all with my dad. that was really the purpose of me being assistant solicitor, getting to spend time with him, do things with him. >> five jury trials overall that time, and you had a badge that entire time. is that correct? >> i had a badge for a big part of that time, yes, sir. >> you actually had two badges, right? >> i had one badge, but when my grand dad became an assistant solicitor -- when my dad became the solicitor, he had an assistant solicitor's badge. >> right. >> when he passed away, i had his badge, and that was one -- at some point in time you were asking somebody about two badges. that was the other badge. >> i got you. >> you said you did five criminal jury trials as a prosecutor, correct? >> assisted in those or was doing them, yes, sir. i believe i was actually the

lead lawyer of one of them. i helped my dad in the other four. >> still a part of preparing the case? >> yes, sir. >> still a part of gathering the evidence and putting it together for trial? >> in a criminal case, we didn't do much the gathering of the evidence. we took what law enforcement had gathered. >> putting it together for the criminal trial, correct? >> yes, sir. >> presenting evidence in court? >> yes, sir. >> giving jury arguments? >> i did the closing argument in one of them, yes, sir. >> did you ever have any cases that you prosecuted that went short of a jury trial, either pled out or were dismissed for some reason? >> you know, i'm sure that at some point over -- between 1998 and 2021 that i took some plea, but as we sit here today i can't specifically remember that, and i don't ever remember working a

case up for trial that didn't go to trial, but i'm sure at some point in time i was involved in some level of a guilty plea or guilty pleas. >> you would agree with me that the civil system and the criminal system have a lot of differences, correct? >> a lot of differences and a lot of similarities. >> that's where i was going next. fundamentally it's about analyzing the evidence, preparing for trial, presenting that case and making the argument to the jury, correct? >> that's a big part of it. >> and would you agree with me that as cases go on or as you are preparing for trial, that you analyze the evidence that's gathered by law enforcements and present the evidence that supports your case, correct? that's just part of it? >> presenting evidence that you

deem favorable for your position. >> that you analyze the evidence and put in the evidence that supports your case, it's an ongoing process. >> that's part of what you did. >> same with a civil case. as you go along, you may have evidence, but you ultimately analyze that evidence. some evidence makes the cut and some of it does not. is that fair to say? >> as far as what you're -- i think we agree on that. >> we would agree on that? >> i think so. i'm not exactly sure what your question is. i think i understand it. >> i'm asking you as a lawyer as you have been since 1994, is that right? >> that's correct. >> a simple question. you analyze the evidence that's been gathered, whether civil or criminal, and then present that in court. is that correct? >> yes. that's part of what you do. >> that is an ongoing process as you prepare for a case. is that correct? >> an ongoing process as you prepare -- in criminal court or civil court? >> either one.

>> there's a distinction because in civil court you have the deadlines, so you aren't allowed to gather evidence during trial or a week before trial. for instance, if this was a civil trial and we found that onstar data during the third or fourth week of trial, you wouldn't be able to use it because you're past deadlines. in a criminal case you are able to use it. >> but you would agree that none of that was the fault of anyone on this side of the table, that gm initially responded they had nothing and then responded all of a sudden that they did. >> i don't have an opinion. that's certainly not anything that i'm intending to convey. >> you talked to the jury a lot about that, but you have no information about that -- you talked to the jury a lot about the gm data, but you're telling me that you're unaware that gm initially responded to law enforcement request and said they didn't have that, but then

in the course of the trial, they came up and said we found something and that's the reason it arrived late? you're saying you don't know anything about that after talking to this jury about that? >> i don't know a single thing about that. i know you represented that to the court and i don't have any reason to doubt it. >> you would agree that's generally consistent with the telemetry data that the fbi did, correct? the onstar data? >> the onstar -- i think the onstar data and telemetry data are totally different. >> you don't think they're generally consistent with each other. is that what you're telling the jury? >> no. i'm not telling the jury anything about that. do i think they're consistent? i think the on dloet star data gives you one set of information and the telemetry data gives you another set of information. >> but you don't think they're

consistent? i think we're struggling on what seems to be a fairly simple point. don't you agree? >> i'm just trying to answer your question. i'm not trying to be difficult. my understanding of what you're referring to as telemetry data is when the car goes into park and drive and that sort of thing. is that what you're referring to? >> yes. >> and the gps information is telling you where a vehicle is on a certain path. >> correct. >> and what direction it's going. so i think they're two different types of information. >> the question was were they consistent with one another? >> i guess so. i don't think they contradict each other. >> all right. thank you. you were the breadwinner for your family, correct, your

immediate family? >> yes. and that included obviously for maggie, correct? >> i'm sorry if. >> that included for maggie, correct? >> absolutely. >> in large measure for buster and paul as well. would you agree with that? >> that i was the breadwinner -- >> breadwinner, yes. >> no. i was their source of -- i was the source of income for maggie, buster and paul. i guess as they got older -- i mean there's some point where buster had a job, but i would still consider myself the provider for them at that time. >> again, there's no trick here. i'm trying to ask a simple question. >> i don't think that was a trick. >> so you were the primary

breadwinner. you can agree on that? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to show you what's been marked as state's 5-7 and see if you recognize this particular item. you can take it out of the bag. >> all right. >> do you know what that is? >> yes, sir. >> that's 571? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to show you what was the bag 570.

can you tell me what that is? >> 571 is what i would consider to be my badge. >> and then what is this one right here which is 570? >> 570 would be the one i told you about was my grandfather's badge after he retired, when he became an assistant for my dad. >> at this time i'd offer 570 and 571 into evidence. >> they are admitted. >> where did you keep 570, the one that was your grandfather's? >> it didn't have a single place where it was kept. >> do you know where it was recovered by law enforcement? >> no, sir. >> would you dispute if it was recovered out of the mercedes you were driving on september 4th, the day of the side-of-the-road incident? >> no, i believe that.

>> 571, where did you keep this one? >> usually in my car. >> where in your car? >> it could be on the dash like you were talking to mark ball about. it could be in the center console, the cup holder, on the seat. usually in the front seat, but in my car is where i tried to keep it. >> and when you had it in your dash, would you have it face up or face down? >> i didn't have any particular manner in which i stored it anywhere. >> there was no rhyme or reason to it is what you're telling the jury, how you had it in the dash? >> there may be occasions where i had it in the dash for some particular reason, but there were a lot of times where it probably was in the dash for no

particular reason other than that's where i put it, just like i put it on the seat or in the cup holder. >> you said there were particular reasons why you might put it in the dash. what would those reasons be? >> it could be any number of things. if i'm going somewhere where i want somebody to see it, then i would put it in the dash. if there's another reason for somebody to see it -- for instance, if i get pulled over, i might have it in the cup holder so an officer could see it when he walked up. >> why would you do that? why would you have it in the cup holder? you're not saying you were on official business, are you? >> no, i'm not saying i'm on

official business. >> why would you want it in the cup holder if you got pulled over? >> because i found that law enforcement oftentimes is friendlier when you're in law enforcement. >> when you're law enforcement. so you considered yourself law enforcement? >> no, sir, i can't say i considered myself law enforcement. >> you carried a badge on you as an assistant solicitor for two decades, roughly? >> from around '98 -- yes, sir, two decades. >> you would ride with it sometimes itting in the front dash facing out, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you would put it in the cup holder so law enforcement would see you if you got pulled over, right if. >> that's correct. >> so you didn't consider yourself law enforcement? >> i personally didn't consider myself to be law enforcement, no, sir. >> so you were just using the badge to your advantage and

taking license with it. is that correct? >> i guess in some circumstances that is accurate. >> you could use it to get away with something, get better treatment if you got pulled over? >> get better treatment if i got pulled over? i mean that's probably a fair statement. if somebody in law enforcement saw that, yeah. i'd say that's true. >> did you have to take an oath when you got that badge? >> no, sir. >> you didn't? >> not that i remember. i certainly don't recall taking one, like going somewhere and raising my hand -- >> raising your hand and saying i promise to do my duty, fairly

and with integrity. you never had to do that? >> mr. waters, if i did, i sure don't recall it. it was a very informal process when i became volunteer assistant solicitor for my dad. and then when i continued with duffy. at some point -- if i took any oath at all that i can remember, it would be on some paper that i may have had to sign, but i don't specifically remember doing that. >> all right. let's talk about it. let's go back to 571. on the inside of it, what are those right there? is that an i.d. card with your picture on it? >> yes, sir, that is. >> and at the top -- leave it in there if you would, please. can you not see it? >> i can.

