hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. it's all mixed up and backwards today, but what do you expect when the foxes are guarding the hen house. with every twist and turn, the january 6th security footage get morse ridiculous, more outrageous, more alarming that is true as ever this afternoon as we come on the air. as you already know, house speaker kevin mccarthy is the

newly appointed proprieor of that material as the new speaker of the house. that's despite the fact that he pointedly refused a lawful congressional subpoena from the 1/6 select committee last year. now in defending his decision to share 41,000 hours of previously unreleased footage exclusively with far-right insurrection-friendly personality tucker carlson, mccarthy is showing americans he either does not understand or does not care about the potential risk that decision presents. speaking with "the washington post," mccarthy suggests this, that the public fury over the selective release isn't really about egregious security concerns. in fact, it's about jealous, he insisted on the part of the media at the heart of the outrage. hang on. it gets better. today politico is first to report that house republicans, many of whom have framed the 1/6 insurrection as the defendants

in those criminal cases as victims of a political attack are now moving to provide those defendants access to thousands of hours of internal capital security footage. leading that effort, none other than republican congressman barry loudermilk. he chairs the oversight panel. if you're asking yourself where have i heard that name before? ha, there is a good reason. loudermilk was part of the 1/6 committee's exhibit. he was the guy caught on camera, on camera the day before the insurrection leading a capitol complex tour for a group that photographed and recorded places, quote, not typically of interest to tourists. including hallways, scare cases, and security checkpoints. special counsel jack smith is of course as we speak pursuing answers on the part of the justice department. reportedly in the advanced stages of his inquiry. but no matter what his

investigation turns up, republicans in the house are not turning up the opportunity to show the american people who they are at this hour. that is entirely political. seemingly hell-bent on revising the history of january 6th. and for some reason, turning the tables on those who investigated the attack and sought the truth. it's where we begin today with adam schiff of california, a former member of the january 6th select committee and a candidate for u.s. senate. congressman, thank you for being here. >> it's great to be with you. >> so you were one of a small number of people who has seen all this footage. do you understand from where you sit with that perspective why mccarthy released all of it to tucker carlson and why republicans are interested in releasing it to the insurrectionists who stand accused of crimes? >> well, you know, i understand it at one level. at another it's completely

inexplicable. but thing is kevin mccarthy making promises to the most extreme elements of his conference in order to get the title speaker. literally giving away the house. in this case giving away the security of the house to get those votes. and of all the people to give it to, someone who is essentially a right-wing entertainer on fox who has pushed out a false flag conspiracy theories about january 6th, this is who you're going to trust with this footage? but it just goes from bad to worse. the idea now that the footage is going to be made available to the insurrectionists, those that were charged with beating police officers, with breaking glass in the capitol to get in, who were threatening lawmakers at the time, you know, what people need to understand is to the degree that footage is relevant to any of their defenses, the justice department is already obligated to give them a narrow set of video.

but what mccarthy is apparently going to do is give them everything, or access to everything, which means that video that has nothing to do with their defense will be provided to them. so what, they can be more successful in the next attack on the capitol? it's really hard to fathom. >> what's hard to fathom as well is that mccarthy is the guy who in conversations recorded and released at least publicly by two "new york times" reporters saw 1/6 the way you did, the way i did, as an attack on the capitol, thought that the 25th amendment would take too long, thought that impeachment wasn't a rapid enough remedy for removing trump, saw trump as a threat and a danger. and now because he saw the insurrection, the way chris wray did, as a domestic terrorism attack. now there are real ties between mccarthy's caucus and members, the powerful ones, as you said, the ones he had to curry favor with to become speaker, and the criminals, the defendants, the insurrectionists. i wonder what you think that

cements in terms of the house republicans, what, as a governing body, doing the bidding of accused criminals? >> well, i think that's what it comes down to. and you're absolutely right. in private conversations, mccarthy was talking about how the president should resign and his culpability over january 6th. but you'll remember when they were tape recordings that were found by i think it was "the new york times," mccarthy was asked about it initially. he denied these private conversations. and then the recordings were played for the public and there was no denying them anymore. the real scandal in my view is not that he was doing the right thing at the time, but the fact that he needs to lie about doing the right thing in order to attain the support of his base and the support of his members of the conference. but as a result of that, as a result of turning himself into all kinds of pretzels in order to retain the support of his

conference members, it puts him in league with these insurrectionists even further, providing them material and others potentially who can attack the capitol perhaps with more success next time. this is what happens when the speakership is dependent on the absolute lowest common denominator. it puts not just members of congress, but members of the public and the capitol at risk. it puts the capitol police officers at risk. but, yes, you know, the most radical elements of kevin mccarthy's conference believe that the january 6th defendants who attacked police that day are somehow political prisoners or heroes, and now mccarthy has aligned himself with that fringe view. >> and there are more news reports today tying mccarthy and his caucus to the insurrectionists. let me go through some of those with you while we have you, congressman. this is reported by cbs news, that a senior mccarthy aide as well as house oversight chairman each with the mother of january

6th rioter ashley babbitt. at a meeting ashley babbitt's mother said we talked to house committee chairman james comer, mccarthy staffer and had a lovely chat in the hallway with clay higgins. quote, he prayed with us. he was just so genuine. we look forward to working with him in the future. at the protest event, he also said "when we speak to these people, they do know there has been an injustice. we're counting on them to step up and do something about it." the only people who think that the insurrectionists i think tucker carlson and vladimir putin. why is this being sort of mainstreamed by someone in a position of power like mccarthy? it seems that there has to be some check when you're using

your power to align with these forces. >> well, look, i mean, ashley babbitt's mother went through a horrible tragedy losing her child. i think we can all be sympathetic to that loss. there was an injustice, and the injustice was the president of the united states incited people to attack the capitol, and tragically, she lost her daughter during that attack on the capitol. that's the injustice that kevin mccarthy recognized at the time. but now he wishes to deny. and so he is aligning himself with people that believe that those who attack police are somehow the victims. this is a very trumpian thing. it shows his continuing dominant influence on the gop. and that is when you commit an offense, when you abuse your office, when you incite an attack, you never go on the defense. you just attack the other side. you try to flip the script. the insurrectionists here in trump's view are the heroes.

and sadly, mccarthy is aligning himself with that revisionist history. you're absolutely right. at the outset of this segment, it is all about revising history. it's all about turning history upside down. up is down and left is right. and it's this kind of alice and wonderland world in which people who tried to interfere with a peaceful transfer of our power for the first time in history are somehow the heroic figures here instead of doing the bidding of a dishonest and dangerous former president. >> mr. loudermilk is also -- i should say enthusiastic about the footage being shared with the 1/6 defendants. we went back and looked at what the january 6th select committee shared in an exhibit in the public hearing where the tour that he gave on january 5th was presented to the public, without much of a conclusion, but just

the bizarre nature of that tour. i've been on a lot of tours of washington sites and other sites. you don't often photograph hallways and doors, but that's what he did. and here is the man who received that tour from him at his office. >> there's no escape, pelosi. schumer, nadler. we're coming for you. we're coming in like white on rice. for pelosi, nadler, schumer, even you, aoc. we're coming to take you out. pull you out by your hairs. how about that, pelosi? go -- might as well make yourself another appointment. i get done with you, you're going to need a sign up on top

of that bald head. >> absent the illusion to a bald head, a lot of echos to the language used in public statements, including press introduce by the man who attacked paul pelosi. what is the today risk and the future risk of these people not just being lifted up and revised and armed with security footage that threatens the safety of democrats and republicans working in the capitol today, but what is the future risk of rewriting history of what these men and women did that day? >> well, i think it's really twofold. you mentioned there is a very acute risk to the present. that is by giving people a better road map of how to break into the capitol or how to find legislators, or that footage might reveal what is the escape route during an emergency. but more broadly, the kind of deification of the attackers, the legitimacy given to

political violence. we're already seeing an increase in the degree to which the public is now accepting of political violence. this is just going to accelerate that. that has better been the case. it must never be the case that we accept the use of force when we lose an election. that we simply claim any election we lose is fraudulent, rigged and we have the right to use violence to overturn the result. so i think turning these people into heroes is going to encourage other people to bear arms against their own government. and who knows where that leads us, but it certainly leads us away from democracy to something else, something dark and something that is not in tradition with the ideals of this great experiment in self-governance. >> much of that is something you worry about in your own book and in your own work. congressman adam schiff.

