♪♪ hi there, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york. a confluence of events gives us as good of a glimpse as we may ever get into the earth it on which today's republican party lives and how it came to be. and the network that has done more than anything or anyone else other than donald trump himself in creating and furthering life in that alternate reality, the first, the release of a massive

of messages and depositions from fox news hosts, senior executives and employees as part of a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit. these documents show the depth of the contempt many at fox news had for the truth and frankly for their own viewers. prime time host laura ingraham blasted the fox news decision desk for something that every other normal reputable news organization in the country values, for being accurate. from "the new york times," quote, ms. ingraham said the work of the decision desk was an inside job intended to sabotage conservative hosts like her, quote, we are all officially working for an organization that hates us she fumed. the messages show that host sean hannity responded to that, quote, why would anyone defend that call, referring to the decision desk's highly accurate and early election night projection that president joe biden would go on to win

arizona. no, sean and laura were not alone. from "the washington post" reporting on these new filings, quote, in the weeks after the november 2020 election, rupert murdoch, the powerful chairman vented about the pollsters who work for him. quote, i hate our decision desk people, he wrote in one email as the network driven by analysis from the unit prepared to declare that joe biden had won the election. the contempt that many at fox news had for their fellow journalists was matched only by their deep disdain for the disgraced ex-president and many of his top allies during the period after the election, when they convinced millions of people that the 2020 election was stolen thanks in no small part to regular appearances on fox news. "the washington post" reports that murdoch worried that some ideas posed by trump's allies to convince state legislatures to reject biden victories in swing key states sound ridiculous and

could lead to, quote, are riots like never before. and this, quote, we are very, very close to being able to ignore trump most nights mr. tucker carlson wrote to members of his staff onjanuary 4th, 2021. quote, i truly can't wait. one producer replies, quote, i want nothing more. then tucker carlson responds, quote, i hate him, donald trump, passionately. let that sink in. tucker carlson hates donald trump, quote, passionately. wow. on november 17th, 2020, tucker carlson texted attorney sidney powell, quote, you keep telling our viewers that millions of votes were changed by the software. i hope you will prove that very soon. you've convinced them that trump will win, if you don't have conclusive evidence, it is a cruel and reckless thing to keep saying. a cruel and reckless thing to

keep saying? gets us to the second event we mentioned, the ongoing campaign to whitewash the january 6th insurrection currently underway at the highest levels of fox by tucker carlson. despite rebukes, even from some elected republicans, tucker carlson doubled down on this mission last night. he describes it as his public service, something he's doing in the name of transparency. here's what january 6th select committee member jamie raskin had to say about tucker carlson and kevin mccarthy. his decision to hand over tens of thousands of hours of security footage makes carlson's disinformation mission possible. >> he's aiding and abetting an absolute fraud against american democracy. i mean, we worked for a year and a half in a bipartisan way and we assembled a huge mass of indestructible evidence

demonstrating exactly what happened based on more than 1,000 interviews, more than 100 subpoenas, more than a million documents all in search of the truth, and we laid it out for the american people to see, and they couldn't lay a glove on any of it. tucker carlson just showed his exact colors when he was exposed by dominion voting systems in court. he knew that courtney powell, he knew rudy giuliani, he knew donald trump were completely lying about the election. they were ridiculing them, they were making fun of them behind the scenes, but then they went out on tv and they spread the lies. and thousand they're spreading the lies again. and it is scandalous, and it's dangerous. >> that's where we begin with some of our favorite reporters and friends, joining us at the table, "new york times" political reporter jeremy peters. he's been covering the lawsuit between fox news and dominion for "the new york times." nick con fi sor ree is a "new york times" political and investigative reporter who wrote