i was just going to see what's on the back. all right, sir. >> all right. it's got your picture on it, got your name on it? >> yes, sir, that does have my picture and my name. >> all right. put that one back for me, please. >> all right. you want me to look at the top one? >> look at the top one. >> okay. >> what office does it say you are on that top one right there up at the top? >> state of south carolina solicitor -- the solicitor of the 14th judicial circuit. it says as solicitor of the 14th judicial circuit i do hereby certify that -- >> your name. >> and it has all that data -- >> what position does it say you're appointed to? >> as the -- okay. it says as solicitor of the 14th judicial circuit i do certify that richard a. murdaugh was on

july 1st, 2013, appointed as the deputy solicitor of the counties in and is authorized to enforce the laws in the 14th judicial circuit of south carolina. signed by duffy stone. >> so duffy is solicitor, correct? >> i was never a deputy solicitor, mr. waters. that's what that says. i've never been a deputy solicitor unless deputy -- i was volunteer assistant solicitor. as far as i know, sean thornton has been the only schlepity solicitor he has. >> deputy solicitor is a higher rank than assistant solicitor; is that correct? >> that's what i think. that was sean thornton. i've never been deputy solicitor, even though it does say that. i agree with you. that was signed by duffy stone, not by me. >> i understand.

this is what was given to you? >> that's what was given to me. >> we went through a whole long thing about whether you have an association with the law enforcement community. this was given to you not by your father, but a successor, correct? >> no, sir. i believe we got to this because you were asking me if i took an oath. i don't remember taking an oath. then you started asking me about these things. >> okay. you agree this card says deputy solicitor, right? >> i agree that card says deputy solicitor. >> all right. would you agree with me it says on the back that it is imposing special trust and confidence in your ability, care, prudence and integrity. is that what i says on the back of it? >> no, sir. i trust you -- if you're reading that off the back of that, i assume that it does.

>> you were reading off the one that duffy stone gave me, correct? >> yeah. the one at the top, where did that one come from? you want me to bring it back to you? >> no, sir, i think i can see it. >> it's not focused very well. >> that's okay. i know what it is. i looked at it when you handed it to me. the card at the bottom is what i got from duffy stone. the one at the top -- the one on the top should give you a better -- there we go. all right. the one on the top was what came from my dad when he was

solicitor. the one on the bottom is what came from duffy stone when he was solicitor, and duffy stone took over after my dad retired in 2006. duffy stone filled my dad's unexpired -- the rest of his unexpired four-year term much like my dad filled my grand dad's, and then duffy became the solicitor. >> did you ever have lights in your vehicle? >> in the particular vehicle -- >> in any vehicle. >> yes, sir, i did. >> was that a government vehicle? >> no, sir, it was not. >> when did you have lights -- like blue lights and stuff? >> yes, sir, i had some blue lights. >> remember, you did five cases over 20 years and you had blue lights in your vehicle, but it was your private vehicle, correct? >> well, it was the vehicle i drove. it was a law firm owned vehicle. >> the law firm's vehicle.

how did you get blue lights in there? >> i had them installed. >> who installed them? >> i believe eddy gibson installed them. >> who is that? >> he's the guy who apparently does blue light work for most of the sheriff's departments in the 14th circuit and a lot of the police departments. >> when did you have that installed, do you recall? one vehicle or more than one vehicle? let's start with that. >> i believe i had blue lights in one vehicle. >> when did you have that installed? >> i'm not sure. >> five years, ten years? >> i can give you a time frame. >> okay. >> the vehicle that i was in -- that got taken in on june 7th, i got that vehicle sometime around late december or january.

so i had had it for six months. i would have had the previous vehicle for five years. that's how long we kept vehicles in the law firm. so i would have had it for five years. some time during that five-year period i had lights installed. >> did you ask the sheriff at the time if you could do that? >> i did. >> who was that? >> i believe it was t.c. smalls, and i believe in colton it was andy strickland and i believe in allen dale it was tom carter. >> were you friends with andy strickland? >> yeah, i was friends with andy strickland. >> and you said, hey, i'm going to get blue lights installed in my vehicle and he said that's cool, or words to that effect? >> that doesn't sound like the words that he would have used or i would have used, but i

certainly asked him and he certainly said it was okay. >> it was okay. all right. >> along with sheriff smalls and sheriff carter. i'm not positive about sheriff carter, but i believe so. >> i'm going to show you this real quick, what's marked as state's 507 and see if you recognize that. >> i believe this is my suburban edison -- this is my suburban that y'all have. >> okay. does that look like where your incident? >> i have no idea.

>> you don't recall putting it there? >> no, but i don't take issue with the fact that -- i don't take issue with the fact that it's there if that's how they say it was. >> your honor, i offer state's 507 into evidence. >> no objection. >> so admitted. >> you testified some about the boat case, and we'll talk more about that later. >> the boat case being -- >> the boat wreck case. can we agree that's what we're talking about when we say the boat case, february 2019. >> there's two things. you're referring to the civil

case when you say the boat case. when i think about the boat case, i think about the charges that y'all brought against papa, but also the civil case. >> paw paw was your nickname for paul? >> i called him paul paul. maggie called him paul paul. bus calls him paw paw. roro calls him paw paw. >> who is roro? >> that's roland gibson. >> this jury has heard multiple recorded statements of you during the course of this. did you ever refer to paul as paul paul? >> i don't know. >> do you recall? >> how i referred to -- i can say paul if you prefer that. >> you can call him whatever you want. i'm asking if you ever called him that during the course of that entire investigation, or is that at least the first time

today publicly. >> is today the first time i've called my son paul paul-paul? no, sir. >> have you ever called him that in all the recorded statements? >> i don't know. >> if you ever called rogan ro-ro. >> all the time. >> in the recorded statements, did you call him that? >> i don't know. i called him rogan, also, so i don't know. i'm happy to call him rogan and happy to call paul paul. >> let's talk about -- i'll be specific in the boat wreck criminal case and the boat wreck civil case. is that fair? >> yes, sir. >> we've talked a little bit about your badge. did you have your badge with you on the night of the boat wreck? >> on the night of the boat

wreck did i have it with me? >> yes. >> when? >> did you go to the hospital that night? >> i did go to the hospital that night? >> did you have it with you then? >> i don't know, but i don't believe so. i really don't know. >> you don't believe so? when you went to the hospital the night of the boat wreck, were you acting in any official capacity? >> when i went to the hospital was i acting in an official capacity? >> yes. >> no, sir.

>> show you what's been marked as state's 569. do you recognize the person on the right of that image? >> no, sir. >> you don't recognize that? >> i don't recognize him. >> i'm asking about that. >> me? >> is that you? >> looks like me. >> what is hanging out of your pocket in plain view? >> looks like a badge. >> you didn't recall that until i just showed you that picture? >> no, sir, i did not. >> your honor, i offer state's 568 into evidence. >> no objection. >> admitted. >> that's you in the white shirt? . is that cite? >> yes, sir, it is. >> this is the badge hanging out of your pocket. >> looks to be. >> which one is that, which one of the two? >> no, you can't tell from here. >> why did you have it hanging out of your pocket like that?

>> yorm having that. i don't know. >> you don't remember that? >> i don't remember that, no, sir. >> did you generally walk around with a badge hanging out of your pocket? >> generally speaking, no, sir, i did not. >> only when you wanted some advantage from it? did you want some advantage from wearing it like that? >> did i hang it out of my pocket when i wanted an advantage? >> yes. >> i may have. i certainly may have. >> what advantage did you want? >> when? >> then. >> i don't recall mr. warts. if i was wanting some advantage, as you say it, i guess and i don't remember this. i guess i would want -- as i said, a badge has a warming effect with other law enforcement. if i was seeking any advantage as you say, then i guess that

would be what it was. >> did you ever want to be a solicitor? >> there was a time period i did. >> did you ever want to be the solicitor? >> there was a time period when i absolutely did. >> when was that? >> prior to or around the time -- prior to my dad retiring. >> prior to 2006? >> yes, sir. >> how long did you explore that? >> i wanted to be a solicitor for a long time, but, you know, at the time when my dad retired,

i was already struggling with bills, and i knew i couldn't do it. >> in 2006? >> yes, sir. >> we'll talk more about the pills in a bit. you said you were u already struggling with pills in 2006? >> that's correct. >> over that next 15 years you still were able to maintain a lucrative law practice. would you agree with that in. >> yes, sir. >> you already testified that all your law partners had no idea of this pill problem that you had all that time, correct? >> i'm testifying that i believe -- in fact, i'm certain that none of my partners knew i had an addiction. >> that night of the boat wreck, you say you don't remember putting your badge out, correct? >> i don't even remember having my badge. >> do you remember going around

talking to the kids, the other kids that were on the boat? >> yeah. i talked to some of them. >> you remember going to do that? >> yes. >> was your badge hanging out when you did that as well? >> i wouldn't think so, mr. waters. like i say -- i don't think so. >> it just comes naturally to put your badge out with something like this. >> i don't remember having my badge. i specifically know i didn't use the badge. did i mean to do this? i'm not saying i didn't. i don't know if i was putting in my pocket, and you notice the flap is not velcroed down. i don't know. i don't have a specific memory of that. i never went around acting like i was on official business. >> you're saying it might be an accident that your badge was hanging out? >> i'm saying i have no memory of that whatsoever. >> you never used these badges as like a wallet, right?

