catchall of grievances. for some specific theories that they have about the origins of the russian investigation. which is thrown out by jamie raskin -- bobcats. is a specific theory, the witnesses today thought they were arranging over all the kinds of grievances, that covid stuff, twitter stuff, it's kind of like hush mortgage board of things that aren't they aren't happy with. >> imagine beginning your day beau weaponization carrying the sets the whole stage. he began with an almost 90 year old senator who comes across as the cranky old uncle at thanksgiving, who has a long list of grievances that you're gonna listen to. and ron johnson following, brings in paranoia as a bit of an extra serum. on the desert. then we've got -- who's apparently angry for some reason and inexplicably her gulik out was suspended. without reason and restored later on without reason we had a former fbi agent who acted like he was an expert on the fbi, who retired in 1999 before we had iphones. i would say a little out of touch maybe with today's fbi. in terms of what's going on media nor is an expert from the produces intelligent -- produce content just f>> although you in your colleagues i thought did a good job on that front. that, have th>> yeah, i mind, chris. > yeah, i appreciate that. thank you so much congressman.

night. >> what they don't know is we're sitting like or maybe they don't or they sort of don't. we're sitting like 10, 15 feet away from each other in the studio and i have to pretend -- >> would you like me to read the tweet? >> now that it's my hour we can put it in public record. that is awesome and hilarious, and i'm sorry the studio and viewing public could hear me chortling. and thanks to you at home for joining us this evening. we have some big breaking news. nbc news has now confirmed that former president mike pence has now been subpoenaed by special counsel jack smith, the man who was overseeing the investigation into trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election including at the u.s. capitol. the news was first reported by abc news. we don't know exactly what information was sought in that subpoena, but according to abc it comes after months of negotiations between federal prosecutors and pence's legal team. but the office and spokesman for the former vice president are

declining to comment about this. it's the first time the vice president has been subpoenaed in any matters relate today the 2020 elections. back in november pence said the reason he was not testifying to the committee despite the fact he was, of course, a main witness in the january 6th attack is because it would set a terrible precedent due in part, he said, to the partisan nature of that investigation. but pence didn't need to talk to the committee for the public to understand the information he was in possession of. two his aides testified in the grand jury investigation and also publicly testified to the january 6th committee about the many ways former president trump and his allies pressured pence to disrupt the counting of the electoral college votes as part of the broader effort to keep trump in power. their testimony was fairly explosive, and it was understood as pence's sort of way of cooperating with the january 6th investigation until pence wrote

an op-ed in "the wall street journal" with his account of what went down that day. pence also gave interviews to national news outlets, ones that are now a part of the public record including this one where pence confirmed telling trump that he, indeed, lost the election. >> did you ever point-blank say to the president i will fought do this, i will not intervene, we lost this election? >> i did, david, many times. >> we know because we have learned in testimony since it's because the president was aware that people in that crowd, that some of them might have been armed and that he then said we're going to march to the capitol and send them there anyway. he knew you were at the capitol, that lawmakers were at the capitol. what do you make of that? >> well, i -- the president's

words were reckless and his actions were reckless. the president's words that day at the rally endangered me and my family and everyone at the capitol building. >> mike pence's name appears 572 times in the final january 6th report. that same report lists the ways in which pence's life was put at risk on january 6th by supporters of president trump but also how pence despite all that pressure was determined to certify the election for joe biden. from the report, quote, pence was determined that unless there was imminent danger to bodily safety that he was not going to be in the capitol and let the rioters have a victory of letting the rioters free or restart the process later that day. it was an unprecedented scene in american history. the president of the united states had riled up a mob that hunted his own vice president. despite that danger and despite the multiple reports that trump

supporters hang mike pence that day, donald trump did not ever try to reach his own vice president while the capitol was under siege. according to pence it took trump five days after the attack to make any contact. >> january 6th was a tragic day, but it would be some five days after those tragic events that the president asked for an opportunity to speak with me. i walked down to the oval office, i went into the back room where we'd spent so many hours together and really forged a close working relationship. but obviously it had not ended well. but when i walked into that back room and the president looked up at me and first expressed concern about my wife and daughter who he said he'd just learned were with me throughout the day and night on january 6th and 7th i answered to him sternly that we were fine. he asked me and i was afraid, and i told him, no, mr.