the paper's three-part series on tucker carlson last year called american nationalist. tim miller is also here, writer at large for the bulwark. jeremy, i start with you. let's stay with the revelations because you and nick have actually come closer than i think any journalists have in trying to pierce what is one of the most opaque institutions in maga republican politics, and that's fox news. but the filings and the way they talk to each other and the degree to which they in tucker carlson's own words passionately hated donald trump but relentlessly projected and pursued his conspiracies on the air is stunning. >> right, and we see at each turn where executives and hosts and producers at fox tried to reel back in the conspiracy theory mongering, they were met with the wrath of their audience. this kind of began at fox news when they started covering the tea party and they realized that

hosts like glen beck and contributors like sarah palin were almost bigger than the network, bigger than roger ailes, the guy who found the network. that metastasized into the trump movement, and trump giveth and he taketh away. he gave fox record ratings and profits, even though fox was, you know, one of the sole entities responsible for kind of creating donald trump as a political figure, when trump became president he was their biggest cash cow. he remained so and once fox, quote, unquote turned on him by telling the truth and saying that he had lost the election, trump could stick his followers on fox. >> but they don't turn on trump ever, they don't turn on him. they simply call the election result, and what's terrifying is that even brett bare is part of saying let's not do that. let's not call elections accurately when we have the data? that is terrifying. >> let's not tell our audience

the truth because they saw the cost of telling their audience the truth, and for people who only saw profit and power in the ratings that trump gave them, that's all that really mattered at the end of the day. they were willing to pull back that call, a call that most of them knew at the time in their hearts was correct. rupert murdoch despite saying i hate the decision desk, this was his idea. the whole reason fox had an independent decision desk in place to make a call like that that was so aggressive and so ahead of the curve is because rupert murdoch pulled fox out of the consortium of news networks at nbc and "new york times" and a lot of others that got the exit polls wrong in 2016. a lot of this is their creation of donald trump, it's their own doing, and it comes back to really kind of eat them alive in a lot of ways. >> and the person doing the eating is tucker carlson. i mean, he is the star of these

depositions. his language, nick, is so odious toward donald trump, toward sidney powell, toward the garbage that he knew he was broadcasting on his air that he described basically as -- used the word garbage in what we've seen so far, but there's much so redacted he may eventually. how does that build on the portrait you were able to painstakingly paint of tucker carlson as addicted to and promoting more conspiracies than any other broadcaster in the country? >> well, you know, these documents really underscore the reporting that we had last year in great detail showing that fox fundamentally is a ratings machine. what's interesting, though, about carlson is he always tried to keep a certain distance from trump himself while, you know, achieving a hold on the trump audience, and that's what you see in those texts where he says

i hate trump. he wanted to grab hold of the emotional core of trumpism, this fear over the changing america, and keep his distance from trump. what he found in 2020 at the end that he could not do that anymore, that his audience wanted proof that trump was cheated of a second term and he had to deliver it, and you see in some of these texts with his producers and friends he hates that story. he hates doing it. he somewhat believes there is some kind of fraud in the election. he struggles to find evidence for it. his producers struggle to provide him with things they can put on the air to give the viewers what they want. here is the bigger picture, nicole. trump came in and took the fox audience away from trump, this audience they had built into a power and profit center for years and years, trump interposed himself and took that away from them and threatened them, and what you see in all these texts and depositions is the realization and the fear that they can't get it back

unless they give the viewers the pro-trump viewers what they want, and that is an extended narrative of fraud, which they knew to be untrue. >> you know, tim, what's interesting is that howard kurtz revealed to the world he's not allowed to cover the case. i'm not aware of anybody leaving fox news. obviously we're only learning about these communications because they're part of the discovery process in a lawsuit. but the people on the receiving end of these scathing attacks against their own pollsters from rupert murdoch, from against their own decision make for laura ingraham and sean hannity, they had to be aware of them at the time. nobody leaves. why not? >> because they've made their bed. look, i think the two of the most shocking reveals of these texts that we've seen from the dominion lawsuit that we haven't talked about at least in today's show, the one is that jackie hinrich who's a reporter was seen to be doing her job by fact checking trump's false claims,