the news isn't good. much more bleak than this. but we're grateful to have your insights on it. thanks very much for starting us off today. >> thank you. turning our coverage, former maryland congressman donna ebbers, frank figliuzzi from our fbi assistant director for counterintelligence. neal katyal joins us, professor at georgetown university. all three are msnbc contributors. i want to pick up on what the congressman just said about the threat of violence. one of the first people to thrust the threat of violence from the big lie about fraud into the public conversation on the right because gabriel sterling, republican election official, deputy of brad raffensperger in georgia. marjorie taylor greene attacked him at a meeting of the integrity caucus. let me show it to you first. we'll talk about what she did with it after. >> gabe, i do not consider you an expert on this issue. as a matter of fact, i consider you a major problem. and i want to tell you something else. for you to say there were no dead voters in georgia, there

was thousands of dead voters in georgia. >> that's simply not true. >> and then the other thing is you have constantly schilled for this election. and i'm going to tell you, there was blatant outright fraud in the 2020 election. complete and total fraud. and you know it. you absolutely do know it. i'm going to follow up with one more thing. trump won georgia. i know you don't like for me to say that, but i am convinced he did. i'm born and raised in georgia. i've lived all over the state. in the 2020 election, and to come in here for the election integrity caucus and for you to be on the panel, it's actually insulting to election integrity. >> so many lies in so little time, but we do have a lot of time. we've got two whole hours. so neal, there were not thousands of dead people. donald trump did not lose. but i want viewers to know is the person who put that out into the information if we want to call it that, disinformation ecosystem was marjorie taylor

greene. marjorie taylor greene wants to be seen by the radicalized base that we now know fox is a business modelized to wanted that base to see her roughing up gabriel sterling, a republican election official in georgia. we don't like to amplify these things, but i also think the only thing worse than the potential for amplification is to look away when this is happening. what are your concerns? >> yeah, 100%. i think americans need to see it, and it really does highlight what happened to the party of abraham lincoln, the party of ronald reagan. the idea that this person is leading anything is even being put on tv alone, so forget about holding a position of power and so close to the speaker is to me unfathomable. everything she says is a lie. indeed, you don't have to take my word for it. you can take the words of tucker carlson or, you know, ingraham or all the people whose texts

now say yeah, all of this was bogus and not true. so, you know, i very much worry about the health of our democracy when someone like this from a major political party has this kind of person as their figure. there is no equivalent on the democratic side. aoc or someone is not nearly saying the kind of coup-like corrosive totally blatantly wrong stuff that marjorie taylor greene is. >> so, frank, she says donald trump did not lose. of course donald trump lost. she says complete and total fraud, and you know it. again, gabriel sterling isn't just one of the people who stood by the thrice recounted result of the georgia 2020 presidential election, but he is one of the first republicans before stand before cameras and warn of violence, which of course would come to pass on january 6th. and since then, in the home of speaker pelosi, and in the homes

of four election officials in new mexico. on this topic of the fodder that sits right at that fulcrum of political violence and the big lie about donald trump's election defeat, what led to it, same question i asked congressman schiff. what is your today concern? what is that today picture? >> well, first, let's hit the last point here. there is no longer any denying the connection between the big lie and violence. we could probably spend the next hour talking about examples of the big lie, inciting people to violence, incing the gentleman who attacked the cincinnati field office. on and on, nancy pelosi's husband. and this is a significant point we're at. the speaker of the house of representatives as part of the

continuation and perpetuation of that big lie now wants us to believe that only he in the legislative branch of government can assume the role of executive branch and provide his own special discovery process, which is the province of doj and federal prosecutors in the executive branch to the defendants and insurrectionists in the january 6th investigations. he is, as adam schiff referred to, in league now, not only with the big lie, but with the insurrectionists who believe the big lie. he is saying i am you. you are me. and whether he is courting the vote of domestic extreists or somehow thinks this is the republican party moving forward, it leads to violence, and he is actually literally assisting, aiding and abetting those accused of violence on january 6th. we're seeing really the pinnacle so far in the legislative branch

at least a speaker of the house now doing this. and what's the impact of it. so he is essentially with a wink and a nod, more than a wink and a nod saying what you did is fine with me. i'm going to aid and abet you. and even obstruct and delay the pending investigations into what you did. and by the way, i am getting the word on the street it's already delaying the investigations. already defense attorneys are saying i need to go see that. give me the 41,000 hours of footage. and judges of course are going to have to be reasonable. okay. i'll delay the trial proceedings. it's already bogged down, right. prosecutors are bringing brought in special ausas from puerto rico and oregon, and defense attorneys are being hired all over the country to try and get this through the process. but, no, we're going to be delayed now because the speaker of the house has decided that he's now the executive branch of government and gets to provide what's called brady material,

exculpatory material, right. that is the decision of the prosecutors. if there is a dispute about what's being provided to defense counsel, it's the judge in the trial who goes i'll figure out what the defendant gets, not the speaker of the house. that's where we are in league with insurrectionists. >> so, neal, one of the reasons where here with members of the house republican caucus who are so tied into not just the events of that day, but the planning for january 6th, people like scott perry, people who were so acutely aware of the potential for violence that they themselves wore kevlar vests is because there was no effort, at least outward facing by doj to ask them what they knew or hold them accountable. what in your mind explains this at this point? you know, i've had a lot of conversations about why we have a criminal justice system. at least one of the reasons is to avoid the crimes from happening again. it seems that on that count they

have failed. these republicans are now power brokers. they were fringy lunatics who had a direct line to the white house, but not necessarily power brokers. they have ascended the power ladder, and they are now more powerful. and from watching the garland-monaco justice department, that says to me they may be more cautious about investigating those members. just talk about this delay of two years in seeming to have any interest in holding accountable any members who may know about the planning or being responsible for the planning of 1/6. >> yeah, nicolle, it's unfathomable to me actually. if you talk to prosecutors, one of the things they say about criminals is if you don't indict, if you don't do something right away, it encouraging and incentivizes them to do something worse the next time, that you've got to teach them their lesson. and here you've got members of congress, not everyone, and not every republican, of course, but some members who were deeply

involved in january 6th. and that requires investigation, thorough investigation. and yes, they'll throw up all sorts of stuff like speech or debate immunity. the same thing that vice president pence is trying to argue now. but it's pretty easy for prosecutors to get past all that. so i'm really worried about it. i'm worried about the fact that we've gone now more than two years without any sort of serious investigation with these members of congress, and now we're seeing the consequences. they feel emboldened. i can't say i think it's the greatest idea in the world to give the very people who are willing to attack the capitol access to the video footage that shows where they went wrong the first time, but that's what's going on right now. and, you know, so, yes, i think there very much should have been a serious investigation and all outward signs are there was not one at least when it comes to members of congress. >> donna, and there are not really strong signs that there is a particularly robust one.