president, i was angry. i was angry about our differences, and i was also infuriated at what i'd seen that day, people ransacking the capitol and breaking glass and assaulting law enforcement officers. >> trump has not ceased his attacks against pence and said he's said over and over that pence didn't do the right thing, that he fail, that he was a cowered and he said much, much worse. and now it appears mike pence will be asked to tell his part of the story under oath. joining us now to help understand how all this works and what's going to happen next is former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan barbara mcquade and carol leonnig, reporter for the national post. you are wonderful sources to help explain what's going to happen next here. and barb, i want to start with you because we know this is a subpoena but also being told it comes after months or at least several weeks of negotiating

between the vice president's, former vice president's legal team and the doj. is this a friendly subpoena if such a thing exists? in other words, is this a subpoena to provide mike pence cover to cooperate with the doj investigation, do you think? >> well, we don't know but that's absolutely a possibility, alex. it's not unusual for prosecutors to reach out to witnesses. and if they will come in willingly, voluntarily to bring them in without a subpoena. sometimes witnesses refuse to come without a subpoena. you have to compel them to come, get a court order. other times witnesses say i'm willing to come, but i need a subpoena so i can explain to others i didn't come voluntarily, it wasn't my idea to share information against someone who used to be an ally or all his political followers. i am only responding to the subpoena because you're making me. so i will see that happen that people will sometimes request a subpoena so they can say i'm

simply comply wg the law, it's not my idea here, but i have no choice. >> i want to ask both of you what you would ask mike pence. given the interviews he's sat for, the op-ed he's penned, the book he's written. carol leonnig, what are your top of mind questions for the vice president if you were an investigator with the doj? you're so right that so what of pence experienced that day has been reported in pages of my newspaper and books. to me it's critical that jack smith wants pence in an interview room to get more deeply into what the president said to him, what the president said, what words they exchanged. and that goes to ultimately former president donald trump's state of mind as he was pulling all of these different levers, increasingly, desperately trying

to hold onto the power, trying to block and overturn the election results. for example, i'd want to ask pence what did donald trump say to you about losing the election? what did he say in terms of acknowledging whether or not he thought he'd lost? i'd also get at, vice president pence, do you any what the president said to you about his strategy for holding onto power? what did he say about the electors? what did he say about whether or not the claim pence would have incredible power to basically reject the certification of the vote, which actually as you know and i know barbara knows, a lawyer who proposed that to donald trump would later acknowledge there was no way that that would work, and he didn't even think it was feasible. >> barb, let's follow on what carol was saying in terms of the state of mind. how does that factor into the potential challenges here?

what are the potential legal repper cushions if they can establish a state of mind with the president and visa vi his intentionality. >> i've always thought, alex, the best charge available here is not inciting the insurrection, which i think has some challenges under the first amendment, but instead the charge of conspiracy to defraud the united states. that is i knew i lost this election and i tried to steal it back anyway. and mike pence is a critical component of that because it was trying to persuade mike pence publicly, privately, on twitter, and at the rally to thwart the counting of the votes, to abuse his power. and so i think all of those questions that carol just said go to donald trump's knowledge of fraud and intent to persuade mike pence to abuse his power. and so if that can be proven, you need not even prove if donald trump incited the

insurrection. i think the committee did something really interesting with regard to that theory, which it's not so much the speech at the ellipse and then making the tweet that says mike pence didn't have the courage to do what was necessary and we demand answers, which threw fuel on the fire and renewed vigor of the protesters and causing them to start chanting, hang my pence. so i think the things donald trump said to mike pence that could reveal whether he knew he actually lost the election and that what he was doing was an improper effort to retain office, and there were conversations that aides could provide some detail on but also conversations where he was alone with donald trump, and that's why i think it's critically important they hear directly from mike pence on those conversations. >> just to follow on that because this is the import of this testimony is so

significant, what can trump do to stop pence? there's conflicting reports about whether this is being setup for a fight over executive privilege. do you think that is the case? i mean what levers are there for trump at this point to prevent pence from divulging the secrets he's fought so hard to keep undisclosed? >> i think donald trump will assert executive privilege and try to stop this, and i think he will fail. this is a grand jury subpoena, which is a little different from the january 6th subpoenas we saw. it's spode to be secret. we know about it because there's a report about it. but the witness himself is permitted to disclose grand jury material, so mike pence could in good conscience i think say there's a potential executive privilege issue here, i'm sharing it with the former president in case he wants to assert a privilege. i think in the precedent united states vs. nixon where the supreme court said that the grand jury is entitled to everyone's evidence and that in