>> i did. >> you did? >> i did. >> you're saying you had your credit cards and stuff in there? >> no, sir, i'm not saying that. i'm not saying on that night -- you asked me if i ever used it as a wallet. there were times i used it as a wallet. >> were you using it as a wl let that night? >> i don't think so. >> let's see if we can get back to what we agree on. you had to make a conscious decision to grab that badge when you went into the hospital, correct? would you agree with that? >> yeah, i had to make a conscious decision to pick it up. >> but you're saying you don't know if you hung it out like that on purpose while you're talking to that law enforcement officer or if it's just an accident that it's hanging out of your pocket in full view of everyone. >> i am saying that because that's not how i would normally carry a badge. and even if i wanted to give somebody an impression, to me

that's got kind of an obnoxious look to it. that's not something -- that's not something i would typically do. i may have done it that night. i have no memory of that. >> okay. it is 4:32, i'm katy tur. we've been watching the double murder trial of alex murdaugh. "deadline: white house" is going to start in just a minute. we've been watching the cross examination by the prosecution. it was a bit of a surprise that murdaugh took the stand today. now prosecution is getting its chance to poke holes in the image he's portraying of himself as somebody who is folksy and down to earth. he's spending a lot of time, and we've been talking about this as we've been watching, trying to say that, hey, listen, this image you've presented on the stand, that you call your son paul paul and you call other people ro ro. why did you never call them that before in any of the

investigation interviews, the police interviews? why are you all of a sudden using these nicknames on the stand. what's the point? >> the point is to basically poke holes in his credibility and the image he is trying to portray through his direct testimony to the jury. you make that point, but you make that point and move on. the more this goes on, i think the pace of what we're seeing with this cross examination actually plays against the prosecution in terms of their favor. there's so much substantively about why he's on trial now. they haven't got into testifying about his opioid addiction, his finances. >> nothing about the night of the murder. >> right. now we're really, really at a very snail's pace setting the stage. the prosecutor has to be mindful of the pace he's going at because you don't want to lose that jury. >> he's pointed out that he has many badges.

do you leave them in your car? face up? why do you do that? why were you wearing your badge outside of your pocket when you talked to the other kids on the boat the night that his son got into that boating accident and that young girl died as well? what's the point of him trying to say you're carrying your badge a lot. >> to smear him in the eyes of the jury, to make the jury think this is someone who can't be trusted, who wanted special treatment and, therefore, you shouldn't like him. whether, in fact, it works with the jury remains to be seen. you have to be careful how much you belabor this. there's so much other material of all the things this man has been accused of doing, this is an odd strategic choice. >> it's like you have to pick and choose which ones to hone in on. you have a treasure trove of which things you could. you have to decide which will resonate most with the jury. it may come at the sacrifice of other points that you could make but would take you too long to

get to. >> it's 4:35. he's been on the stand the entire day. prosecution has had him for about an hour now and still haven't gotten to the night of the murders. is it likely we'll see this cross examination go well into tomorrow? >> yes, i think it is. as you said, i'm looking at my clock right now. it's 4:35, and we're still talking about where he had his badge and when. that having been said, there's clearly a strategic choice being made by the prosecution to focus on the fact that this is a guy who dripped his privilege everywhere. don't lose sight of the fact that this was not just a rich guy. this is a person whose history, his family lore is almost steeped in this county. everybody knows who this guy is. there was a portrait of his grandfather or great grandfather that had to be taken off the courthouse wall. this is a guy who made a decision to take that badge with him wherever he went, they're

showing you a very different alex murdaugh han the person he wanted you to see when he was on direct. >> what do you expect to get from the prosecution as they hone in on to the night of the murders? what are they going to point out? >> a lot of inconsistencies. we haven't talked about the fact that -- he stopped lying today. we haven't gotten there. that's going to be a big piece. the question there is, actually, as a prosecutor, you have to have fun, not in the proverbial sense, but in the sense whatever it is you say on the stand, i'm going to challenge with this history that you've been lying, according to you, since 2021. >> an interesting choice the defense made to put him on the stand. the first thing he said on stand was i have been lying for 20 months. i lied to the police. i lied to investigators i've e lied to everybody up until this moment. he said he was not at the dog conditionals where the murders happened in the rounding time of

the murders, that he was there many hours earlier. it turns out, no, actually he was. the prosecution says that these murders happened i think four minutes after he was seen there, four minutes after, and they believe that because the phones for the mother and the son, never unlocked again after -- 9:39 or something. >> that's why it's weird that the prosecution didn't jump into meade ytly what transpires where he gets back to the house. we heard a lot of details about the dogs, the dog chasing the chicken. extreme amount of granular detail about that. yet when it transfers to what happens when he gets to the house. he says i think i took a nap. i'm not positive. >> then he goes to visit his mom -- i think it was much earlier, 7:39 the murders happened. he goes to visit his mom at 9:00. >> you are right. the murders do happen, they think, right before 9:00, right

before 9:00. so the question is it's the exact time when he says the murder happens is when he thinks he's on the couch taking a nap but he says he's not positive. this is this whole new scene of events that we just heard for the first time today. it's such an odd strategic choice not to go right to the heart of the matter. what are we doing talking about badges? >> at the same time, it could be because we haven't heard that story as a prosecutor, you're trying in realtime to peel off all the inconsistencies. realtime as you listen to the testimony with this very real story. >> okay, pivot. >> for the sake of this case as a prosecutor, you've got to figure out how to do both. you're hearing things that don't make sense. again, he started out by saying, as you talked about earlier, katy, i've been lying this whole time. i'm going directly to that and i'm not letting that bone go before i've made him look ridiculous in front of this jury

and basically contradict everything he says going forward so they know, whatever this guy says, i really can't trust him. >> elise, again, what he needs is one juror on that jury to say i'm not quite sure, i have reasonable doubt that he did this. i get the gamble that alex murdaugh is making in deciding to take the stand, is that he can appeal as a father and husband, a grieving father and husband who is not a murderer, not a cold-blooded murderer has the prosecution has been painting him now for weeks. >> katy, what i would say to that is both things can be true. alex murdaugh can be a deeply grieving husband and father and also be responsible for the murders of his son and his wife. so the fact that he's breaking down on the stand as he is describing and almost eulogizing them both in the last hour doesn't mean he's not guilty of committing these murders. one of the things that i think the prosecution did effectively in the last hour was show some

flashes of anger from alex murdaugh that i suspect he'll try to exploit. they referred to the boat case. he said you're referring to the boat case as the civil case but then there's a case you brought against paul paul. he got in their their face about it in a way that i don't expect jurors will like. >> we will continue to watch this. my thanks to charles coleman, lisa rubin. there's a lot more other news to get to today. nicolle wallace picks things unfortunate as ""deadline: white house"" starts right now. >> i everybody. it's close to 5:00 here in new york. thank you for sticking around. we're going to turn now to news from capitol hill and the ongoing threat to our democracy, something we've been covering here on this program day in and day out. there's been a stunning development in that decision by speaker kevin mccarthy. it shows that in today's republican party, handing over

sensitive security footage of a domestic terrorism attack, how it was described by the sitting fbi director, an attack that led to multiple deaths and hundreds of injuries for the law enforcement officials who protected the capitol that day, it endangered the lives of the vice president, his family. we all saw them run, and every single member of congress in both parties. that footage is now in the hands of one of the most prominent conspiracy theorists in this country and one who specifically peddles conspiracy about domestic terrorism. remaining linked to an active on going domestic violent extremism threat in america. to mccarthy, you know what it is? quote, a promise kept. from "the new york times" reporting, the sometimes spoke to mccarthy last night on his decision to hand over surveillance video of the january 6th attack to fox news host tucker carlson. quote, i promised, mr. mccarthy