they don't feel emboldened, they are emboldened. it's not a feeling. kevin mccarthy said there is nothing i wouldn't do for her about marjorie taylor greene. scott perry has powerful positions. he has not been left out of committee assignments. all of them. so i wonder what you think the today status is of the house republican conference in its alignment, now public and brazen and enthusiastic with the 1/6 insurrectionists. >> well, kevin mccarthy decided that in his pathway toward the speakership, that he was willing to sacrifice everything, including our constitutional republic. he made his bed with the insurrection caucus, and he continues to fluff the pillows. and i think that going forward, what it says to us is that the republican party is on the outskirts of what where the majority of the american people are. let's remind ourselves that the

majority of americans concluded that january 6th was indeed an -- there were inrecreationists, and that they were trying to undermine and overthrow our constitutional governance and the peaceful transition of power. that is a conclusion that the majority has taken. kevin mccarthy and house republicans on the hand have decided that they are making their piece with the insurrectionists. there is no separating them anymore. people who say this moderate republican or that moderate republican are all wrong when it comes to the congress. there is a batch of them and they are the majority in the congress who have chosen the insurrection side. and the outcome of that is that because there has been no accountability for those members of congress, and i don't -- i still hold out hope that

eventually the special counsel -- i'm not sure. but what it means is it exposes all of us to the possibility that this will happen again. and so i think we are in a very dangerous moment. >> donna edwards, thank you for your candor. thank you for starting us off. frank and neal, stick around. when we come back, there is brand-new blockbuster reporting on tensions between the fbi and prosecutors at the justice department in that probe into donald trump's handling of documents. reporting on how agents resisted searching mar-a-lago. plus, fbi director christopher wray giving a rare television interview to the media outlet that this week issed to under scrutiny from lying to the top of the bottom to millions of viewers. we'll talk about that later in the program. as dominion's billion defamation lawsuit against fox news heads to trial, we'll talk about the

strength of dominion's case in terms of what we've seen so far, and what it could mean for some of the biggest purveyors of the big lie. all this and more when "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere.

my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... the burning, itching. the pain. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 16 weeks. the majority of people saw 90% clearer skin even at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge tremfyant®. with tremfya®. ask your doctor about tremfya® today.

mara, are you sure you don't want -to go bowling with us tonight? -yeah. no. there's my little marzipan! [ laughs ] oh, my daughter gives the best hugs! we're just passing through on our way to the jazz jamboree. [ imitates trumpet playing ] and we wanted to thank america's number-one motorcycle insurer -for saving us money. -thank you.

[ laughs ] mara, your parents are -- exactly like me? i know, right? well, cherish your friends and loved ones. let's roll, daddio! let's boogie-woogie! there is some incredible new reporting that came out today that takes us inside a previously unknown months long clash over the decision to search the ex-president's home for classified material. "the washington post" is reporting that it was a showdown between doj prosecutors who were ready to search mar-a-lago because they did not trust what they were hearing from trump's attorneys versus fbi agents,

some of whom wanted to end the investigation altogether. given trump's history of targeting investigators and investigations into him and his allies. from that new reporting, the prosecutors, quote, heard from top fbi officials that some agents were simply afraid. they worried that taking aggressive steps, investigating trump could blemish or even end their careers. that's according to some people with knowledge of the discussions. one official dubbed it, quote, the hangover of crossfire hurricane, a reference to the fbi investigation of russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections to the trump campaign. joining us now, "washington post" national investigative reporter carol leonnig, whose byline is on that reporting we just read from. frank is still here. >> we feel like we had a great opportunity to bring readers and your viewers into the room where the fbi agents who were responsible for investigating

crimes and the prosecutors who are still responsible for deciding whether to charge the former president with a crime were really duking it out, ever since basically april and may of last year. what we found was in the most dramatic sort of face-off, a knock-down, drag-out argument, the fbi agents basically said we are not interested in raiding or doing a surprise unannounced search of the former president's home in florida. the prosecutors were convinced that there was evidence of obstruction, that there was evidence donald trump and his aides were concealing classified records there and flouting a federal subpoena, both of which are chargeable offenses, and they said it is time to get into mar-a-lago and start searching for these closely guarded, you know, gems, these national secrets that we try to protect from other people's eyes.

the other things that happened in this story and what we learned about, nicolle, is that face-off just days before the august 8th raid was not the only time the agents and the prosecutors were sort of an impasse. in the early spring, prosecutors felt pretty strongly that there was evidence from witness testimony that classified records remained at mar-a-lago, and they wanted to conduct a search. they wanted agents to conduct a search. the agents in that instance said no, let's good slow. we don't think we're ready future that. in june, after issuing a subpoena to donald trump and the office of donald trump, fbi agents and prosecutors, a key prosecutor named jay brat visit mar-a-lago. and at that point, trump's lawyer hands over an envelope of classified records and says we've done a diligent search.

we have a signeds a settertation to tell you everything classified at mar-a-lago has been turned over. these are the records that comply with your subpoena that is when fbi, some of them on this case started talking about closing the criminal investigation. they sort of shrugged and said look, they turn over the records. they said they complied with the subpoena. what else do you want? of course prosecutors did not trust trump or his lawyers, and they asked for surveillance video and additional witness interviews. agents did what prosecutors wanted, got that video, got those interviews and found lo and behold evidence that there was some effort to move some of these records around after the subpoena came in. essentially, what this boils down to, nicolle, is inside the room, agents and prosecutors battling over whether or not to treat donald trump like a normal person who appeared to be

flouting the law, who appeared based on the evidence and the video surveillance to be concealing information and classified records from the federal government. >> carol, this is really important. i don't want to glass over this inflection point. so the point where the fbi and the prosecutors really diverged, to the point where one side wants to end it and the other side knows there is more there, believes there is more there is the point of the attest station, right, where they hand things over and attest to. we're now 600 news cycles after that, where those attorneys are been before a grand jury in the mishandling. what a stain on the fbi's image as being fearless pursuers of truth. you tell us how high up after the decision to stop that the attest station are we all know are absolute bs? how far up does that go? >> i think, nicolle, it's safest

for me to say that the effort or rather the discussion and formal proposal to close down the case in june was at the washington field office among line agents, people who are responsible for this work. and the fbi headquarters as alleged by a senior official who we interviewed about this said fbi headquarters did not know that this discussion was going on, and they insist that they would not have approved it. of course, it's easy to say that now. i'm not trying to be skeptical. it's just a -- it's just an occupational hazard. but we've had many people say this would not have been approved by the senior leadership of the fbi. of course, we don't know what would have happened. what we do know is from talking to a lot of legal experts, if that case had been closed in june, it's highly unlikely that the government would have

conducted a search, found the additional evidence of obstruction, and ultimately recovered, might never have recovered, forgive me, more than 100 classified records, including some that revealed incredibly sensitive intelligence about iran and china. >> do we know if those field agents in the washington office who wanted to end the trump investigation into documents at mar-a-lago are still on the job and on the case? >> i can't answer that at this moment. i'm sorry. >> okay. all right. no one is going anywhere. i have a million more questions. we're going bring neal and fig into this conversation about carol and "the washington post," blockbuster new reporting. don't go anywhere. we'll be right back. n't go anyw. we'll be right back. some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse.

too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com ♪ 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. ♪ ♪ to all the chevy silverado owners out there. the adventurers and the doers. to everyone that works hard and plays hard.

whether it's your first silverado or your tenth. thank you for making chevy silverado the #1 best-selling retail full-size pickup. plates. plates. plates. there's somehow no better way to travel this place, than on a plate. and when you add price drop protection, expedia pays you back if your flight becomes cheaper. so you can taste your way, through every single plate and never wonder if you found a good deal. because the good deal found you. ♪♪

♪♪ alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders. that's what u.s. bank is for. and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura? that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno? fres-yes. encinitas? yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole? i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power. our ancestors had power, our ancestors had hope and our ancestors had ambition. born in 1847, formally enslaved, started buying land, was in the house of representatives.