certain situations although there is executive privilege, it must yield when there is an entrance of paramount importance. and courts have already held that with regards to the january 6th investigation when it came to white house documents that were subpoenaed from the national archives. i expect that same result here. so i expect trump will try and fail. >> carol, at the risk of reading too much into trump's prolific use of social media, he's spent a long time as you're aware vilifying mike pence calling him all manner of name. but recently i think within the last several weeks, he sent out a conciliatory kind of message about mike pence visa vi the documents and effectively said leave mike pence alone, he's a good man. now, any time the former president decides to play nice with someone he's spent almost a career making fun of, otherwise chastising or diminishing, i think it's worth trying to understand why. and i wonder if at all you think

that could be a preemptive move to potentially curry favor with mike pence ahead of what could be potentially fairly damaging testimony. i know that's a lot of ifs and suppositions, but i wonder if you think there's any chance in this scenario mike pence is entreated by the words of donald trump? >> okay, those are three great questions built in there, alex, and i'll try to take them quickly. let's go backwards. mike pence i don't think is going to be influenced by anything donald trump says at this point. i mean, i reported on what pence's day was look at the capitol on january 6th, huddling with his wife, his daughter, her husband, his aides, in a basement trying to staf safe trying to remain in the capitol so he could finish the job donald trump didn't want him to do. he's pretty much broken a relationship with donald trump because he believed donald trump

put him and his family in such danger for what reason is obvious. second, you asked is it possible pence is trying -- forgive me, trump is trying to win over pence. it's always possible, but i think your first theory has a little more strength, which is donald trump is worried about his classified records exposure right now. this is a case that is probably causing the former president the most sleepless nights because it's the easiest case to establish that he was engaged in potential obstruction of a subpoena seeking classified records. remember his team asserted to the department of justice that they'd done a diligent search and all the records had been returned, and then the fbi agents come in at the department of justice's behest and lo and behold they find a bunch of classified records. so i think donald trump who's

often focused on donald trump is mostly excited to say, look, pence has them, too, he's a good guy, he didn't do wrong, same here. >> silly me, i thought it could be long for the january 6th investigations, but of course i think you're right, carol, it's the most obvious answer which is he's just trying to mitigate potential damage from the looming -- the potentially looming criminal indictment at his front door. thank you again for joining us tonight as we deal with this breaking news and try and understand where it is all leading. thanks for your time. >> thanks, alex. we have a lot to get to tonight including a vastly undercovered story about one judge's decision that could affect the lives of millions of americans as soon as tomorrow. plus the first hearing of the new republican led subcommittee examining the weaponization of the federal government. will fireworks that republicans are trying to setoff actually end up burning their own fingers? that is not a rhetorical question, and that is next. , ant

x blood when you brush could lead to worse over time. help stop the clock on gum disease now. parodontax toothpaste... ...is 3x more effective at removing plaque bacteria, one of the main causes of bleeding gums. parodontax. the gum experts. why are 93% of sleep number sleepers very satisfied with their bed? maybe it's because you can adjust your comfort and firmness on either side... one of the main causes of bleeding gums. your sleep number setting. to help relieve pressure points and keep you both comfortable all night. and now, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. ends monday.

tlrm a lot of shocking images on january 6th, images of violence, vandalism and destruction in our nation's capitol, but one of the most iconic and jarring images from that day may have been this one, a rioter proudly carrying a confederate flag through the

halls of congress. today that rioter who carried that flag through the capitol was sentenced to three years behind bars for his role in the capitol attack. as he was being handed down that three-year sentence just a few blocks away republicans were holding their first hearing for the new subcommittee on what they call the weaponization of the federal government. they called one of their first witnesses, senator ron johnson, who told the committee their investigation should focus on whether or not rioters were being treated unfairly and whether january 6th was really the justice department's fault to begin with. >> serious questions regarding instances of unequal application of justice and violation of january 6th defendant's new process rights remain unanswered, but how many federal agents and informants were in the ground? >> that is what the weaponization committee plans to focus on according to ron justice, justice for january 6th

rioters and the baseless conspiracy the fbi planted provocateurs in the crowd to rile up innocent trump supporters. it's not all january 6th conspiracy, though. they're also going to focus on covid as well. >> federal health officials denied patients early treatment and to this day refuse to acknowledge the extent of significant injuries caused by the covid vaccines. and e-mails also revealed the attempt to hide his agency's role in funding dangerous research that might have led to the creation of the deadly controversy. it is also becoming obvious the world health organization has been captured by the chinese government, the global institutions in general have been captured by the left, and some charitable foundations are exerting far more power over public policy than should be allowed. >> could you get all of that? senator johnson says the committee should really take a look at the safety of the coronavirus vaccines, which new