said on wednesday in a brief phone interview in which he defended his decision, to grant mr. carlson exclusive access to the more than 40,000 hours of security footage. quote, i was asked in the press about these tapes and i said they do belong to the american public. i think sunshine let's everybody make their own judgment. as the times reporting puts it, quote, the sunshine mr. mccarthy referred to will for now be filtered through a very specific prism, a conspiracy theorist. it shows he had no qualms and repeatedly and knowingly lying to his millions of viewers daily. here is some of what he's said about january 6th. >> when are they going to admit there was no sex? never. >> so fbi operatives were work r organizing the attack on the capitol on january 6th according

to government documents. >> it turns out this white supremacist insurrection was, again, by the government's own admission, organized at least in part by government agents. >> what did happen exactly on january 6th? what's the truth of that day? that's still unknown. >> this was not an insurrection. you know what will get you to insurrection? if you ignore the legitimate concerns of a population, if you brush them aside as if they don't matter. >> rings a lot more hollow after knowing that he knew he was lying. it's a toxic stew of deflection, threats, lies, outright falsehoods. the same playbook used by the far right ring of the gop caucus that mccarthy owes his gavel to and is desperate to apiece. "new york times" also reports, quote, the most conservative members of congress have been pushing mccarthy for weeks to release the video after he promised to do so during his

campaign for speaker. there could be real actual dangers to this latest concession that mccarthy made to the january 6th conspiracy theorists given that the threat of violence looms large over the u.s. capitol. here is what former january 6th select committee member said about it yesterday. >> there's a lot of material that could jeopardize security of the capitol, the escape routes. there are gaps actually in the placement of some of the camerasment one of the recommendations we made was that that those gaps be eliminated through the placement of additional cameras. i sure don't want the bad guys to know where the gaps are, how the members of congress and the staffs were evacuated. also, there's another issue here which is we know that the ex-president's supporters take his word as true and they act upon his words. he has belittled the capitol

police, in some cases suggested they are not honorable or called one a murderer, exposing the identity of all the capitol police publicly could put some of them at risk to some of the wild adherence of the ex-president. it's a concern i have. >> the coordinated strategy to rewrite the story of the capitol insurrection that's taking place today, in concert with fox news and house speaker kevin mccarthy is where we start today with former congresswoman elaine luria of virginia. she served on the january 6th select committee. tim miller is also here, writer at large for the bulwark as well as msnbc contributor. harry lippman is back at the table, former u.s. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general. also joining us, basil smikle, director of the public policy program at hunter college.

congresswoman luria, i believe some of your presentation in the public hearings centered on the security situation. what are your concerns personally as a former member of congress about all the footage being in the hands, not just of a media outlet, but someone who has a very decided and clear view of january 6th, as we just saw, that it didn't happen at all? >> i think i echo some of the concerns that zoe lofgren stated on your show. i think somewhere near 40,000 hours of this footage, taken from every angle within the capitol. one could clearly, in studying this, determine evacuation routes, areas where capitol police stage or evacuate people, all types of things could be compiled from the footage in its entirety. as the committee, we saw to

release everything that we gathered, but we did hold back those things that could have a national security concern or could have a concern to the future security of the capitol and the capitol police officers and the people who work there. the fact this is being released in such a cavalier way into the hands of someone who is actually clearly intended to use it to discredit the actual footage that they have available to them is really quite concerning. kevin mccarthy never wanted to investigate january 6th. he wants to rewrite the history of that day, and i think he's found probably the wildest mouth spees as far as conspiracy theorists to help him in that narrative. >> congresswoman, here is what kevin mccarthy said in a fund-raising letter about his decision to give the security footage that protects the building in which he works and all members work, he's raising money off that decision. he said patriot, you deserve the facts and all the facts.

i promised i would give you the truth regarding january 6th and now i'm delivering. i have released the footage. it's in the public interest to know everything that happened that day, not just the narrative that pelosi's partisan committee wants you to hear. i think liz cheney delivered the most blunt assessments of what kevin mccarthy knew. did he ever share the facts of january 6th to the committee investigating the facts? >> of course not. we reached out to kevin mccarthy. none of them were willing to come forward and give factual information about what they knew about that day. the fact even more that this is tied up in a promise he made to matt gaetz and perhaps others to actually obtain the speakership, and i saw he then responded later when questioned about this. he said, but i promised to do it. you're the speaker of the house. you're third in line to the presidency and this is the kind

of leadership you have of your caucus. it really is quite frightening he's trying to rewrite history and he's brought tucker carlson on board to do that. he's been subject of a lot of criticism from tucker carlson because he hasn't, in certain cases, been far enough to the right for his liking. he's tried to curry favor everywhere. how many other promises has he made to other members of the republican house in conjunction with obtaining his position as speaker? >> the committee subpoenaed several members, i believe scott perry, andy biggs, and representative lauder milk was invited to testify. did you invited. did you consider criminal referrals for those members that defied committee subpoenas? >> still not really going to touch on the internal deliberations of the committee. we understood they had information important to our

investigation, but that they were intent on using any delay tactics or any type of justification and not provide that information. frankly, we got so much information from other people that, and really time was of the essence as well in trying to pursue that. so ultimately, we did not receive testimony from those individuals. >> you know, tim, there's a giant sort of flashing yellow light, right? around biggs, mccarthy, brooks. if they were so interested and let me quote mccarthy correctly. patriot, you deserve the facts, all the facts. i promise i'll give you the truth. why not participate with to the most conservative members? somebody who was so conservative once in his own leadership team, liz cheney. >> well, he's lying. i guess is the short answer to that question. he doesn't want the truth and the whole truth. scott perry doesn't. that's why he's trying to block his cell phone records from being released to various

investigations that are happening right now. you listed the other members that were participants in this. i think kind of unintentionally there was one thing tucker carlson said that was right, which was that there were government agents part of organizing the attack on the capitol. there were. including the president of the united states and a couple of those members of congress you listed. so there were government agencies, just not in the same way he intended that to mean. look, i think they're deliberately trying to cloud this and using double speak to make it seem like they want transparency. there's one little bit of silver lining through this, which is that it's a political disaster for mccarthy to do this. the very narrowest sense of trying to maintain his caucus it makes political sense. as far as what is good for the republican party, what is good for his members who are in tough

districts, relitigating january 6th is like the worst possible thing that people can be talking about. here we are, you're leading your show with it. when tucker ever produces the reports based on whatever he does with the video he receives, that's going to reveal another round of incriminations and discussions. i think this is a massive political mistake for mccarthy and the republicans. that's about the only positive thing there is to say about this video. >> i think the politics are as tim describes them. i wonder if the lens though, we now know that tucker knows the people he puts on his air, i want to quote kevin and tucker accurately. lying. it's what he said about powell. i caught her, it's insane. complete nut. i mean, he knowingly put lying liars on his air. so what is the sort of prism through which we examine the

conduct of someone who if the view of dominion believes has acted with actual malice? >> i think this goes well beyond the security concerns. this is a, so mccarthy's job, he said one thing that was right. these tapes belong to the american people. and it's a -- for him to make them public given the security concerns. more still to give them just to one hand picked person as political payback and most, to give it so someone whose stated goal and the goal of the people he's beholden, is to smother, distort and totally give off the counternarrative to the whole thing. the only silver lining i would say in addition is i think they're going to be forced to distribute it more widely so there will be counternarratives to carlson, but again, that relitigates and you know, we continue to live with it. but it's outrageous for him to

take this important property of the u.s. people and distribute it as political payback to the one person who wants to trash it. >> for people that don't watch enough fox news to know this, carlson hates mccarthy and when matt gaetz was on with the speaker groveling, i don't know if it was on tucker's show, but saying there's nothing left to ask for. we got so much. we've got him over a barrel. the insurrection happened on live tv. might be the first one in history to play out on live tv for many, many hours. with a criminals staying on tv like they were at a tailgate for many, many hours afterward. news organization, "washington post," "the new york times" have recreated different angles. it is the most photographed crime of our lifetimes. i used to try to understand what the most sort of deviant motive. what are they trying to do in their minds? >> this scares me tremendously.