and there were the series of texts from carlson, hannity and ingraham talking about how they want to get her fired. carlson had told on her to suzanne scott the head of the network. so everyone is still there. you assume she has friends at the network. there would be other reporters there who looked at the texts saying oh, my goodness, if i put out an inconvenient fact they will come for my job. that goes beyond just what is happening on the television screen. that goes beyond lying to the audience. that's like we're trying to enact retribution behind the scenes to people that tell the truth to the audience. the other email that you guys haven't said, it's so astonishing to me. tucker said these last four years we're all pretending we've got a lot to show for it because admitting what a disaster it's been is too tough to digest. there isn't really an upside to trump. i mean, that reveal like betrays the final lie of trumpism and of all these guys, right? all these times we all knew they

hated trump behind the scenes. that's not new news. there has been leaks about that forever, they privately despite trump and think he's an idiot. the notion that they always held onto was that the tweets might be mad, he might be a bigot, he might be stupid, but there are policies we like. here's tucker admitting even that part's a lie. it's been a complete disaster. there's no upside to trump. i thought that was the one kind of new revealing moment on top of what we all knew about their corruption is that the whole thing is a charade. >> tim, i understand that a lot of what remains redacted is redacted at the request of fox news and may very well further our understanding of what you're articulating. they're deeply conflicted, not even conflicted, their complete htred of not just donald trump the man and the political figure, but of his presidency

and everything it ushered in, and their on air performances, which they knowingly projected having a completely different view of him, and i think where this gets complicated legally for fox news is that in the case of dominion it's just another chapter in the same thing you described. they knew sidney powell was a, quote, idiot, lying idiot, you know, and much worse, the f word, b word, and especially tucker. and yet, they plat formed her over and over and over again, and they reaired-- re-aired the replatforming of her saying on the voting machine stuff you're dead wrong. >> you're wrong. they're hearing that from republicans. dominican hired republicans. like they knew this, right? their private conversations about the election were no different than the public conversations happening on the show or at the bulwark.

tucker carlson talked about sidney powell sounds like he could have been on the bulwark podcast for never trumpers. these folks, it's not as if there was some, you know, that the private documents betray some sort of uncertainty or we're trying to get to the truth or trying to get to the facts, we're a little concerned we put this one person on tv, they might be a little bit out there. it's the opposite of that. we know that they're liars, clowns, we're doing it anyway. we have to. news max who's giving people exactly what they want is seeing higher ratings. it's as simple that, it's not a complicated story. >> the gaslighting is the model. the gaslighting was so success that i think it even made republicans look around and at least privately say to one another, am i going too far or is this as bad as it looks. that is a sign of the success of their gaslighting. it was all gaslighting the whole time. >> yeah, and you're right, they did convince even it seems like

even tricked some of the republicans saying what they feel like they had to say about the election and about january 6th. here's just one example of this. joanny ernts spoke out against the carlton videotapes saying i had young staffers that were crying. we felt like we were in danger. i was here and what they're putting out is not true. she said something to that effect. the thing is that joni erntz didn't vote to convict donald trump, didn't speak out about donald trump at the time. if you trick -- if you convince people that they can't say the truth, that they have to kind of hide something behind the truth, well then that leads them to not actually dealing with the real world consequences of the actions. i think that fox was complicit in a big way from protecting donald trump all the way from the election through january 6th, of course, but then even after january 6th when we could have been done with this, right?

had tucker and hannity and laura been saying all the things in private they were saying in public, they would have had the 17 votes or whatever it was they needed in the senate to conviction him, and we would all be done talking about this. all we'd be talking about is whether he's go to jail or not because he wouldn't be allowed to run again. >> i want to dive into the material with you and nick. this is an email that rupert murdoch sent to suzanne scott on january 5th the day before the insurrection. it's been suggested our prime time three, that's sean hannity and laura ingraham, independently or together say something like, quote, the election is over and joe biden won. we are all disappointed but it happened. we love america and have to turn the page. we will now be the loyal opposition criticizing every liberal mistake the new administration makes. their declared policies on domestic and foreign policies are naive at best or worse, retreads of the failed obama years.