studies estimate saved more than 3 million lives and kept another 18 million people out of the hospital. he wants them to investigate the unhinged conspiracy that dr. anthony fauci was somehow responsible for causing coronavirus in the first place. and he wants congress to use its resources to look into whether china and the left are somehow taking over global institutions. now, because democrats made a wise decision to participate in these hearings, they were also able to call their very own witnesses today. the democrats chose congressman and former january 6th impeachment manager jamie raskin to be their first witness. amid his ongoing battle with cancer congressman raskin laid bare exactly what is at the heart of this new committee's mission. >> millions of americans already fear that weaponization is the right name for this special subcommittee not because weaponization of the government is its target but because weaponization of the government

is its purpose. the odd name of the weaponization subcommittee constitutes a case of pure, psychological projection. when former president donald trump and his followers accuse you of doing something, they're usually telling you exactly what their own plans are. and of course a serious bipartisan committee focused on the weaponization of the government would zero in quickly on the trump administration itself. trump and his obliging sink fantic attorney generals like jeff sessions and william barr repeatedly pressured career prosecutors to go hard or go soft in particular cases, always seeking to reward trump's friends or to punish his enemies. if weaponization of the department of justice had any meaning, this is it. >> that is the state of play here, and if this is how it all starts, where does it go from here? joining us now is the staff writer at the atlantic and author of the upcoming book

"romney a reckoning," which will be out this october and which we are going to talk about very shortly. thanks for joining me tonight. i want to get right to the numbers here. we have talked a lot about the strange rabbit hole of paranoia that certain factions of the gop have plunged us into, but the american public does not seem to be buying it if you look at the polling. "the washington post" abc poll found that a margin of 56 to 36% of americans think this committee is an attempt to score political points, and only 11% of respondents believe government agencies are biased against liberals. i mean, what do you think is just the pure political calculation of having this weaponization committee, you know, peopled by the people -- the folks we see on deck here asking the questions they're asking? >> i think like so much of the republican party today, the whole spectacle is targeted to the base, right?

that the small percentage, relatively small percentage of americans who are fully immersed in these narratives, right? but the thing about the hearing that struck me is not that they were trying to turn a congressional hearing into what is essentially fox news prime time, most of the talking points they were kind of laying out i think were almost, you know, difficult to understand for the average american. it wasn't that they were biased or that they were right-wing talking points. it was that unless you are kind of swinging in the water of conservative media, it's very difficult to even follow the narratives that they're kind of laying out, and i think that what has happened over the last several years in the republican party is that as they have focused more and more on their core supporters, they have kind of lost the plot, lost the ability to make it popular, persuasive argument to the majority of americans. >> yeah, that's such a good

point. they're using the shorthand of those who wear the tinfoil hat and basically ignoring the rest of the american public. the strategy they're employing is the opposite, for example, of the january 6th committee which tried to bring the american public in, and it was very televisual. there was no insider jargon. even sarah huckabee sanders response to the "state of the union" was all crt and latinx and these terms if you weren't deeply immeshed in the paranoid world view of fox news, you would not know what they were talking about. but that seems a forgone conclusion this is the path they charted and they're going to continue to go down. do you think anybody who is outside the fringe center -- fringe center -- the fringes that are at the center of republican power in congress these days can have a word with them. i wonder if the establishment those within sound mind and body within the gop can talk to them about this.

>> yeah, i mean i think i can say with some confidence that there are still republicans who are trying to reason with what you call the fringe of the party which is actually known increasingly as the main stream of their party. but they're having a difficult time making the case. what you've seen is the mitt romneys and john mccains and liz cheneys of the party over the last five years were turned into pariahs? right, these were people who were once the leaders of the establishment, the kind of faces of the party. they are now on the fringe themselves of their own party, so they don't have a ton of sway. they don't get to listen to in caucus lunches, don't get invited onto fox news to make their case, the average conservative voter. they don't have the influence they once did so i don't think they've given up. i just don't think the average