we didn't know our family was part of black reconstruction. exactly. okay, seriously. finding out this family history, these things become anchors for your soul. carol leonnig, frank figliuzzi and neal katyal are with us. frank, what questions do you have about this reporting and this inflection point, this june moment, where some fbi agents wanted to call the whole thing off? >> well, there is so much to unpack here. let me try to hit the highlights, or more appropriately the lowlights of carol's really interesting reporting and helpful reporting in terms of getting some insights into the back room, so to speak. so first, just for context sake, and then i'm going to get really disturbed here. first, in complex sensitive

cases, it's often the case throughout my career that there is robust, even tense dialogue between agents and prosecutors. it happens all the time. should it happen. it's often signs of a healthy, natural relationship and things get worked out. and it's all good discussion. so for example, in this case, you know, there is healthy parts of this where carol's reporting is, you know, they talked about incremental approaches. they talked about going easy and saying pretty please, and yes we need the subpoena. so all of that you can understand. we're talking about a former president of the united states. it's clearly going to be on the front page of the paper, et cetera, and then comes the unhealthy part. the unhealthy part that carol seems to be reporting is look, even when faced with clear evidence that there is more classified data than has been disclosed, the subpoena didn't work, the pretty please didn't work, the national archives request didn't work, it seems, what i'm hearing, that the fbi

said you know, we think maybe we should just close this because it's going to be a mess, right? and where is that coming from? i have to tell you, i believe part of this is we're seeing the fruits of the bashing and erosion of our institutions by the trump administration. and it continues even as there is a subcommittee so-called weaponization of government subcommittee. why do i say that? if you're in the fbi and you're a line agent or even an executive, in the front of your head is jim comb my got fired. andy mccabe got fired. pete strzok got walked out of the building, right? and his wife attacked, andy mccabe's wife attacked merely for running office. et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. so now we've reached the unhealthy position where i think fbi agents are now thinking twice about doing the right thing, about doing the right thing. and isn't that where the far right wants us to go?

isn't that where trump wants us to be, right? the infamous manager of the new york yankees billy martin, when asked why he was so adamantly screaming at an umpire who already made a call. he i'm not arguing this call. i'm arguing for next call. trump has been arguing for the next call every day of his tenure. this was one of those next calls. he wants fbi agents to stop from doing the right thing. >> this is so important. and if there has been one thing we've tried to sift through all of the dirt and scum and mess of the last six years and understand and ascertain, it is mark pomerantz writing about the existence of two standards of prosecuting a normal person and donald trump. it is judge barrel howell talking about writing in a previously sealed decision the creation of super citizens. it is about what has already happened. trump has already created a separate standard of justice for himself. and neal, the damage that's been

done to our -- to the rule of law in america has already been done. we are not talking about future damage. we are not talking about donald trump's next term, which if we're telling the truth to our viewers, is still a very likely scenario. he sits atop the republican field. we live in a highly polarized country. fox news has been revealed as lying to its viewers. as a model it has no plans to deviate from. this is where we are today. that's why everything i've asked about today is the today risk, the today threat. carol's story reveals the today status of the fbi that in june, after being handed a set of documents by some bozo lawyer, and the fbi knows the bozos from the good ones that is now a witness in front of a grand jury for the criminal investigation into donald trump. that's good. i don't want to get hit by sean hannity tonight. trump's strategy has already worked. and we're just learning from investigative journalism and the inexplicable, even by the likes

of a brilliant mind like you, the inexplicable gap of two plus years in trying to hold trump or any republican elected official accountable for their conduct, that this is where we already are. >> that's exactly right, nicolle. so if the fbi had video of any other suspect moving boxing out of a room with classified documents, shortly after those very documents had been requested, they trip over themselves running to kick down the guy's door and search his house. but with donald trump, suddenly they got cold feet. and i think frank's absolutely right that there is often tension between prosecutors and fbi agents and a robust debate. we want that debate at the justice department. that's part of what makes the institution work. but this is quite remarkable because, you know, in my experience, typically it's kind of the reverse. kind of you have aggressive agents like frank who want to

search and you have prosecutors who are saying hey, wait a minute, before you do that, there is some legal complexities and the like. this is flipped. under carol's remarkable reporting, and you know, there are a couple of explanations that could come out. one is the nefarious one, which is the fbi has a bunch of maga trumpists who are loyal to him and they're trying to slow the investigation down, or perhaps stop it all together as carol reports about the june seizure of the documents. the second is something of a little difference between prosecutors and agents. prosecutors really do focus on if the target is lying to them. agents do too, of course. this is just a gross generalization. but it is the case that one way of predicting whether it's the justice department is going to indict is whether they feel that the target has lied to federal investigators in the process. and here obviously it looks like that happened.

and i've worked with at least one of the specific prosecutors mentioned in carol's story. and i could imagine knowing that person that that would have been a big factor in authorizing and going forward with the search. and then is there a third explanation, the one that frank just offered which is it's about trump's megaphone. it's about trump's willingness to lie. the fbi is supposed to -- its motto is to do its job without fear or favor. but here they're doing it with fear because trump's m.o. has been to scare them and make it so they can't do their job. and, you know, my guess is it's probably a combination of all of these different things that are going on. but to return to your question, it is so sad because the essence of this country is this idea of the rule of law, the principle that no person is above the law. that's the founding charter. and what trump has done is spit

on that. and that's why i think ultimately these prosecutions, if they happen, and they should happen in my view are, so important, because there is only one rule book. there is not a rule book for donald trump and a rule book for you and me. >> we need to sneak in a break. i need you all to stay a little longer. but to your point, neal, there is no group that was on the receiving end of more attacks than the group of -- if you add up all the tweets attacking jim comb my, pete strzok, lisa paige, rod rosenstein, robert mueller, now if we bring it up to six years later, the fulton county investigation, there is no group that has been the subject of more barbs with the intention of doing what frank described than law enforcement, who trump must agree represents a grave threat to him. need you all to stick around through one more break. up next, i want to show you what fbi director christopher wray had to say last night over on fox news about investigating donald trump.

power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier.

with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools, and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities. while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. y'all wayfair's got just what you need for your home. do they have stylish beds at great prices?s tool helps you plan your trades whoo, this bed is dreamy. you're kelly clarkson? yes. and you're in our bed? yes. what about five star dining sets? sorry i didn't have a reservation. you're kelly clarkson. i love your work. thank you.

find just what you need at wayfair! even a personal sauna. oh! can we do the wayfair song? yes you can. wayfair! ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ wow. it'd be better if you did it. 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. (bridget) with thyroid eye disease i hid from the camera. booking. and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d. was beyond help... but then i asked my doctor about tepezza. (vo) tepezza is the only medicine that treats t.e.d. at the source not just the symptoms. in a clinical study more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion. patients taking tepezza may have infusion reactions. tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure,

fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before getting tepezza, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar even if you don't have diabetes and may worsen ibd such as crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. now, i'm ready to be seen again. visit mytepezza.com to find a ted eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos. let's talk about the dual system. documents investigation for former president trump and the raid that happens in ma-a-lago. you find out about those documents before the november election. the fbi then does the search of the house after that but does

not say anything prior to the midterm election. those two things are sticking in people's minds as different, handled differently. how do you explain that? >> we have a long history of handling investigations into the mishandling of classified information. our standard for approaching those investigations is the same. no matter who it is. or basic approach is the same. >> i play that because i do tli -- think it's important to see how the less notorious hosts are pushing this idea that the two standards mean donald trump's obstruction, after 15 attempts to retrieve documents, should have been treated the same as joe biden's voluntary retrieval and return of classified documents. i wonder which you think carries more water. >> on the one hand, i understand

people's criticism that the director of the fbi went on a network that has been proven to be pathological liars. i get why he is there. that's the audience truth needs to reach. i have to say that his response to the question about the two standards wasn't robust enough for me. there couldn't be any more difference between president biden's documents case and former president trump's documents case. this was an opportunity for chris wray to go point by point. this didn't work. that didn't work. we tried this. we tried a subpoena. he lied to us. his lawyers lied to us. there was another document. there's no comparison. there are policies about not impacting a pending election. this business of, you knew before the election. the fbi doesn't say anything

about investigations and searches and things. it could have been more rebutted. you have to break through. if the only way to do that is getting on fox and trying, then i applaud that. yes, it's being perpetuated. it's going to go on forever. there's no talking some people out of it. >> carol, from doing this reporting, what is your sense of whether we are at the beginning, middle or end of understanding what's really going on behind closed doors in the mar-a-lago investigation over the last two years? >> i think there's quite a bit more to learn. i hope that i will be back here explaining it to you. i do feel, based on our reporting with my great colleagues here "the post," we discovered prosecutors believe they were close to the end, close to making a charging decision when donald trump announced on november 15th that he would run for re-election.