let's wear masks, not those words but a refinement would go a long way to stop the trump myth that the election was stolen in the basis of his 2024 campaign. rupert murdoch is interested in stopping the trump myth that the election was stolen and stopping his 2024 campaign on january 5th, 2021. what happens on january 6th? >> a complete and utter lack of any profile in courage from the highest levels of fox news and the republican party with some limited exceptions. what happened is they got afraid of their audience just like the republican party got afraid of their voters. >> went to the capitol to, quote, hang mike pence. >> this is why i said this beast that they created is swallowing them, right? >> yeah. >> and what you have is kind of a -- rupert's being very sophisticated there in his analysis of like what it would take to appeal to kind of a centrist, moderate republican, you know, the kind who used to

watch fox in the beginning. that's not the republican party that exists anymore because a lot of those people, most of them voted for joe biden. what is sophisticated is his analysis it also reveals that he doesn't fundamentally understand the republican party that he's dealing with. he, suzanne scott, even tucker carlson are all caught in these messages saying this is going to be over. we're not going to have to deal with donald trump anymore after january 6th. we can wash our hair of this guy. it's done. well, if they had understood the republican party, they would have realized how wrong that was. >> maybe, but if they'd understood their power in leading the republican party to these delusions, they might have been persuaded to do the right thing. it's both they're hostage of or their feign ignorance of their role in brainwashing them. never did think think steven aers was watching. he wasn't watching my show. he was watching them.

the other thing i cannot pass up and this could take me a minute, but the story of maria baa ta romo is bizarre, sad, weird, shocking and galling. these are texts between maria barda romo, omg, i'm so impressed, i can't take this. bartiromo, can you join me thursday, sorry about the delay. bannon, yes, we've got this. bartiromo. i'm watching the world move forward, and it's so upsetting, steve. bartiromo, i want to see massive fraud exposed. will he be able to turn this around? i told my team we are not allowed to say president-elect at all. bartiromo, not in scripts or in banners or on air until this moves through the courts. side bar, they would go on to lose 61 cases in the courts. maria's waiting. bannon, 71 million voters will never accept biden.

this process is to destroy his presidency before it starts, if it even starts. bartiromo, i'm scared, and i'm sad. you're a fighter, enough with the sad. we need you. bartiromo, okay. >> bannon, we want you to run against schumer, this is your moment. we either close on trump's victory or delegitimize biden. two, win both seats in georgia, three win back the house in 2023, four, elect you to the senate. five, if we don't close on trump victory now, have trump declare for '24 the day after taking back the house and your win in 2022. nick, i don't even know what to ask you because i don't know what to say, but the ability to suck up to maria bartiromo's enthusiasm for conspiracies,

potential daliance in running for the senate, is so stark to see in black and white. >> note the contrast between bartiromo on fox business and tucker carlson, and laura ingraham. she's a true believer, right? she believes the conspiracy theo theories. she thinks there was widespread fraud. she's on the trump team. you saw that in general at fox business with lou dobbs and others. they were deep in the tank on the underlying theory of these voter fraud allegations, and that's why, you know, a lot of the stuff on lou dobbs' show was so far over the edge, over the line of actuality. but you saw a taste in those texts of the very unusual way in which fox is both a news channel and opinion leader and a power center in the kbop and a source of talent for the gop. tucker carlson is always being talked about as a candidate for

president, and they're often cycling in and out for people who are running for things and contributors and their own talent being on the line as potential candidates for stuff. really a complicated role the whole network plays in conservative politics. >> could not have gotten through this material without you. jeremy sticks around, a big show ahead of us today. we'll be joined by the lead investigator from the january 6th select committee and one of its members for a joint interview reacting to this lawsuit to fox, to tucker carlson, and the news today that house republicans are launching their own investigation into the 1/6 committee. but first we'll look at the kats from dominion and what else is still to come in the days and weeks ahead with pages and pages of redactions, almost all of them from fox news. we are not anywhere close to the full picture that this lawsuit will ultimately reveal. that conversation is next. plus, some lawmakers on the hill today seemingly unable to