maga republican or average person still on that committee feels any need to listen to them. >> i wonder if they've been given enough of a chance to scold the radical paranoid theorists among them. i wonder what happened at the "state of the union" when mitt romney effectively cows george santos and, and santos comes out looking like the loser in this interaction, right? the force of statesmans words, the force of elders of the party matters when those words are delivered forcefully. and wonder if you think that we're going to hear more of that? is mitt romney for lack of a better term unleashed at this stage of the game when he sees what's becoming of the party? you have special access to the man, you're writing a book about him. just how animated is he by this? >> yeah, i think what struck me about that moment with george

santos is it does illustrate where mitt romney is at this moment. it also illustrates the fact what mitt romney was saying to george santos is not a kind of out on a limb opinion. right, i think if you talk to the average establishment republican, whatever that means, if you talk to the average normal republican in congress, they would agree with what he said, but they don't say it, and they certainly don't say it that way. and they don't confront george santos the way mitt romney did, the kind of wing nuts in the party ever. so what mitt romney does, his gift at this moment it's not he has some extremely original insight, it's that he's willing to say the things most republicans are going to say. it's coming out in october. i think you'll hear a lot more from him. >> and potentially dts here,

what role romney may have played in forces in the gop. i'm going to leave it there. go ahead. >> yeah, let's leave it. it makes sense. >> the book i assume you finished writing it so you know what's in there. we're going to read it and have you back. thank you for joining. always good to see you. >> you, too. we have still more to come tonight including the potential bombshell decision expected out of the federal court in texas one that could upend the lives of millions as soon as tomorrow. you don't want to miss that story. and turmoil at the supreme court has put a spotlight on the fact that justices themselves aren't bound by a particular code of ethics. we'll talk to someone who has a plan to fix all that. that's coming up next. that's coming up next.

paradontax blood when you brush could lead to worse over time. help stop the clock on gum disease now. parodontax toothpaste... ...is 3x more effective at removing plaque bacteria, one of the main causes of bleeding gums. parodontax. the gum experts. i wish that shaq was my real life big brother. what's up, little bro? turns out, some wishes do come true. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- go with the general.

unlike all other federal judges, there is no ethics code and there are no standards for supreme court justices. "the washington post" reports today that the justices have been discussing establishing rules for themselves for four years now, but they couldn't come to an agreement, so they just aren't going to give themselves any rule, which is wild, particularly wild for an institution in which public confidence is at a historic low, an institution that has truly too many controversies to count

at this point. whether or not you care about the leak of the opinion of the court's decision to overturn roe v. wade, which was authored by justice samuel aleto, the court's investigation into that leak has been incredibly telling. all rank and file supreme court employees were required to sign affidavits swearing they didn't leak the draft decision, but the justices themselves were not. that investigation led to a whistle-blower coming forward alleging that way back in 2014 he received an early heads up about the landmark hobby lobby contraception decision, another decision authored by justice amual aleto. justice aleto no one actually pressing the justices. last year justice clarence thomas was the lone dissent against the supreme court decision to let trump obtain presidential records. months later they discovered thomas' wife, ginni, had texted

with mark meadows leading up to january 6th to overturn election results. clarence thomas, lone dissent. none of this is shall we say a good look, nor is it normal for our country's justice system, and that is why today democratic senator chris murphy and hank johnson introduced bills to make ethic rules for the highest court in this land. joining us now is the man himself, chris murphy, senator from the great state of connecticut. senator murphy, thank you for being with us tonight. can you tell me what you want to do in this bill? >> well, what we want to do is very simple. we want to make sure that every judge who sits on a federal judge has a code of conduct that the american people can see that applies to them. as you mention right now there are only nine justices that have no code of conduct. that's outrageous especially at a moment where we're seeing this rather outlandish and

transparent integration between the conservative justices on the court and the broader conservative movement. you mentioned this case in which there's a really serious allegation that justice aleto or one of his family members told conservative activists ahead of time about a contraception decision. the court said, well, authorize no evidence that there was an ethical standard breach. what ethical standard? there's no set of standards that applies to the supreme court. they are exempt. and so what we're calling for here is an independent body that already exists in the judicial conference to setup a code of conduct that looks very much like what appellate court judges and district court judges are held to, so at the very least we know what rules apply and what rules don't apply to the supreme court. i just think we're at a moment of real crisis of legitimacy when it comes to the court and i think the court would be helped by outing this code of conduct