three days later, merrick garland, the attorney general summoned prosecutors and investigators on that team to his office to let them know he was going to appoint a special counsel and encourage them to join the team. basically, the work was fractions away, yards away from being completed. i think that's pretty important that now jack smith, who one of his first actions was the one that prosecutors still hadn't tidied up at the end of their probe. that was getting the lawyer for donald trump inside a grand jury to answer what did your client tell you to do and where did he tell you to search when you said, all classified records at mar-a-lago had been returned? obviously, that was not the truth. that's the heart of this. >> it's amazing. it's an amazing piece of

reporting. it's amazing to hear you say it's yards away. three of our favorite humans, thank you so much. after the break, one of our next guests said dominion's case against fox news was the strongest defamation case he had seen. that was before dominion dropped filings and legal bombshells about what fox news knew about election fraud conspiracies and when they knew it. the next hour of "deadline white house" starts after a quick break. don't go anywhere. s after a qui break. don't go anywhere. helps keep your laundry pacs in a safe place and your child safer. to close, twist until it clicks. tide pods child-guard packaging. pain hits fast. so get relief fast. only tylenol rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast for fast pain relief. and now get relief without a pill with tylenol dissolve packs. relief without the water.

♪ ♪ ♪ get directv with a two year price guarantee.

♪♪ entresto is the #1 heart failure brand prescribed by cardiologists. it was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto.

they knew it was a lie when they broadcast it? >> they knew it was a lie or probably a lie. >> how strong is dominion's case? >> it's stronger than most defamation cases i have seen. i might say it is the strongest. >> how many defamation cases have you seen?

>> i have litigated myself hundreds. i'm certainly aware of every significant defamation case in the last 40 years. >> this is the strongest one? >> in my judgment. >> hi, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york. it was jaw-dropping when i saw that. that was made by first amendment lawyer lee levine. he says that dominion's defamation case was the strongest he had seen yet. >> november 12 seems to be the key date. that's the day that dominion started on a regular basis seining information sheets to every producer on every show at fox that was having rudy giuliani on saying, here are the true facts, links supporting our assertion these are the true

facts. then these people continued to invite giuliani and powell on their shows. >> as striking as those comments were, they were made before the rest of us had seen what we know from the recent release of legal filings that further expose fox's broadcasting of what the network executives and anchors knew to be lis at the time. we saw testimony showing how the network's prime time anchors did not believe the ex-president's lies. they mocked his advisors. they never said any of those things on the air for fear of alienating viewers. we got testimony from rupert murdoch. a look at how those at the top of the organization knew there was no merit to the election fraud claims trump and his allies were making from the

start. they let their anchors spew the lies and platform the lies anyway. among the damaging revelations, murdoch believed fox hosts were all on some level endorsing the big lie. he knew it was wrong to give a platform to the pillow guy, mike lindell because he was paying fox a lot of money. fox has responded to the filings by saying, dominion misconstrued the facts by cherry picking sound bites. they would know. what it comes down to are pictureswork that broadcast lies to their viewers to protect their bottom line and their audience share. who at this moment in possession of thousands of hours of security footage from the capitol insurrection. it's a dangerous situation that

chuck schumer spoke about on the senate floor earlier today. >> they need to stop giving a platform to dangerous and entirely unfounded conspiracy theories that eat at the wellspring of our democracy. they need to admit on the air that they were wrong to engage in such negligent and destructive behavior. mr. murdoch's testimony is all the more alarming after speaker mccarthy is reportedly allowing tucker carlson to review highly sensitive security camera footage of the events surrounding the violent january 6th insurrection. sharing that footage is a grave mistake that risks emboldening the supporters of the big lie. >> taking stock of the stunning revelations about fox news in the dominion lawsuit is where we

begin the hour. joining us at the table, jeremy peters. i was struck by your interview. i saw that "60 minutes" piece about dominion. it's the first look i had inside the harm done to the employees of dominion. start there with the human toll. behind every sort of trump era story there's always a human cost. i wonder if you can speak to the case that dominion is making about its employees being harmed and hunted. that was some of the testimony provided by dominion in that same piece. the fact that they exist in an environment, a climate where the lies are still told.

many of them on this network. >> that's an interesting point. you would think that that evidence would go to the issue of damages. those people should be compensated for the emotional distress and psychological harms that they endured. dominion is the only plaintiff in the case. dominion is a corporation. corporations don't have feelings. none of that technically goes to damages. what it does go to is whether or not the statements that were made were defamatory. that is that they portrayed a negative image of dominion that was actually believed by people who then acted on that false negative belief. >> you could walk into a bar in any county that voted overwhelmingly for donald trump and probably easily find a dozen people who believe these lies about dominion. is that part of what they have

to prove? is that just part of what we live with as a country? >> in this case, it is conceivable -- i don't want to get too much into the weeds here. it's conceivable the court will host the statements about dominion were wrong. they wouldn't have to believe that somebody believed what giuliani and powell were saying. i think if the case goes to trial -- i think it will -- they will put on evidence that people believed it. >> before we get too far between what we are seeing in these filings and heading into the trial. i think dominion would say they expect it to go to trial. you are a better authority than i am. can you just take us through the

basics of the law of what dominion is trying to prove and how fox is trying to defend itself? >> sure. dominion has taken it upon itself to carry two burdens here. i will start by saying it is arguable whether dominion, in fact, has to carry those burdens or some lesser burden. it has taken it upon itself to clear the highest bars. one of those bars is to show that the people responsible for the broadcasts at fox, both knew what powell and giuliani were saying were probably -- was probably false and also that they endorsed, on the broadcasts, the accuracy of what giuliani and powell were saying. if they clear those two hurdles, both on summary judgment, which is what these hundreds of pages of filings that you are talking about go to, and the trial, that's what they will have to prove to a jury.

>> what is it that made you -- if you change your assessment, share that with us. what do you see as the strength of dominion's case? >> rarely do you see a case in which there is so much evidence that goes to the defendant's -- the defendant's state of mind. what the defendant knew at the time that the broadcasts were being aired. in this case, even at the complaint stage, which is what i was talking about on "60 minutes," dominion set out in great detail all of the information it had provided to fox during the course of this range of broadcasts that showed, i think pretty strongly, that responsible people at fox had information in their possession that showed that what giuliani

and powell were saying was probably false. now not unexpectedly after discovery and fox being required to produce emails and texts and other documents, we know that in fact some people at fox did admit in those writes that they believed what giuliani and fox were saying was false and even crazy. the last remaining thing that dominion has to do is tie the knowledge of those people to the actual statements in the broadcasts. were they people who were responsible for the broadcast such that their knowledge of probable falsity can be imputed to the company? i think dominion does a good job in its filing, the most recent one, of making the case they did at least enough to get before a jury. >> i think dominion would say that the 3,600 communications

that went from dominion to all various points at fox news, it's clear that -- i think tony frato was the dominion messenger. he worked in the bush white house. had ties to fox news on the air, on the board, at other levels. it seems like an important part of the fact pattern. can you talk about not just the sending but the receipt and how they were disseminated within fox news? >> i think it's crucially important. even if fox could argue that at the beginning when it first started putting giuliani and powell on the air it didn't know that what they were saying was false, after all they were working for the president and the president was making these allegations. but as time went on and dominion provided fox with information suggesting and strongly indicating that a lot of what giuliani and powell were saying