accept the realities and findings from our nation's intelligence leaders. the reality of the threat posed biracially motivated extremists, how that hearing went down today. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ter a quick b. don't go anywhere. you know, there's a thousand billionaires in america, it■s up from about 600 at the beginning of my term. but no billionaire should be paying a lower tax rate than a schoolteacher or a firefighter. i mean it! think about it. 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 ♪ ♪ 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. i screwed up. mhm. thank you for making chevy silverado i got us t-mobile home internet. now cell phone users have priority over us. and your marriage survived that? you can almost feel the drag when people walk by with their phones. oh i can't hear you... you're froze-- ladies, please! you put it on airplane mode when you pass our house. i was trying to work.

we're workin' it too. yeah! work it girl! woo! i want to hear you say it out loud. well, i could switch us to xfinity. those smiles. that's why i do what i do. that and the paycheck. millions have made the switch from the big three to the best kept secret in wireless: xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year with the fastest mobile service. and now, get the best price for two lines of unlimited. just $30 per line. there are millions of happy campers out there. and this is the perfect time to join them... right now, switch to xfinity mobile and save up to $800 on the new samsung galaxy s23 series. to learn more, visit your local xfinity store today.

as we continue to make our way through all of the documents released from the briefs filed in the fox news and dominion case, the one thing that is abundantly clear is how much we still can't see, how much we still don't know, despite hundreds and hundreds of pages that detail dominion's claims about how fox news knowingly put

out false election claims, put them on the air. many of the pages that we see throughout look like this, redacted, blacked out. sections, these are -- we believe these sections represent areas that fox's lawyers objected to on claims of confidentiality and privilege. but what we know is that challenges to those redactions are expected to come tomorrow, and they may not hold. the key part of this is that we don't have the full picture literally. we don't have the full story, and it is quite possible that the best evidence, the most damaging information for fox news the brand and fox news legally may be still yet to come. take, for example, an exchange in which fox anchor maria bartiromo's deposition where she's asked about sidney powell's source on her information about dominion. from her deposition, bartiromo is asked about the source's claim, quote, it's nonsense,

correct? bartiromo responds i don't know who this person is, question. it's nonsense, correct? bartiromo, yes, it looks that way. what follows that exchange is several heavily redacted pages leading to more questions than answers about what bartiromo says under oath. joining us is someone we continue to turn to, a law professor at the university of utah, a first amendment scholar as well. jeremy's still here. what do you see in these new disclosures and what are your theories about what remains redacted today? >> well, contextually we can make some guesses that what remains redacted might be some of the juiciest pieces of evidence that dominion has in this case. and one of the reasons that we suspect this is the snippets that we get from these exhibits in the main filing from dominion. dominion filed a motion for summary judgment in this case, and there are several places in

the motion for summary judgment where dominion signals to us, the reader and to the judge that there's a key piece of evidence, in fact, in several places it suggests that the evidence, the argument it itself wishes to make was made out of the mouth of someone at fox. so there is one space where we see a blacked out portion of the brief and then after that dominion's lawyers say exactly, as if the argument has been constructed by the executives at fox themselves making dominion's claim for it. there's another spot where it quotes -- it says that it's going to quote an exchange between the ceo and a vice president and says something like this exchange says it all, but then we aren't privy to what it says. and so that kind of dynamic, i think, suggests to us that there