that everyone could see. >> if someone on the court violates the code of ethics is there punishment? what kind of enforcement mechanism do you see here? >> so this is the real problem, right? it is probably beyond the bounds of the legislative branch to provide an enforcement mechanism in our bill we would establish a form of independent counsel who could undertake investigations. but sanction would have to ultimately be up to the supreme court itself just like sanction of members of congress is ultimately up to congress. but we have a code of ethics. we have a process by which an investigation is done on a member of congress, and that's simply what we want to have happen here, have a binding code, have a process of investigation, and then when that investigation is done and the american public can see it, that will provide pressure on the justice to take action if the code is violated. >> what kind of intel do you have on the court's argument

against something like this? >> well, here's a theory of the case because we have this remarkable reporting in which the supreme court apparently has been talking about developing a code for four years, and so clearly there's a group of justices who think this is a good idea, and there's a group of justices who think it's not a good idea. justice roberts, justice aleto, they testified in congress in the past about their disdain where there's skepticism about this code. my worry is that the conservative justices on the court don't really think they're judges. they don't think they should be bound by the same code as every other federal court judge because they're policy makers, not judges. they're making law, not interpreting law. the new justices gorsuch, kavanaugh, they -- coney barrett, they ran campaigns for the supreme court just like we ran campaigns for elected office in the legislature. so my worry is that they don't believe they should be bound by the code that every other justice is bound by because they

think they are not judges, they believe they are policy makers. >> well, and i think there are probably people in the gop that enjoy the fact they're making law. right, they're effectively the functioning branch of the republican party in a lot of ways. the republicans in the legislature are busy having hearings about covid coming from mars or whatever and the justices on the court are actually drafting law. and i would imagine that the republican caucus is probably loathe to do anything that would curb that kind of -- their ability to do something like that. do you have a sense there's any kind of bipartisan support for what you're proposing here? >> this has been the clear strategy from the beginning to underscore your point. what republicans want for america is deeply unpopular whether it be the validation of the affordable care act or a ban on abortion. these are things you can't get past through an elected legislation. the only way you can impose that

is through an unelected like the supreme court. so, yes, of course the whole strategy is put the policies on the supreme court. i think republicans should care about this as well. you know, there's smaller bits of evidence that the more progressive justices are, you know, sometimes attending these political conferences that the conservative justices more often go to, but it's just bad for the ultimate legitimacy of democracy if everybody thinks the fix is in at the supreme court. lindsey graham has expressed some interest in proposals like this and will continue to try to find, you know, some partners across the aisle, but right now as you said republicans seem to like the fact that a lot of policymaking without much oversight is happening on the supreme court. >> senator chris murphy, we wish you luck in your bid to restore some integrity to an institution that could use some of it right now. when we come back, the story

i've been promising you, one that's going to make you look for your doctor's phone number. that's next. look for your doctor's phone number that's next. painful fingerstick, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before dexcom g6, i was frustrated. all of that finger-pricking and all of that pain, my a1c was still stuck. my diabetes was out of control. i was tired. (female announcer) dexcom g6 sends your glucose numbers to your phone or receiver without painful fingersticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading: up, down, or steady, so you can make better decisions about food and activity in the moment. after using dexcom g6, my a1c has never been lower. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. dexcom g6 has given me confidence and control that everything i need is right there on my phone. (female announcer) dexcom g6 is the #1 recommended cgm system by doctors and patients. call now to get started. (bright music)

we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

it may be the most controversial drug the fda ever has approved. >> medical advances should go through a rigious scientific process, but they shouldn't have to go through the kind of political process that -- has had to deal with.

>> the fda approved the drug in september 2000, more than 22 years ago. it has been used safely ever since by millions of people. it stops the production of a hormone necessary for pregnancy, and it is one of two drugs typically used in medication abortions. as of 2022 more than 54% of abortions in the u.s. happen with these pills, not surgery. and that percentage has likely increased in the months since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. perhaps for that reason conservative groups have been targeting it since the dobbs decision last summer. that little pill which is barely bigger than an aspirin is the new frontier in the fight over abortion access in this country. already 18 states that establish restrictions on the pills with some trying to cut off mail access to drug and others threatening the pharmacists who provide the medication. but as soon as tomorrow a federal judge in texas, one appointed by former president donald trump, could make a