because we now know about fox's motives. we saw in what is it the 15 votes it took mccarthy to win. you could imagine everything he was promising away. what scares me so much about what's happening now is because there are people that left fox news to watch another network because fox wasn't going far enough. >> that's what makes them go back to the lie. newsmax. that caused the holy moly moment. >> exactly right. as carlson and others manipulate this information for their needs, all of those folks that left are going to take that and go deeper and go in a direction that is going to be far more problematic, scary for democracy. i'm concerned that there is not going to be any control over. that mccarthy cannot undo what he is doing at this moment and that all of the promises that he's made as the congresswoman

said for someone who is one of the most powerful people in our country, that he is the existential threat to our security at this point. >> he's acting like it. we're going to do something unconventional. we came on the air a little bit. i have more questions for you. so if you'll stick around over the top of the hour, we'll get to special counsel jack smith waging several legal battles involving his two investigations into the twice impeached ex-president today. one moving front and center involves cell phone records from someone we've been talking about. the u.s. congressman who was at the center of the trump election coup planning. later, with the gop's attacks intensifying and becoming more mainstream, we'll take a deep look at extremism in america in a post insurrection world. we've got our hands on a new report that shows right wing extremists committed every ideologically driven mass killing in the country last

year. let that sink in. all that and more when deadline white house continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. lots of things to cover. go anyw. lots of things to cover. written by those who work it. like the caggianos, who are brewing their own legacy. or the wrens, with their drama free plot - tranquil and serene. the upshaws? they diy, all the time. while the nelson's play lead in their own adventure, 150 years in the making. there's a story in every piece of land. run with us and start telling yours.

a lot of new dry eye patients in my office tell me about their frequent dry eyes, which may point to dry eye disease. millions of americans were estimated to have it. they also tell me they've tried artificial tears again and again, but the relief is temporary. xiidra can provide lasting relief. xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied and unusual taste sensation. why wait? ask your eye doctor about a 90-day prescription for xiidra today. ♪ well, the stock is bubbling in the pot ♪ ♪ just till they taste what we've got ♪ ♪ ow, ow ♪ ♪ with a big, fresh carrot ♪ ♪ and a whole lot of cheese ♪ ♪ and the mirror from your van is halfway down the street ♪ ♪ well, you can say that -- ♪ wait, what? i said, "someone just clipped the side view mirror right off the delivery van." when owning a small business gets real, progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we?

why, you were fixin' to peel me. [ laughter ] as a business owner, why, y your bottom line isel me. always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to 60% a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

hi, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york on our abridged version of deadline. don't go anywhere today. one of several under the radar stories we're telling you about because it's potentially incredibly conscious. a d.c. appeals court heard arlgts over what the justice department can access the phone of a key player in the trump

plot. that would be scott perry. he pushed for donald trump to fire his acting attorney general and replace him with jeffrey clark. an environmental lawyer who was willing to tip the scales on behalf of donald trump and say that doj had found evidence of election fraud. in court today, attorneys for scott perry argued that prosecutors are blocked from accessing his data because he's a member of congress. "washington post" reports this, quote, the constitution protects legislators from being questioned outside congress about their work and was written to prevent the president from krubtly trying to influence lawmakers with threats of prosecution, but it is unclear whether it applies to conversations with members of the executive branch and particularly discussions about subverting an election to keep the executive in power. that very issue, whether the constitution's speech or debate clause sprents doj from looking at the work of congress even if

that member was trying to plot a coup was at the heart of today's proceedings and is likely to come in up another major legal battle for jack smith. post reports this, quote, former vice president mike pence is also filing a subpoena from the special counsel arguing his role as president of the senate gave him the same protections as it did a lawmaker. we're back with elaine, tim -- harry, we've got a bunch of the public testimony involving scott perry's role in the doj coup plot, which was central to helping trump carry out the election coup. but tell me what legal questions are on the table? >> sure. very briefly, he's not just like some of the five congress members who were involved. he's a moving force. he makes the, brings clark into the office. >> who's acting ag for a while. >> and perry is all over this.

so if there's a criminal conspiracy, he's a co-conspirator. the issue that's coming up is speech or debate. we know the general standard. i think it's clear that any of us could say this can prevail. it has to be a legislative act. so perry trying to say replace this doj and put in this hand picked person. the end of the day, very hard to see. same with pence. having his private conversations with trump as opposed to when he's presiding january 6th. what happened today however in the perry argument at least two judges were just interested because the courts have not really elaborated much what it means and they just got to the question so could there ever be informal conversation with a third party that would be covered or not? they might kind of go off on that ground, remand and the like. at the end of the day though, any sensible construction of legislative act means it doesn't

cover perry and even if it did for the same reason as in the nixon case, when you're doing a crime like that and you need the evidence, it would be pierced. but for now, it's a longer route to get to just what this means. >> remind us, too, what criminal exposure perry himself has. i believe he was a, i know he feels a pardon seeker. >> he was. >> testified to that under oath. i believe we know from the testimony of mr. donahue, let me play some of that. >> the select committee obtained records from the national archives that show that scott perry was one of the congressmen who joined that meeting. we learned from white house records that you'll now see on the screen that the very next day, representative perry returned to the white house. this time, he brought a justice department official named

jeffrey clark. >> you understand he was pushing for a specific person to take over? >> he wanted mr. jeff clark to take over. >> he mentioned him and what did he say about him? >> he did. he mentioned mr. clark. he said to be like he's great, he's the kind of guy who can do something about this stuff. >> mr. meadows received this theory from representative perry. on the screen now is the text that representative perry send to mr. meadows copying a youtube link with the message, quote, why can't we just work with the italian government. >> at the outset of the call, the congressman told me he was calling -- to the president. >> what did he want to talk about? >> he went into some allegations specific to pennsylvania, which included amongst others this allegation that the secretary of state had certified more votes than were actually cast. >> i'm sorry.

yes, he did. >> so his specific role in the coup is fascinating and more textured than just being one of the 19 or in the roosevelt room helping trump figure out how to cling to power. he's organizing, trump views it as essential that they just declare the election corrupt. perry's the guy getting trump clark to do just that. because rosen and donahue say no. barr called it bull bleep. tell me what potential trouble mr. perry's in? >> 100%. there are these other sort of tinfoil moments for perry, but this is straightforward. we saw the committee lay out different schemes. one was to get the department of justice to falsely tell georgia you know we think something's wrong there. trump says just tell them that and the republican congressman and i will take care of the rest. remember that statement? so this whole plot, which is in

the criminal code, a conspiracy to defraud the united states as well as obstruction, he is more than a co-conspirator. he's actually the i insta gator. he gets the lacky who's going to execute. he's at the very center of it. so his exposure, co-conspirator. for conspiracy to defraud the justice department by telling the lie trump wanted to run with. >> elaine, what did you most want to know from scott perry when the committee subpoenaed him? >> i think you've gone over a little bit of the details here, but it was central to the plan that they have a close ally in the department of justice and they find this guy, jeff clark,

and having acting position. what were all the wheels that were turning in the background that was identifying jeff clark and getting scott perry to be the one to walk him into the oval office to introduce him to the president and try to implement this scheme. it feels to me like there had to be more and a wider plan or scott perry, you know, came up with this on his own and is a much bigger player. just a lot of unanswered questions there. >> elaine, there's something so surreal to me about constantly reminding myself that his salary is paid by all of us. he's a sitting congress member of immense power because mccarthy couldn't become speaker without winning over the

pro insurrection faction, after telling reporters in conversations that were reported that trump had to go and that the 25th amendment would be to too slow. we know how mccarthy initially saw it, but he's capitulated completely to the scott perrys of his caucus. what does that mean for our security prerogatives? >> i think it's incredibly concerning. we started this out by talking about the footage of what happened at the capitol. anyone who watched it saw what happened. there was a violent attack that led to a loss of life, attacks on police officers, an attempt to stop the functioning of our government. but you have a whole group of people, mostly republicans in the house republican caucus sitting members of congress who are still attempting to act like it didn't happen or to rewrite history. when you take a step back and look from the outside, what are other countries thinking of our

functioning of our government, the democratic process? that was attempted to be essentially corrupted by this scheme? are the ones who are trying to act like it didn't happen, a very dangerous precedent and that concerns me above all else that the republicans in the house are still the most adamant about acting like it didn't happen, brushing it under the rug and rewriting history. >> tim, can we put the picture of january 6th up again? this picture is up again not because we're coming back to this horrific day or covering a trial about it. this picture is up again because of scott perry and kevin mccarthy. mccarthy giving the security footage to tucker carlson. and perry, i don't know why he wouldn't just said read my phone. i'll unlock it for you. what is the political malpractice to come back to your point of guaranteeing this stays in the news? >> two things. on the political side of it, the

