks into congress next week, for the state of the union. this is ground zero for a series of insane investigations aimed at nothing more than political wounds. does biden call them out for this when he's standing in front of an audience of republicans who are trying to take him down? what does he do? it sounds like you think he plays the statesman. >> i think he plays the statesman. i wouldn't be surprised if you hear something that contrasts an agenda focused on the things i talked about, affordability, health care, education. jobs.

versus the investigations that are going nowhere. i think you'll see very much, i think the state of the union isn't really what it used to be. 20 years ago, 25 years ago, lots of people watched it. and it could move numbers for a president. i think they're going to be smaller audience -- smaller audiences these days. this is an important moment to really start to set up a governing contrast between the people that are going to occupy a majority of the seats in that room next week, and a president that, quite frankly, is probably gonna spend most of his time talking over the heads of those people to the american people at home. i think that's what he should be doing. >> talking over their heads, yeah, he'll definitely talking over their heads. robert gibbs, former white house press a checkered secretary for president obama, it's great to see you, robert, thanks for time. >> after the police killing of george floyd and 2020, police

reform almost made it through congress. but could not clear one very big hurdle. today, in the wake of the killing of tyre nichols, president biden and congressional black caucus members put that reform right back on the table. what they're calling for and whether it might happen this time, that's next. humpty dumpty does it with a great fall. wonderful pistachios. get crackin'

♪ ♪ ♪ cargurus. shop.buy.sell.online. it's time for the ultimate sleep number event on the sleep number 360 smart bed. science proves quality sleep is vital to your mental, emotional, and physical health. ♪ the sleep number 360 smart bed. it's temperature balancing, so you stay cool. it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to help keep you both comfortable all night. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. and now, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus 0% interest on select smart beds for 36 months. ends monday. ♪ma ma ma ma♪ [clears throut] for fast sore throat relief, try vicks vapocool drops with two times more menthol per drop*, and the powerful rush of vicks vapors for fast-acting relief you can feel. vicks vapocool drops.

fast relief you can feel. in 2021, kyle rittenhouse stood

trial for fatally shooting two men and wounding another with a

semi automatic rifle. during an august 2020 protests over police violence in wisconsin. the victims families hoped for justice, and rittenhouse was charged multiple crimes. in the end, he was fully acquitted. some on the left like governor gavin newsom worried about the message the verdict might send two armed vigilantes, some on the right praised rittenhouse as a hero. donald trump congratulated him, and then invited him to mar-a-lago. the families of the victims were not done. john huber, the father of anthony who tried to in disarm rittenhouse before rittenhouse shot huber dead, he filed a wrongful death lawsuit against rittenhouse. and local law enforcement. his family alleges that police officers deputized rittenhouse and conspired with him to harm protesters. they say those actions violated huber's civil rights. and caused his death. the law enforcement officers filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, based in part on a legal doctrine which protects

police officers from personal liability in civil claims, just like this one. that legal doctrine is called qualified immunity. yesterday a judge ruled against that motion. the case can proceed, at least for now. the judge says the question of qualified immunity is still alive matter which the judge will decide at a later date. his parents said in a statement, make no mistake, our fight to hold those responsible for anthony's death accountable continues in full force. anthony will have his day in court. a day in court, around a qualified immunity. which is protected so many officers who have shot and killed unarmed civilians like tyre nichols and too many others. that, day in court, is what members of the congressional black caucus discussed with president biden and vice biden at the white house this afternoon. they want the presidents help in passing the george floyd justice in policing act. that bill passed the house in 2021, it fell apart in the senate. and the sticking point was

qualified immunity. what will the bill have a different faith with this congress? president biden put it this way today. >> my hope is that this dark memory spur some action that we've all been fighting for. >> joining us now, philip -- cofounder and ceo of the center for policing equity and chair of the african american studies and professor of psychology at yale university. i think we're missing the word in that introduction. philip, thank you for being here tonight. this is, you know, rarely do i feel the need to get very specific about parts of the law in such detail. qualified immunity is the thing here. this is holding police officers accountable in civil cases. for people who do not not know, when we're talking about criminal charges for police officers, the police are criminally charged in less than 2% of fatal shootings, and

convicted in less than a third of those cases. so it's vanishing we rare to have police held accountable for fatal shootings and criminal charges. civil cases are different matter. can you explain how we came to live in a world where qualified immunity is the thing police can count on as a shield effectively in cases where there appears to be gross negligence. >> sure, i'll try to do it without getting extra, extra nerdy for you in the audience. but i have to say, i'm a professional nerd. bear with me. >> we want you to be as nerdy as you need to be. >> essentially, what happens in 1982, the supreme court case people are concerned that not just law enforcement, but the staff of elected officials, won't be able to go about doing their jobs if they're worried that every little thing they do could be litigated and could become a political football. kind of like what we saw in congress today. the supreme court expands --