was false, they continued to put them on the air knowing what they were going to say. i think one of the most important things that stuck out to me about the new filing, which i had not realized before, was that some of the programs were rebroadcast in their entirety so that between the time of the original broadcast and the time of the rebroadcast, dominion provided information to fox that what giuliani or powell had just said was false. and yet, fox went ahead and rebroadcast it. that's very rare and very powerful evidence of actual malice. >> is there -- obviously, as an ex-republican and someone who has covered my former party as it has been taken over by lies and liars and done nothing, there's an incredible political benefit to seeing behind this very opaque organization and understanding that rupert

murdoch was trying to calm people who were nervous and reaching out to the board. is there a legal significance to rupert murdoch knowing on election night that the election was fair and square, free from fraud, and that joe biden was the incoming president and giving an knowing about and trying unsuccessfully to get the on-air talent to stop platforming the liars? is that significant legally? >> it is definitely something that dominion will very much want to get before the jury if the case goes to trial. for the very reasons that you are talking about and the very reasons that it has grabbed the headlines it has the last few days. i think fox will make a really strong effort, given how powerful that information is, to get it excluded from evidence on the grounds that what murdoch was talking about was not specific statements and specific broadcasts that are being sued

upon. the judge will have a decision to make about whether to let that in. if it comes in, it is not technically legally relevant to the issue of actual malice, unless the court rules that somebody in murdoch's position, somebody who at least had theoretical authority to stop what was going on and didn't, which is an open legal question, unless the court rules that, it's not technically relevant to actual malice. but it is certainly something dominion would like to get before the jury. >> on the malice -- i started with murdoch. let me come at it from the other direction. there's evidence that the least powerful parts of the company -- this is where dominion points a picture, they build a case from

the bottom up to the company's fact checkers and journalists and that thread that's -- i believe there's more that we have not seen between the hosts where they want the fact checker fired for fact check the claims about dominion. is that relevant? >> atmospherically, it's evidence that dominion would very much like to get in. legally, it's only relevant if those people, the individual people who sent those emails or on those text chains were responsible for specific statements that dominion is suing about on specific shows. i think dominion has done a very good job, beyond painting the atmospheric picture, of what was going on at fox news, to really

rolling up their sleeves to doing the relating to the specific broadcasts. that is where the rubber is going to hit the road. >> what is your sense of the importance of this case and its significance in the law and in this sort of information moment in which we live? >> as a legal matter, i think it is one of those cases, especially if dominion prevails, that is the exception that proves the rule. as you probably know, a couple of justices of the supreme court have been vocal in suggesting that the precedent under which news media organizations operate was wrongly decided and should be reversed because somebody who is aggrieved by defamation can't

get a fair shake in court these days. ironically, that is usually aimed at folks like you and other mainstream media. but in this case, if fox, in fact, loses and dominion recovers damages, it is going to lead people to say and should lead people to say as i have believed all along that sullivan is not an absolute bar to liability. when you disseminate knowing falsehoods that injure somebody's reputation, you should be able to be sued and can be. from a legal perspective, this could become important ironically. from a journalistic standpoint, i'm not a journalist, i only represented them, but i think it's very sad for democracy and

for the press and for the free flow of information generally that this kind of stuff goes on. >> i think that's -- those are the twin pillars of trying to cover it as a legal story. but i will speak for him. i'm gobsmacked by what we are seeing in the legal process as being revealed. i want to just warn you. we may call on you again. your voice is one of such knowledge and wisdom and expertise. thank you so much. >> thank you. when we come back, we will pick up this conversation and talk about where dominion's fight against fox news goes from here. how matt gaetz responded when he was called out during a congressional hearing for spreading chinese propaganda about ukraine.

we will show you what he edited out of it. we will tell you what it says about the republicans' commitment to depend ukraine against its russian invasions. . maga republicans are demanding the right to carry guns inside the capitol complex. what democrats are trying to do to keep the capitol safe for everyone. that's later in the hour. don't go anywhere. don't go anywhere. when your v-neck looks more like a u-neck, that's when you know, it's half-washed. downy has 7 benefits that condition and smooth fibers so clothes look newer, longer. feel the difference with downy. okay everyone, our mission is complete balanced nutrition. together we support immune function. supply fuel for immune cells and sustain tissue health. ensure with twenty-five vitamins and minerals, and ensure complete with thirty grams of protein. ♪ 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. ♪ limu emu & doug ♪ hey, man. nice pace! clearly, you're a safe driver. you could save hundreds for safe driving with liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! [sfx: limu squawks] whoo! we gotta go again. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

another stunning detail we learned was how fox reacted in the aftermath of the january 6

insurrection. murdoch wrote january 6 was a wake-up call for hannity who was discussed by trump but was scared to lose viewers. he wrote fox news was very busy pivoting after january 6. we want to make trump a non-person. jeremy peters reported how they tried to separate from trump. considering how important fox news has become as a megaphone for donald trump, it was time to take a stance. they thought fox news and the nation faced an existential moment. tell her we have been talking internally and intensely, rupert

murdoch, whose family controls the company, wrote in an email. fox news is pivoting as fast as possible. he sounded a note of caution. jeremy is with us at the table. former republican congressman and msnbc contributor david jolly is here. it's a revealing piece to focus on. back to the conversation with lee about the twin import of this story, the legal aspects and the political aspects. it is clear now that rupert murdoch saw the trump story the same way all of the left and most reasonable people in the middle and some rational people on the right did. he was just afraid to do anything about it. >> this is one of the most extraordinary things about this case and the discovery, what we have seen so far. it has peeled back the curtain inside fox news and it revealed it to be a place -- what

insiders had told me that people don't respect donald trump. there are a handful of diehards who have an affection for him. as i reported in my book, tucker carlson was telling people he was voting for kanye west. rupert murdoch is on record in the depositions or in emails uncovered saying he thinks trump is acting like a crazy person. this has been true at fox news back to the days of roger ailes who used to tell people he hated it when donald trump would call him because he couldn't get a word in. rupert murdoch has always thought trump was kind of a buffoon. when ivanka told murdoch over lunch that they were going -- that her father was going to run for president, he didn't even look up from his soup. he said, no, he is not. they didn't take trump seriously. well, now trump is their entire

business model. what these filings show is just how these power brokers, we assume they were power brokers of the gop, murdochs, fox news, were powerless at the hands of their base when the base turned on them because fox turn on donald trump. you see -- >> they called the 2020 presidential election. >> exactly. that's how the base saw it. right? >> i think it's dangerous to adopt the language of the -- they asked their decision desk who won arizona. >> that's the irony. fox got in such hot legal water because they made the right call at first. they were the first news organization to say trump is going to lose arizona. therefore, probably the white house. >> which was right. >> a lot of organizations were not on board with that at first. we waited to make that call. >> saturday, right? >> fox made the call.