is additional information that dominion thinks helps it prove knowing falsely and reckless disregard for the truth in this case that we've not seen, but that will go before a jury. we should note that there are several news organizations that are working hard to try to expose this, move it out from under the seal. there's a strong presumption of public transparency in judicial proceedings like this, and those lawyers are making really good arguments about why that presumption of public transparency should be especially strong in a case such as this one. this case is testing the boundaries of a really important first amendment doctrine, and it is also of incredible public concern in terms of the fact pattern that it was focused on a challenge to an election, a deeply controversial law and deeply divisive politically. those are the sorts of circumstances in which we really want all eyes to be watching the

judicial process. so i'm hopeful that we will see some efforts in that front come to fruition, and that we might have some of these redacted portions made public soon. >> ronnell, let me read you some of what has been made public, and this is, again, how some of the most senior fox executives viewed their own on-air talent and the content that they were broadcasting. this is the president of fox news jay wallace who says that north korea does a more nuanced program than lou dobbs. quote, question, so two months before the 2020 election you arrow to suzanne scott and irena brigani that you watched lou dobbs closely for two weeks during the conventions and that the north koreans do a more nuanced show, you wrote those words, right? mr. webb makes an objection. wallace answers, i did. jay wallace, the president of

fox news says this, quote, i think this was a generalization. generalization that north korea does a more nuanced program. i'm trying to be tongue in cheek here, lou, obviously, you know, a fan of the administration, and during the conventions there was a lot of -- again, he's an opinion person, a lot of rah-rah for what was going on in those weeks. question, we know from tidbits released that some fox execs willfully played down the coverage and traded barbs like north korea dobbs. should fox be worried about what still could come in the redacted section. this is our question for you about why they're drawing this out? i mean, fox news knows what fox news said about lou dobbs and maria bartiromo and tucker and laura and sean. and i guess my question is, i mean, fox news has a history of settling with a whole lot of people. a lot of people accused bill

o'reilly of sexual misconduct. those cases were settled. why is fox news revealing that its president thought that lou dobbs was less nuanced than north korea? >> all right well, presumably fox made an effort to have more of this redacted than ended up redacted. the rules here are actually under federal and state law are actually quite favorable for public access. the rule is that a party can only have the materials in this sort of lawsuit hidden from public view, held under seal. if it shows good cause, and that has to be something like it falls within a relevant privilege or it exposes financial information or it exposes a trade secret, and the judge in this case has already made clear that he will not consider something that is merely embarrassing to either of the parties to classify to qualify as good cause. and so, some of the things that we have already seen may well be

things that fox attempted to have under seal and lost. the question is whether some of the remaining materials that are under redaction might ultimately make their way to public view. they certainly are going to make their way to the view of the jury, and i think that's part of what's key here. understanding that the jury is going to have access to information beyond what we ourselves are seeing right now, information that dominion believes is powerful in showing that there was a knowing lie at fox is a really key component of what's happening next. >> jeremy, tucker carlson thinks trump is a demonic force. laura and tucker talk about sidney powell as an idiot. i think tucker calls her an f word, b word. the hatred that they have for

trump is literally exceeds some of the vitriol you hear from democratic elected officials. it is the hatred of their hostage taker. they hate him more than us who say the truth and see the truth and speak the truth. how has this impacted morale? what is it like inside fox news right now today? >> just imagine that you work there and you were a mid-level producer or something, and all of a sudden you have to hand over your private cell phone. that's where a lot of these messages came from, and that's why, you know, i think that the revelations we've seen have been so extraordinary. these weren't company phones by and large. this is rupert murdoch, lachlan mourdock's personal phone. dominion scored a major legal victory over the summer that the judge allowed them to do that. >> why didn't they settle before that? >> that's when fox fired its last legal team and hired this new one.

i think they haven't dominion wn dollars and an apology, effectively, and fox probably could do the billion dollars but it's not going to apologize. i think the people at dominion see this as something bigger than just a numerical figure. if you read their brief when they initially filed this case, it's very clear they see democracy itself on the line, and if you can get away with spreading the kinds of lies that people on fox did, then, you know, what good is the first amendment? so it's interesting that they've definitely taken a -- well, fox especially, that rupert has settled as you point out, for much lower stakes, right? i think they think because they can get in front of a jury and maybe persuade one or two people that, you know, defamation cases are really hard to win, and there's reasonable doubt here of some kind. if i were fox's lawyers, that's probably what i would be saying.