decision that would upend access to it nationwide, which means nationwide, and that includes blue states like california and new york. it includes states that have recently enshrined aaccess to abortions in their constitution like vermont. no matter where you live this could impact you. that group brought a case against the fda in november to challenge the agency's approval which again happened 20 years ago. the group claims the fda lacked the authority to approve the drug and did not adequately study its safety and efficacy. the alliance defending freedom wants the judge to issue a preliminary injunction effectively blocking all access to it and revoking the fda's approval of it. tomorrow is the deadline for briefs from the plaintiff and the fda. once those briefs are in the judge could make the decision to

block access to it swiftly as soon as tomorrow. if the judge decides to block the use of this drug, the biden administration is expected to quickly file an appeal, but even then this case is expected to rapidly work its way up to the conservative roe ending supreme court. joining us now is the president and ceo for the center of reproductive rights. nancy, thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you for following this important story. >> it is -- this is literally a five alarm fire if you care about women's reproductive freedoms, and the fact it is applicable nationwide, right, we're talking about the form of abortion that most women choose could be not available to people all over this country. how likely do you think that we will get a ruling on this tomorrow, and what is your level of optimism here? >> well, let's just start by i'm sure your listeners are saying how is it even possible this

could ban medication abortion nationwide? and it's because as you pointed out in your opening they have said the fda approval that over 22 years ago was not correct, and of course that is fundamentally wrong. the science and the facts support it, so it's a baseless lawsuit, but why are we on high alert? because they filed a lawsuit before a judge, they shot the form in amrillo, texas, before a judge who's very anti-abortion, anti-contraception record. so the concern is that could well rule that the fda although again baseless, that the fda should not approve this, which would mean that he might enjoin its use across the nation. so we are of heightened concern about that. but, again, your listeners should know that medication abortion is safe and effective 22 years plus, over 5 million women in the united states have used medication abortion. as you pointed out, it is the

method of choice for most people in the united states. >> what -- i mean what is the recourse here? so the biden administration is likely to file an appeal, but if there is not a stay on the injunction, right, this freezes access to it across the country. there could be women who need abortions in the next days, weeks. i mean what recourse do they have in a moment like this? >> first of all it would create chaos. of course clinics across the nation, they're following this, and they're thinking about what they're options are and looking at that. and we have to see what the ruling would be. but of course it would create more crisis on top of the crisis already happening because many people are already accessing medication abortion. the fda has also found it to be safe and effective by telemedicine. so, you know, if all of a sudden clinics have to switch people doing telemedicine, medication abortion stays effective at home to common for emergency abortion that changes entirely the access

framework. so it is hugely problematic, and again it shows the ultimate goal was never as the supreme court said roe v. wade is overturned, we're sending it back to states to decide. no, no, the ultimate goal is to ban it for everyone nationwide. >> what should women do or people who need abortions, right, and need access to it and maybe they live in a state where they can't gain access to a surgical abortion, what do they do right now? what do you advise people who are alarmed, they're just finding this out? do they call their doctors? >> yes, i mean the first thing no matter what the court rules if people have an abortion schedule, if they have a telehealth visit, call your clinic first. right, find out first what is happening. don't assume that you know. don't assume that the case you saw a news show maybe you're ready to take action, go ahead and look at that and also look at credible resources, all the non-profit organizations and planned parenthoods, and

independent clinics and all the places that you can get information, the new york attorney general has information on her website, all those reliable places, but try to get the information first. don't just assume. >> this is -- i think because not enough attention has been paid to this issue, it is hard to fathom what could be on our doorstep in the next 24 hours, and the chaos where it's already an unacceptable situation. nancy, thank you for coming here. please keep us posted. we will be right back. posted. we will be right back. what 's up, little bro? turns out, some wishes do come true. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- go with the general. plan a didn't work out? get plan b one-step. plan b helps prevent pregnancy before it starts, and it won't impact your ability to get pregnant in the future.

find it yourself in the family planning aisle no prescription, no id. i've got this. ♪♪

and it's easier than ever to get your projects done right. with angi, you can connect with and see ratings and reviews. and when you book and pay throug you're covered by our happiness check out angi.com today. angi... and done. business can happen anytime, anywhere. so help yours thrive and stay connected with the and when you book and pay throug you're covered by our happiness comcast business complete connectivity solution. it's the largest, fastest, reliable network. advanced gig speed wifi. and cyberthreat protection. starting at just $49.99 a month. plus, you can save up to 60% a year when you add comcast business mobile. or, ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card.

complete connectivity. one solution, for wherever business takes you. comcast business. powering possibilities. that is the show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. i never stood in the way of senior members of my team cooperating with the committee and