there was such backlash to that in the days after it became clear biden was going to win that fox reversed course. we see in the documents all sorts of panic at the executive suite about ratings, people going to somewhere else. they start to -- the executives -- they are so involved in the coverage. he says he doesn't like what's on the screen. rupert murdoch offers up the head of bill salmon who is in charge of making the arizona call and says, if we fire bill, it will give something to the base. we can serve him up. that's who was in charge. trump and the audience. rupert murdoch and the rest of the company were doing what they thought they had to do to get

viewership and profits in the viewership back. >> david jolly, again, it's important i think to straddle the two pillars that make this story so significant. one, there may finally be a legal breaking system for the willful lying to the audience, the knowledge that the lies that they were platforming were just that, lies. two, pulling back the curtain and understanding how fully profits and ratings drive editorial at fox. just take me through your reaction to both. >> i want to pick up on a word jeremy used, which was panic. the panic at fox news between election day and november 6 over the ratings compared to the lament we see after the insurrection occurred. i would suggest it's clear that they were more intense in their panic about losing ratings than they were about their

culpability to an insurrection against the united states, ultimately january 6. after january 6, you see this corporate contemplation, if you will. maybe we didn't do the right thing. it's like the person who helped a bank robber and someone got kill and they said, i didn't mean to do that. that doesn't mean much if what they were really focused on in the weeks prior is pushing towards that bank robbery, pushing towards the in insurrection. where does fox news go post dominion and this news? here is the interesting thing. a break that they are looking to make based on these documents is not with conservative orthodoxy, republican party, heir apparent to trump who are promoing war on things. they are not looking to break with that. they see donald trump as the person that has created all of this. they are wrestling with how do they keep the profit coming but

now move the audience over to ron desantis or the next person? this is not strong conviction over at fox news, which is -- i don't think we will anticipate much of a change outside of the public humiliation they will suffer as a result of a dominion civil verdict. >> what do you make of how it is that -- fox has switched lawyers. they are not always sort of -- they don't reveal their legal panic the way their ratings panic is revealed in this lawsuit. clearly, this is not all gone down the way they would have liked it to. what do you make of what is going on behind the scenes in what may be the final weeks before they are on trial? >> one of the things that has remained constant over several months that i have been reporting on this case is there have been no serious overtures from fox to dominion to settle, which is curious. rupert murdoch settles far less

serious cases for hundreds of millions of dollars. i don't know exactly what the lawyers have been telling them. maybe that defamation cases -- if i were the lawyer i would say, defamation cases are really hard to win. i can win this for you. all it takes is me to get to one juror or convince enough fox news viewers on that jury that this wasn't really defamation because there's such a high level bar to clear for that to happen. but i think they know they are in a bad legal position. i sense it when i talk to people over there. the chill that was sent through the organization when mid-level producers were having their private cellphones seized by the legal do. and their private emails and text messages read. something like that that extends from the bottom of the organization all the way up to the top does not set a very good mood in any organization.

i don't think -- unlike the larger maga universe which is probably largely unaware of this case, because fox is not reporting on it. they actually said this last weekend, their media correspondent said, my network bosses have told me i can't cover this. there's no legal justification for. their audience isn't hearing this. the people listening on the radio or the people watching newsmax, they are not hearing about this either. inside fox news, however, i think it's really, really rattled them. >> thank you for coming back today and stay on the story. i'm sure we will call on you. david jolly sticks around. we will show you what happened when matt gaetz spread propaganda during a congressional hearing.

don't go anywhere.

so it's decided, we'll park even deeper into parking spaces so people think they're open. surprise. [ laughs ] [ horn honks, muffled talking ] -can't hear you, jerry. -sorry. uh, yeah, can we get a system where when someone's bike is in the shop, then we could borrow someone else's? -no! -no! or you can get a quote with america's number-one motorcycle insurer and maybe save some money while you're at it. all in favor of that. [ horn honking ] there's a lot of buttons and knobs in here. introducing new sweet and savory crepes. whether you like the flavor of cinnamon bun after sunset. or prefer to wake up to a little eggs and bacon. day or night, it's always time for crepes. for a limited time, buy one, get one free with five flavors that are delicious any time of day. only from ihop.

download the app and earn free food with every order. you can't always avoid migraine triggers download the app and earn like your next period. qulipta® can help prevent migraines. you can't always prevent what's going on outside... ...that's why qulipta® helps what's going on inside. qulipta® gets right to work. in a 3-month study, qulipta® significantly reduced monthly migraine days... ...and the majority of people reduced them by 50 to 100%. qulipta® blocks cgrp-- a protein believed to be a cause of migraines. qulipta® is a preventive treatment for episodic migraine. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and tiredness. learn how abbvie could help you save on qulipta®.

as we have said and covered over and over again over past year, the people of ukraine are on the front lines in the battle for their own freedom and for democracies around the world. it is at this time that we need to continue our support of them. as quickly and as fully as possible.

the former ambassador to ukraine said this on our show yesterday. members of congress remain committed to supporting ukraine. there are a few very vocal republicans who are already questioning that commitment and are playing right into vladimir putin's hand by sewing mistrust. yesterday, lawmakers on capitol hill held two committee hearings where top pentagon officials were questioned about specifics of the u.s. aid packages to ukraine during those hearings. matt gaetz was caught entering chinese propaganda as evidence. it came from a source that the trump administration, no less, designated as a propaganda outlet. here is that moment. >> are they getting access to u.s. weapons? >> not that i'm aware of?

>> i would consent to enter into the record the "global times" report that talks about training. it's from the atlantic council digital forensic lab. >> so ordered. >> any reason to disagree with that? >> is this "the global times" from china? that's what you read. >> it might be. yeah. would that be -- >> as a general matter, i don't take beijing's propaganda. >> tell me if the allegation is true or false. >> i don't have any evidence. i don't take beijing's propaganda at face value. >> fair enough. >> matt gaetz posted this performative moment. he edited out that moment. wonder why. joining us, retired u.s. army lieutenant colonel vinman, a former director for european

affairs for the national security council, ben rhodes, deputy national security advisor to president obama, now an msnb contributor and david jolly is still here. you can't say things like caught with your pants down when you are talking about matt gaetz. holding the bag of chinese propaganda. >> it's hilarious. could you almost see the way he lulled him or roped him in and said, hey, you realize you are quoting the propaganda mouthpiece of the chinese communist party? it was well done on his part. matt gaetz didn't recognize what he was walking into. >> why? why is matt gaetz so committed to betraying our alliance with ukraine? >> because he is trying to cater to his political master, which is donald trump. donald trump has a deep animosity against ukraine. he is a fan boy for vladimir putin.

on that basis alone, that's sufficient for matt gaetz, lauren boebert and marjorie taylor greene to try to get in with donald trump. they don't understand how this implicated u.s. national security. it's essential for u.s. security. if we don't do enough there, the u.s. gets dragged in. they could care less. >> i say this as an ex-republican. if a democrat did this, republicans would never let it go. what is the importance of making sure people know that china is writing matt gaetz's talking points? it shows the ignorance that he didn't screen out a propaganda source and use that as his basis

to try to cast doubt or cast a shadow over support to ukraine. even if u.s. support was going to -- they have been integrated into the administrative defense of ukraine. it's not the same organization it was prior to 2014, 2015 when it was a far right threat to the stability of ukraine. now it's been heroic in the defense of mariupol and other places. it's meaningless. there are more dangerous groups in russia that are actively participating in this war that are acolytes of nazi beliefs and ideology. that's where we should focus on. that's the fascist state russia has become. we should support a democratic independent state, sovereign state that's looking to ensure that its population is not

subject to russian rule. >> ben, it's a revealing moment, not just to the bafoonery of matt gaetz and the republican caucus, but of the carelessness. it reveals the republicans as being -- it's performative. none of it is substantive. that said, these are the very members -- this is the faction that kevin mccarthy has elevated and empowered. i wonder what your thoughts are as they are at the beginning of republican control of representatives. >> it's not like anybody had high expectations for the rigor of matt gaetz's oversight. that line, that's a main putin propaganda line. you see the laundering of that. it's from russia through china to matt gaetz. it didn't take long for that to get to a hearing with one of the senior policymakers in the

united states government. that should be more alarming. we see the bafoonery of matt gaetz and dismiss it. you are one google away from knowing what the google times is. there has not been a danger to u.s. assistance. you have seen members stand up for that. i wouldn't take false comfort in that. the leader of the republican party is donald trump. we know where he is on this. he is constantly saying, we shouldn't give money to ukraine. we should send it to the border. ron desantis has begun to echo that line a little bit. questioning whether or not we should be providing more assistance to the border than ukraine. why joe biden -- why is he going to ukraine? he should visit the border. i wouldn't be sanguine about -- why are we assuming the best in the republican party when it comes to this issue when donald trump is the frontrunner and ron desantis is his main competitor and they are trending in the other direction? this war is not going to be over