expands the blueprint for qualified immunity can do, essentially says, if there wasn't an explicit example of this very thing being illegal before, then we can't be held accountable for it going forward. and the cases where it comes up, like exactly the case that you lead with kyle rittenhouse, are so disgusting, someone has done something so obviously unreasonable and egregious, and yet, there wasn't a case just like them before, so, we're not able to hold my enforcement accountable somehow. with or hands up because of the doctrine of qualified immunity. that people get really outraged about it. so, that's why there are folks that say, we have to get rid of it. i can't quite tell you what the argument is about why we've got to keep it, i say the argument that gets advanced is, well, no law enforcement will want to do their job. but no surveys of law enforcement, no serious -- supports that as a reasonable conclusion. but that essentially what it is, and that's part of what the argument has been about with

regards to the justice in policing. >> basically, qualified immunity came the advent of qualified immunity -- the cases that strengthen in the 80s, it starts in the civil rights era. which is when people first start saying, with the police are doing to civilians is not right. it's the first time there's justice for people, and then quickly, between 1961 and 1967, qualified immunity crops up. to basically protect the people who are doing wrongs against the weakest members of society, or the most marginalized, if you will. that's not a coincidence. >> that's right. essentially, it gets codified in 1967, expanded to the current form a 1982. and those are periods of time when you have particular regressive forces interested in making sure that there is a car vote, so that law enforcement doing dirty work that really appears bad, by the way, they had home video cameras in 1967, but the shock to the concert -- to the nation was photographs in newspapers. there was new media that we're showing pictures of things, you

guys remember them from that one class that folks took during black history month, where the fire hoses are being turned against schoolchildren. the police dogs are being dropped. those same kind of things, all of a sudden, we are seeing for the first time, wow, they're really doing terrible things to black folks. that's the first time we see it, the second time we see it, 1982, now, there is great outrage about it. but as we're moving to think about what congress can do, i think it's important, though it has those terrible disgusting routes, and it's absolutely ideologically on principle i think we have to get rid of, it is not going to solve all of these problems. it is been named as the sticking point for the justice in policing act, i don't know if that's real rather than politics. and of the cases that qualify for qualified immunity, the best research we have, only about 30% of the cases actually end up -- and even a little bit. it's not even clear how many of those cases hinge or turn on qualified immunity. so, i don't want us to think that even if we get it through, that that solving like a huge

swath of this accountability issue. it is an important piece, it's a principle piece, because it's so disgusting to us to look at, but it is not the largest lever that we could get done. i want to adjust peoples expectations, even if it makes it through congress. that being a vanishing lee thin margin even on the zone. >> we know that there is action at the state level around qualified immunity, there's another part of the civil cases that i think bears highlighting. if, in fact, law enforcement is found guilty in a civil case, who pays the civil payout? this is shocking to be. i did not know this. the government, the local government, not the police department, local government and in some cases, taxpayer prayers, are the people that pay out. there is a world in which tyre nichols family, susan a civil case, and the people of memphis have to foot the bill for police department that beat to death tyre nichols. is that right? >> so, let's move it make it even more specific, tyre

nichols is killed in memphis, and tyre nichols family pays for the misconduct. right, because they are taxpayers in that city, that's exactly how it works. there are so many protections against officers being held individually accountable, by the way, individual officers are not walking around with millions of dollars to do these kinds of settlements. so, when we have report 100 $25 million, or baltimore the $13 million just for the gun trace task force, individual officers couldn't do that kind of compensation. but yes, it comes back to the city, and god forbid, the city finds a way to move around that, you would then protect and indemnifies individual officers. so, it is not the case that the officers pay a price outside of the criminal context, the city is paying a price, and at the very least, the union is paying that price in insurance claims that it set up to make sure don't actually affect the budget in any way. >> it is just the level of

insanity and like wrong this in all of this. filip, you did not nerd out, it was a brilliant explanation. thank you for your insight and wisdom as always. cofounder and ceo of the center for policing equity, it's always good to see you. >> good to see you. >> we'll be right back. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ cargurus. shop. buy. sell. online.

as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com 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♪

millions have made the switch from the big three ♪liberty liberty liberty♪ to the best kept secret in wireless: xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year with the fastest mobile service. and now, get the best price for two lines of unlimited. just $30 per line. there are millions of happy campers out there. and this is the perfect time to join them... see how easy it is to save hundreds a year on your wireless bill over t-mobile, verizon, and at&t that is it for us tonight. talk to our switch squad at your local xfinity store today.

we catch you again tomorrow, now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, alex, and i know i have to submit my washington, d. c. diary to you. i've been spending the week here. as you know, on wednesday it is a pretty big day at the white house. i was there pretty much the whole day. today, house of representatives,