malpractice that mccarthy feels like he has to do this in order the stay speaker. the insurrection, the umpteen votes for speaker. marjorie taylor greene being on the homeland security committee. the only reason any of this is happening is so mccarthy to hold on to power, needs to give in to the most ultra maga pro insurrection wing of the party. that's what he did to stay in power. perry on the other hand, he's, this story is about him acting to save his own hyde. just to put a fine point on it, perry orchestrated the efforts to overthrow the government. you can't get more traitorous. a sitting congressman. there's no accountability within the republican party for this. all evidence shows it was perry

that was the one that was instigating the effort to overthrow the, to insert someone into the department of justice for the sole purpose of overthrowing the results of an election in order to keep donald trump in power against the will of the people. that's what scott perry did. he's still in congress. he's trying to hide his phone records because he doesn't want there to be additional evidence of his effort. but it goes directly to january 6th. one of those texts that was released by congressman and the committee had perry saying to meadows, we only have 11 days until january 6th. january 6th wasn't like a meaningful day, right? >> right. >> in the past, always just been something that was -- that there would be an action item on the

set. >> just as scott perry. he saw the pardon for it. >> he did. every time i hear more stories about people trying to get pardons or more evidence about what they were doing in those days, it's amazing how close we got to this country being overthrown and the leadership being overthrown. so to tim's earlier point, when i look at the framing of this, i think about what the democrats are doing in the meantime. what's jeffries and the democratic party doing in the meantime or what the american people will see is a democratic party that is about the business of the people. and the republican party that promised to drain the swamp, but the swamp has gotten emergency worker murkier, darker and more dangerous. if you're leading up to 2024 and we even see joe biden's numbers going up. >> jeffries is a key. he's doing the policymaking, but he is not, and speaker pelosi didn't either, but he is so

adept at keeping the democrats on offense on all these questions around the insurrection. he fired this letter off about mccarthy giving the tapes to tucker. >> that's right. it's incredibly key to party politics. you have to protect your members. and if you're jeffries, the best way to do that is to give them the ammunition to go into their districts and say this is what we're doing. look at what's happening on the other side. republicans are not doing that. they're continuing this thread of conversation, radicalizing so many other folks in the country and the independents and republicans that helped us in '22 are saying wait a minute, how is this getting worse, not better? >> right. the political conversation is so important because the politics of the democratic policies are only going to get better as more bridges and roads are fixed and the politics of the insurrection are only going to get worse. i want your expertise on a story

in the news. there's been a development in the lawsuit being brought by pete strzok and lisa page. trump may be questioned in lawsuits by ex-fbi employees. tell me the significance of this. >> well, i mean, it's one step towards justice. the president and others, but especially the president, just made them a punching bag at a time when it was really difficult for them to defend themselves because they had been engaged in an affair. there was this e-mail. and they were kind of helpless in the field. so the allegation is that he, trump and christopher wray may have been involved in firing strzok and really torturing page about the affair. they sued and the ruling is they can depose.

they can make trump and wray come forward. i think that's all they need to get at the facts of what happened because some was kind of under the radar, but as everyone knew at the time, they were mercyless toward them. >> i remember news reporting at the time suggesting that rosenstein played a role in making sure those were public. is he a party? >> i don't think he is and neither page or strzok chose to sue him, but i'll just say there are many unanswered questions. >> thank you. elaine, tim, harry, thank you for waiting to have this conversation. we're so grateful to you on any day, but especially today. basil, you're sticking around. next, the shocking rise of extremism and violence in our country and how the republican party is helping to mainstream and normalize it.

plus, new polls back the curtain on how the former republican attorney general of arizona hid records that proved there was no, i repeat, no voter fraud in his state. it's a devastating story for pushers of the big lie. deadline white house continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. continues after a quicbrk eak. don't go anywhere. there's a story in every piece of land. written by those who work it. like the upshaws. the nelsons. and the caggianos. run with us and start telling your story.

i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. uhhhh... here, i'll take that. [woo hoo!] ensure max protein, with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar and nutrients for immune health. >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? safelite makes it easy. ensure max protein, with 30 grams of protein, >> tech vo: you can schedule in just a few clicks. and we'll come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> man: looks great. >> tech: that's service on your time. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ♪ ♪ why are there two extra seats? are we getting a dog? a great dane? two great danes?! i know. giant uncle dane and his giant beard.

maybe a dragon? no, dragons are boring. twin sisters! and one is a robot and one is a knight. and i'll be on the side of... the octopus. rawr!!! the volkswagen atlas. more room for possibilities.

including maps of washington, d.c. that pinpoint the location

of police. >> striking new details particularly haunting in light of what we just discussed in the last hour about kevin mccarthy handing over that surveillance video of the january 6th attack to fox news host tucker carlson. coming out of the seditious conspiracy trial of the proud boys, he took the stand against members of his former group. the ap reports this about him. that he quote said he believed an all out revolution was brewing when donald trump supporters attacked the capitol on january 6th. he acknowledged he never heard of a plan for proud boys members to storm the capitol, but he testified he and other proud boys reached an agreement related to events of that day. quote, what was your understanding of that agreement, the prosecutor asked. quote, that we had to do anything that was necessary to save the country, he said.

these revelations come amid the mainstreaming of right wing extremism and violence here in our country. a new report by the anti-defamation league finds this, quote frrks the 1970s through the 2000s, extremist killings were uncommon, however over the last 12 years, the number has greatly increased. all the extremist related murders in 2022 were committed by right wing extremists of various kinds. who typically commit most such killings each year but only occasionally are responsible for all. this report also finds that most of the killings were perpetrated by white supremists. this year, the adl says the percentage of ideological killings committed by white supremacists was usually high. they were linked to 21 of the year's 25 extremist related murders. primarily due to the mass

shootings. joining us now, vice president of the defamation league. here at the table, nick questen who was embedded with the proud boys after election day 2020 up through the insurrection. his footage played a major role in the january 6th select committee's opening argument and first public hearing and basil is still with us at the table. the democratic strategist and director at the public policy program at hunter college. today playing my wing person for all two hours. i want to start with this really disturbing new data driven report that they put out. >> disturbing and data driven is right. in 2022, domestic extremists killed 25 people in 12 separate incidents. all committed by right wing extremists of various kinds. while that represents a decrease from 33 we documented in the

previous year, when you look over the past decade of the 444 extremist related murders in this country, a full 75% have been carried out by right wing extremists and the majority of those by white supremacists. one of the most alarming trends in recent years has been the mass casualty attacks. mass killings by domestic extremists have skyrockets. 26 in the last 12 years, which exceeds those from the previous 40. it is not an exaggeration to say we are living in an era of extremist mass killings and that's what this report shows. >> orin, the fact that all of the extremism that leads to the mass killings is on the right, does that make it harder to create policies to stem the

violence? >> we need to understand it's not the sole domain of any one movement or ideology, but year after year, we see that right wing extremists, in particular, white su premists, are particularly violent. so when looking at what measures we need to take in order to protect communities around the country, we need to understand that data speaks for itself. it should drive policy and should inform where we're spending our time in terms of prevention. in terms of preparing law enforcement. and frankly, in terms of the public discussion that often animated or echoes the ideologies we know animate violence. >> well, i mean let me be more specific. if the republican party is led by figures who dine with the likes of nick fuentes, is the republican party as a brand and something that can be identified within most people's nuclear family, most people know someone that votes republican, is that

creating a permission structure were republican associations with extremism? >> when elected officials endorse concepts like the great replacement theory, when they try to pass laws that isolate and target the lgbtq community by calling them groomers, when they pedal in the lies and fantasies of extremists, that helps mainstream extremist ideas. so we must call on all elected officials. no matter what their party. to stop normalizing the type of hate we know animated violence. i think the numbers and data speak for themselves. >> basil, the numbers and data and crimes we've covered. we covered the attack on steve scalise so when the violence and attempted murders happen from other ideologies, they get our attention. the right has an extremism problem. >> it's a remarkable report and i try to center my students in a lot of these conversations.