in 2024. this is going to be a slog. i think we should take seriously this threat and not just take comfort in the fact that mitch mcconnell is on board with support and matt gaetz is a nut case. this is where donald trump is and we have seen time and again in the last six, seven years where donald trump is usually where the republican party ends up. >> that's exactly right, david jolly. mitch mcconnell, importantly, had president joe biden's back this year, announced his support for the trip and the aid announceed. mitch mcconnell said his vote in 2024 goes to donald trump if he is the nominee of the party. not even mitch mcconnell tried to lessen trump as a power center in the party or as someone who would determine the republican party's stance on foreign policy. >> let's start with matt gaetz. sometimes it's difficult to

decipher between malcontent and ignore he could pivot between the two. they come up against the old bulls like mitch mcconnell who is right on this issue. he is right alongside joe biden saying this is probably most important cause for freedom and for freedom in the west we could be focused on. mitch mcconnell happy to give his vote to donald trump who creates that threat against liberal democracy and freedom in the west just as ben was referring to. the real danger, you touched on it, is that this is also the back bench crowd that kevin mccarthy has elevated. both caucuses will always have disrupters. new incoming freshman. you are trying to make a difference. the distinction is, democrats are often fighting about ideology. the emerging republican crowd is fighting on this kind of sanity versus insanity spectrum.

this liberal democracy versus illiberal. they power and sway. ultimately, influence whether or not kevin mccarthy gets to remain speaker or not. >> no one is going anywhere. we have to sneak in a quick break. we will all be right back. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? >> vo: for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. we went to safelite.com.

there's no one else we'd trust. their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our car's advanced safety system. they focus on our safety... so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ i think i'm ready for this. heck ya! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college. kids moving back in after college. ♪ finally we can eat. ♪ you know you make me wanna...♪ and then we looked around and said, wait a minute, this isn't even our stroller! (laughing) you live with your parents, but you own a house in the metaverse? mhm. cool...i don't get it. here's to getting financially ready for anything! and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha?! ♪ yeah, yeah ♪

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. ♪♪

we're back with my panel. alex, tell us with what the

coming attention coming on ukraine because of the anniversary, but what's happening on the ground and what do the coming days and weeks hold for ukraine? >> they're going to be a bit duff. you're going to have almost certainly the fall of the city of bakhmut that the russians have been fighting for, trading thousands of lives for inches. that city is likely to fall. it's a small city of 80,000. this would be the first major success russia has had since seizing the cities like luhansk, but they're going to ex-pend all their effective combat power in taking this territory, and then the ukrainian -- it will give the ukrainians some time later in the season, in the coming months, an opportunity to conduct a counteroffensive. but this is going to be a bit of a blow. ukrainians have put up a valiant fight for it. i'm surprised they're still fighting for it. it's almost entirely encircled. small areas to the west lay

there, and the ukrainians are taking some significant losses. so i hope they make the decision to withdraw sooner rather than later and do the things they did earlier on successfully, pivot to the offenses like they did in kherson and kharkiv, and then seize some territory. it's going to be tough, but the ukrainians will come out on top as we go deeper into this year. the question is, how effective they are and part of that is the u.s. has an answer to that. do we continue to dither like we have with regard to support or give the ukrainians what they need? if the russians have breathing room, if they have a feeling of victory, they'll do another offensive. if they get defeated decisively this summer, they'll start to negotiate to keep their crown jewel, namely crimea. we have a major role to play in this. we can make this a short war or continue to dither and this extends into another winter, and then things get a little more

trickily. then we start have conversations about chinese and other equations. >> and i think to deduce that russia is waiting out our domestic political cycle, if trump had been there, some say there is no way america would have given ukraine what it needed. not just to win, but to even be in the fight. how much is the political calendar here a factor in your view? >> i think it's a real factor. i think putin believes that time is actually his friend in this regard. in the sense that entrenched in russia. the hundreds of thousands of russians that left are the people that don't support the war or want to be called up. so he's pretty entrenched there. he has a country of 140 million people. he can call more people up and try to grind it out on this front line. and it's not just the united states, it's the united states and europe.

i think he believes this drags on another year, two years, the price tag is going up to support ukraine. there could be other events, inflationary pressures. he could be getting support from china, which is supporting him by buying more russian energy than they did before the war. i think he believes that he can grind it out, try to strengthen his position in certain places. and wait to see if something breaks in his favor politically, either inside europe or the united states. it's very clear that's what his playbook is here. so the question is, does time go forward against putin? we'll know after not just the potential fall of bakhmut, but potentially ukrainian counteroffenses in the spring. we'll see who has the better theory. is it a theory of ukrainian momentum, which does depend on the support from the united states and other countries. or is putin able to try to turn this into the appearance of a stalemate with him having the additional manpower of call-ups to wait out our politics and

european politics. >> i'm old enough to remember when being aligned with the interest of vladamir putin was a political liability. but that's how much the republican party has changed. that it is putin's war strategy to wait and see if republicans regain control of the white house and more control in congress. i think the $64 million unanswered political question is whether joe biden can build on the success of the democracy voter in the midterm elections and stitch together this fight of the ukrainians for freedom as a bulwark against russia in europe with our fight for democracy at home. where do you place the sort of stakes to be able to successfully do that? >> i think your instinct is right. the working presumption is that -- our alliance with ukraine, and just hand over the leverage to vladamir putin. it is crazy to think about that.

mitch mcconnell's voice is not the loudest voice in the republican room right now, it's donald trump, ron desantis, matt gaetz and the others. so republican orthodoxy by next summer in the heat of a presidential race, will likely be we are the party that will remove assistance in ukraine, and joe biden will be the one that keeps spending u.s. tax dollars on it. which keys up the opportunity for joe biden to say that's right. because i have an administration that is willing to protect freedom and democracy, and our american interests and not just at home but abroad. that ask a contrast to the republican party. democrats have proven in '18, '20, and '22, it's a message that resonates with americans, around joe biden will have a strong hand to play if that's the case. >> thank you all very much for having this conversation. another quick break for us. we'll be right back. r quick bres we'll be right back. ♪

♪ i know what's right for me. ♪ ♪ i've got a plan to which i'm sticking. ♪ ♪ my doc wrote me the script. ♪ ♪ box came by mail. ♪ ♪ showed up on friday. ♪ ♪ i screened with cologuard and did it my way! ♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ (group) i did it my way! ♪ lomita feed is 101 years old. when covid hit, we had some challenges. i heard about the payroll tax refund that allowed us to keep the people that have been here taking care of us. learn more at getrefunds.com. when it comes to reducing sugar in your family's diet, the more choices, the better.

that's why america's beverage companies are working together to deliver more great tasting options with less sugar or no sugar at all. in fact, today, nearly 60% of beverages sold contain zero sugar. different sizes? check. clear calorie labels? just check. with so many options, it's easier than ever to find the balance that's right for you. more choices. less sugar. balanceus.org liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. with the money we saved, we tried electric unicycles. i think i've got it! doggy-paddle! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ get directv with a two year price guarantee. in order for small businesses to thrive, ♪ they need to be smart... efficient... agile...

and that's never been more important than it is right now. so for a limited time, comcast business is introducing small business savings. call now to get powerful internet for just $39 a month, with no contract, and a money back guarantee. all on the largest, fastest, reliable network. from the company that powers more businesses than anyone else. call and start saving today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. we are grateful. "the beat with ari melber" starts right now. hi, ari. >> thanks so much. welcome to "the beat." i'm ari melber. we are cooking up a special show for you tonight with a guest making a "beat" debut later in the hour. the top story in politics right now is congressional republicans facing heat tonight to define their budget demands for the biden white house. that's after joe biden drew that really memorable advantage, much of the nation saw it at the state of the union where he highlighted how some republicans want to slash the safety net and pulled others into opposing their own extremists into