my students are writing about this. my students are concerned. these are future voters. their first vote was in 2020 for my of them. they're looking at their future of civic engagement. not just in terms of who's going to make the policy that affects me as a student in terms of loans, but also that's going to keep me safe. they're starting to think about this for the first time in a way i didn't have to at their age. they're writing about it, tieing it to the effect of social media. as i look at this and as you talk about the republican party permission structure, i go back to the point i've often made about donald trump and what the republicans have done. which is neutralize our guilt. what they've been able to do is not lift up the people who say they support them, but talk down to them. they've made them feel there is nobody that can help them and therefore take out their aggression in the most violent way possible. and i go back to the politics of

this. there are people in this country that are actually speaking to them as adults. as people. and do care about what's affecting their lives on a day-to-day basis. they just need to open their eyes a little bigger and pay attention and i go back to the jeffries. i go back to what joe biden and other democrats are doing. and even independents and other republicans who are taking a stand against this. it is the worst part of our society. almost creating a religion around this specific brand of hate and the problem is there's no way to turn this off in the short-term. >> yeah. that is one of the challenges of counterextremism initiatives worldwide, right? extremism is not, it's not, we don't, most people don't go with it with their head. they go to it with something more visceral. what's the most effective more for what you highlight here? a rise in violent right wing white supremacist domestic

extremism? >> i think they're animated by grievances and the ability for people to exploit those and make them feel heard. so when you have a white supremacist dieb dine with a former president, that provide as wink and nod and legitimacy to those ideas. the best way to combat is to a, recognize what kind of violence are we talking about. 95% or more often in these extremist related murders have to do with weapons. so we need to deal with the consequences of mass shootings in this society writ large and know that it impacts every part of our society including our extremist fringes. so dealing with guns is one way to get at this. two, we need to stop normalizing and turning a blind eye to those narratives that we know make extremists feel embolden. whether it's coming from elected i shall ifs, television pundits.

we need to reject ideas that are the life blood of those who seek to create blood on the ground. >> blood on the ground is as good a segue to any you saw on january 6th as i've heard so far. you've been here before. the featured opener for the committee's first public hearing in terms of sharing what you knew and what you witnessed when embedded with the proud boys. you've been watching it. just take me inside what's going on in these trials and what you think the significance is, if any, to this broader issue of domestic extremism? >> at the moment, proud boys are on trial for together for seditious conspiracy and the obstruction of congress amongst other things. and you know, they're obviously a reflection of this, they felt empowered by the president and they did everything they can to lay the certification of electoral college vote.

>> what is your sense of the significance of this witness that is in the news making some headlines today? mr. bertino. the justice department prosecutor asked him why he pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, a rarely used charge. if you didn't know of a plan. quote, because there doesn't have to be a specific plan for an objective. what's he basically outing in that response? >> the idea that the proud boys were there to sort of delay the certification of the vote and he expresses later in his testimony he was disappointed it didn't happen, that congress has reconvened and the vote was then underway. >> are you surprised as you watch the republican members of congress are using their power to shield themselves from testimony or questions but the men and women usually referred to by politicians as the foot soldiers of the insurrection are very much standing trial and facing consequences for their

actions. how does that land where them? >> i think they're disappointed that they haven't been more supported by the politicians, but you know, the law is the law and they will be judged. but i think their strategy is potentially to hope that trump is re-elected and wait for a pardon. >> we were talking about that will become a question in the next republican primary. will you pardon insurrectionists? >> i think this point about the foot soldiers is really important because they don't understand they're out there committing these crimes but the people pushing them behind the scenes are in mar-a-lago having steak dinners. they don't care about that. there's a larger agenda that's being considered here that just sees them as pawns and focuses on sort of building that hate and racism. i know if there's any way around that in the short-term, but they should also realize that the people saying they care about them don't at the end of the day. >> and they're willing to sort of sacrifice.

while we have you, i want to ask you about some disturbing activity here in new york. there are protests outside the new broadway production parade. if there's any remaining doubt about telling this story in history, the vileness on display last night should put it to rest. we stand by the valiant broadway cast that brings us this vital story, brings it to life each night. it is the story of, this is a tweet from adl. in 1913, a jewish business man, leo frank, was accused of murder in georgia. he received a life sentence in a trial marred by antisemitism and later on a hate filled mob dragged him from his cell and lynched him. this week in new york city, not too far from where 30 rock fell

plaza stands, there are antisemitic protests. here's some footage. >> these are antisemitic protesters. white supremacist protesters. the jewish committee feels particularly vulnerable right now. this type of activity that people are seeing on the screen right now happens every single week in different parts of the country. these extremists and antisemites are trying to create fear and anxiety in communities by putting flyers on their lawns, dropping banners over freeways, just last week in los angeles, two jewish people were shot because they were jewish. and so this is all coming at a time where antisemitism is being normalized. bigotry of all kinds is being normalized and democracy is being undermined which allows these forms of hate to

proliferate. so we're trying not only to shed light, sun light is a great disinfectant on these issues, but more importantly, hold people accountable. i think that is one of the ways that we can try to stem this tide of hatred and violence is accountability. >> it was a great day to have you on this report but also on all of these threads. thank you so much. nick, always wonderful to get to have you back at the table and basil, thank you for spending the better part of the last two hours here with me. thank you very much. we did it all, right? thank you. when we come back, it is a story that's devastating to anyone who's still pushing the big lie. how the republican attorney general of arizona hid the truth so that he could continue with the lies. we'll explain, next. don't go anywhere. e lies we'll explain, next. don't go anywhere.

if your business kept on employees through the pandemic, getrefunds.com can see if it may qualify for a payroll tax refund of up to $26,000 per employee. all it takes is eight minutes to get started. then work with professionals to assist your business with its forms and submit the application.

go to getrefunds.com to learn more. a must in your medicine cabinet! less sick days! cold coming on? zicam is the number one cold shortening brand! highly recommend it! zifans love zicam's unique zinc formula. it shortens colds! zicam. zinc that cold! your heart is the beat of life. if you have heart failure, entrust your heart to entresto, a medicine specifically made for heart failure. entresto is the #1 heart failure brand prescribed by cardiologists. it was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. and just imagine where a healthier heart could take you. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren,

or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. entrust you heart to entresto.

finding out you were right all along can often have the unfortunate side effect of make k you want to pull your hair out. so maybe sit on your hands for this one because today, we have new and more confirmation that the baseless allegations of fraud in the 2020 election and the cascade and ongoing republican-led investigations they unleashed were never a thing. nothing more than a political tool to excuse trump's loss, attack his opponents and ultimately, ultimately, become a weapon by which voters are being

disenfranchised up to today. "the washington post" reports a full year after the election, a republican who was until recently arizona's attorney general, fired up a taxpayer funded investigation into voting in maricopa county. it took 10,000 hours of the staff's time and ultimately produced next to nothing. zip. it found all claims of error were virtually all unfounded. in march of last year, investigators prepared a report that said exactly that. in april, weeks later as he was in the midst of a race for senate, that held go on to lose, he released an interim report insisting his office discovered this. quote, serious vulnerabilities, end quote, leaving out fact checkers refuting those assertions. he didn't respond to the post for comment but here's more of their reporting. r reporting.

mark, founder of democracy docket, joins us now. i know we're not going in a neat order, but this story was too incredible not to bring you in on. what's amazing is this guy, this trump guy, finds the truth and hides it in his drawer so he can keep peddling the lies. it seems to sum it all up. >> it does. and i think you really, really captured this perfectly. we've for a long time, known there was a big lie. but we've always thought about the big lie as something that fabulous like donald trump. you know, told to courts or told to states. but what we now know is that the

big lie, where the people who did the investigations and knew that it was a lie continued to play along for their own purposes. as you say, the attorney general of arizona spent 10,000 hours investigating this. 60 investigators. 638 related complaints and yet when his office uncovered the truth, he continued to peddle the lie. and that, i think, really does as you say, sum up the rot that has now taken over the republican party from top to bottom. they're no longer just lying to the courts and lying to their voters. they are using the power of the state to keep the lie going. >> yeah, and i think when you look at it alongside the revelations about fox news,

knowing and willful lying to its audience then you've got as you said, the state republican office holders, not just trump campaign people, but republican elected investigating then learning through their own investigations the truth, you understand how intractable the lie is in terms of its grip on the voter. they're hearing it from their media who is knowingly lying to them and talking about how the lying liars are but putting them on anyway and you're finding out from the republican elected officials that they know it's a lie, too. how do you break that cycle? >> yeah. you're right to draw that connection because what they both have in common, both elected officials and the media is that their mission is actually true, is to devine and tell the truth, right? the role of the attorney general's office in particular is to investigate and then either bring cases or clear people.

and so truth detection and telling the truth is critical to that job. same with the media, right? the central job of a reporter is to uncover the facts and tell them to the public regardless of whether they're popular or not. it's very difficult to unwind this. it's very, very difficult to unwind this because at some point, the republican electorate has been to lied to for so long that it's really not just going to be that some new politician comes along and says, oh, never mind. i kind of made this point when a few weeks ago republicans were saying well, maybe we need to stop vilifying vote by mail and drop boxes and like my reaction is like that's all well and good, but the voters have been lied to for so long, they're not going to just pivot and say, oh, never mind. i don't know how we get out of this box. >> it was, i'm old enough to remember when republicans spent

years and years and millions of dollars training their voters to vote any way not just election, also by mail. to your point, they've now spent years with much louder megaphones and much more direct engagement with their voters training them to do the opposite. if you look at all the state actors, i would put mccarthy in that box. seemingly more synced up than ever with the media propaganda. put carlson in that box. what your level of concern is heading into 2024. >> very, very high because you know, if the famous soviet dissent talked about the danger when the lie becomes a pillar of the state. it's one thing when you have campaigns not telling the truth. it's unfortunate when they don't tell the truth. it was particularly unfortunate when the president of the united states lied repeatedly after the election, but when you start to

look at what mccarthy is doing now in the house with turning over what are security records and evidence of crime to tucker carlson and when you see what now happened in arizona, you really start to evoke that image of the big lie being a pillar of the state. and that becomes a very, very big problem for people fighting authoritarian ism. what he was talking about there was how you can't defeat it when you have lies take on the -- of the state. and i'm very, very worried about it. i think that 2024 is going to be a scarier election in terms of election subversion. the threats of violence. the voter suppression laws. i'm sure we'll have the time to talk about it, but while this is going on, ohio's passed a voter suppression law. kansas, arkansas, south dakota.

indiana. all of these states are doing it. wyoming, states that are republican states that are doing it because they can't get off the treadmill of the big lie. of having to restrict voting rights. and that's going to pay really problematic dividends when we get closer to 2024, i fear. >> and voter suppression laws that were so objectionable the first time we saw them that major league baseball took the all-star game elsewhere. they're now passing georgia still voter suppression bills in other places. this broader conversation about how we cannot be a healthy democracy. i think some would argue we are not thriving and healthy right now. when the lie becomes the state and the state peddles the lie. and the other, the thing that

always gives me hope is you're the rock star. we wanted to get to this other news because everyone is so eager. at least our viewers, to understand where these fronts are in the fight against democracy. it is specific for people, for a majority of voters. it's visible results of midterm. always glimmers in these tough things we talk about. >> we still have a bunch more states to cover. what they can do to improve voting. >> i think we're at four. nine to go. thank you very much. ahead for us, ukrainians are bracing for more brutal russian strikes now that the first anniversary of the war is upon us including closing schools that could be targeted by russian missiles. we'll check in with ali velshi live from kyiv after a quick break. live from kyiv after a quick break.

people remember ads with a catchy song. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's a little number you'll never forget. ♪ customize and save. ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ - think about a child you love. now take away their clean clothes and access to water. take away the roof over their heads, most meals and all snacks. look at what's left. millions of children are struggling to survive due to inequality, the climate crisis, conflict, and poverty. children deserve better.

and luckily save the children has a way you can help. team tomorrow is a movement that addresses urgent issues all over the world and right here at home. you can help create positive, irreversible change for children today. to join our team, call now or go to jointeamtomorrow.org and make a $10 monthly donation. your contribution will help improve the lives of children and families around the world. and you'll receive updates on how your support is tackling the issues you care about most. where i grew up, i see children suffering from poverty. and i've seen that when we work together, we can make a difference. for only $10 a month, you can help bring nutritious meals to kids living in rural areas, protect children from dangerous living conditions, provide access to clean water, and much more. and thanks to generous government grants.

every dollar you give can multiply up to 10 times the impact. and for a limited time, when you make a $10 monthly donation, you'll also receive a free tote bag to share your support for children in need. if you believe children deserve a better tomorrow, start here. call or go online and start changing lives today. ♪ i like to move it, move it ♪ ♪ you like to... move it ♪ we're reinventing our network. ♪ ♪ ♪ fast. reliable. perfectly orchestrated. the united states postal service.

oh booking.com, ♪ i'm going to somewhere, anywhere. ♪ ♪ a beach house, a treehouse, ♪ ♪ honestly i don't care ♪ find the perfect vacation rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah. it's after midnight in ukraine, which means russia's brutal invasion has reached its first year, and tonight ukrainians are preparing for a barrage of missile strikes. schools have been operating remotely in anticipation of attacks. meanwhile, moscow's forces continue to attack the front lines, pounding civilian areas. missile strikes killed three people and left several more buried under the rubble of a building. after a year of setbacks and defeats, russian president vladimir putin is ratcheting up his talk of his nuclear arsenal. putin announced plans today to deploy a new multiwarhead

intercontinental missile this year after earlier this week suspending russia's participation in the nuclear arms control treaty. ali velshi joins us from kyiv. i know@ukrainians it's a lot of saber rattling designed to intimidate the west. tell me if this is any different. >> yeah, i think that's the conclusion a lot of people have come to from ukrainians here in the streets to nuclear experts, that it does have its desired effects in some corners, when predictably vladimir putin talks about nuclear weaponry, there are people across the political spectrum who will say, let's not risk nuclear war. i've got too much of a memory of bunkers and drills, and things like that. vladimir putin is hoping that has a sustaining effect, that people will say, let's back off or let's not do more. i don't think ultimately that's what's happening, and i think this week joe biden's trip here and then to poland, and the fact

that it's all 30 nato countries and 10 more countries behind this, i don't think ultimately even when the nuclear experts say, don't fret too much about this, it is saber rattling. that said, it's nuclear warfare, so nobody wants to dismiss it. and remember that in the budapest pact, this country, ukraine and the ussr, what came russia, had an agreement that ukraine will give up its nuclear arsenal, because this is where a lot of the arsenal was, in exchange for the fact that nobody would -- its borders. that was not upheld, so ukraine sensitive about this kwlsh after nuclear warfare and nuclear plants they have. but in the end a lot of people think it's saber rattling. >> tell me what people are prepared for. it's nighttime. it is the one-year anniversary in that country. but as night turns to morning, what are they prepared for tomorrow?

>> yeah, this is the night that one year ago this started. in fact, it was a lilt after 9:00 p.m. eastern time. it was morning as it is now, friday morning in ukraine when this happened, and it was -- there were air raid sirens and explosions in kyiv. in fact, there's a lot of expectation that something is going to happen here. the streets are quieter than they have been, but we are in curfew, and there's anticipation about tomorrow. the schools as you said, have been closed. students are meant to be at home. there's a lot of activity in the south and east. in the south there have been more attacks. so there is definitely concern that something may happen. that said, nicole, joe biden has taken most of the air time this week. that's not vladimir putin's plan. he's had two speeches -- three speeches now, and they're not getting the traction he needs. so it's not clear what they'll do. it's been one year. they've not made land gains since october in ukraine.

the city of bakhmut is still being fought over. so it's not clear what vladimir putin is going to do or whether he can do anything to make his case by tomorrow. >> and to grab those headlines like donald trump, they're sometimes as important to him as anything else that happens. ali, i've said every time we've seen you, we're so grateful you're there. we'll bother you one more time tomorrow. >> as always, my friend, thank you. >> quick break for us, we'll be right back. >> quick break for us, we'll be right back ♪ this feels so right... ♪ adt systems now feature google products like the nest cam

with floodlight, with intelligent alerts when a person or familiar face is detected. sam. sophie's not here tonight. so you have a home with no worries. brought to you by adt. a ballet studio, an architecture firm... and homemade barbeque sauce. they're called 'small businesses.' but to the people who build them there's nothing 'small' about them. that's why at t-mobile for business... you'll save more than $1,000 versus verizon. and with price lock guarantee, we'll never raise your rate plan. so you can keep your focus on toe-turns and making sure the sauce is extra spicy. at t-mobile, there are no small businesses. ♪♪ born in 1847, formally enslaved,

started buying land, was in the house of representatives. finding out this family history, these things become anchors for your soul. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? >> vo: driving around is how we get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we trusted the experts. they focus on our safety... so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ for businesses of all sizes, there are a lot of choices when it comes to your internet and technology needs. when you choose comcast business internet, you choose the largest, fastest reliable network. you choose advanced security for total peace of mind. and you choose a next generation 10g network that's always improving, getting faster; more reliable; and more intelligent to keep you ready for today and tomorrow. the choice is clear: make your business future ready with the network from the most innovative company. comcast business.

>> "the beat" with ari melber