>> you think they can win? >> ronnell would know better -- every time we've talked about this, she's always pointed out, you know, it's not enough to disseminate the lie. it has to be a knowing lie. getting inside the heads of people to prove that it was a knowing lie is really hard to do. there's a lot of evidence in this case that points in that direction. one that you and i haven't talked about yet, but i know really stuck with you is tucker carlson saying that the anger that trump has whipped up in his followers is quote, unquote, deadly. he says that in an email or text chain to his producers after january 6th, contrast that with the tucker carlson we heard this week say that the capitol riots were nothing but this pleasant, peaceful meek sight seeing tour. >> right, which is like saying the super bowl is just beer drinking. you know, i have to ask this, again, i'm not a lawyer, but it

seems to me that -- and this is -- jeremy's a much better reporter and this is his beat, but my sense is that fox news would -- some people there might admit this is a very strong case against fox news. perhaps the stakes are if you've defamed dominion and all of these communications can prove that, then perhaps you've defamed brian sicknick and all those other people. the inner workings of fox show it's not a one-off to broadcast knowing lies. it is a business model. and i wonder what the legal exposure is and who would have done the legal analysis on the exposure they have now that it's been outed that their model is to broadcast, and to resist pressure even from rupert murdoch to have sean, laura and tucker to say something on the 5th acknowledging that joe biden -- there's such high level knowledge of the damage being done by the lies being broadcast. i wonder if those lies and that

knowledge and this picture into the inner workings would cause fox to examine other lisle vulnerabilities. >> yes, so i think all of those things are at stake when we're trying to make the calculation about why this hasn't settled and why it might not settle. why it might go to a jury. juries are unpredictable beasts, and particularly so in libel suits, and the first amendment arguments here are incredibly strong. it is, in fact, the case that this is a very high barrier. it is not enough to show that journalistic organization was sloppy or that it was biased or that it was partisan or even that it was inaccurate. you have to show this knowing lie, this deliberate reckless disregard for the truth, and that can be quite difficult in terms of the state of mind evidence. it's also a sort of interesting component of this as jeremy noted that both sides here -- this is not your standard

run-of-the-mill defamation claim. both sides here can claim to have democracy on their side, presumably fox lawyers planned to come in and make power. first amendment arguments about how critically important it is that we not be able to weaponize defamation suits, that it be very difficult to bring a case like this and to win a case like this against the press, and that's a democracy preservation argument. dominion's argument here is that democracy is actually on its side, that because when -- when we tell a false narrative about something as important as the integrity of a presidential election, it's not just dominion that is harmed by this. it is the entirety of democracy, and that kind of tension to place in front of a jury i think is -- makes for a very complicated story line here once we move to the jury stage.

>> ron nell anderson jones for helping us make sense of all of it, jeremy peters for your incredible reporting on the story, thank you very much. when it comes to worldwide threats to the homeland, there's one that rises above all the rest, and yet, some republicans refuse to acknowledge it. what that threat is and what it means for our collective safety is our next story. afety is our next story. in your vaca, it isn't really a vacation... ...is it? [birds chirping]

lomita feed is 101 years old this year and counting. i'm bill lockwood, current caretaker and owner. when covid hit, we had some challenges like a lot of businesses did. i heard about the payroll tax refund, it allowed us to keep the amount of people that we needed and the people that have been here taking care of us. see if your business may qualify. go to getrefunds.com.

so, you're 45. that's the perfect age to see some old friends, explore new worlds, and to start screening for colon cancer. yep. with colon cancer rising in adults under 50, the american cancer society recommends starting to screen earlier, at age 45. i'm cologuard, a noninvasive way to screen at home, on your schedule. and i find 92% of colon cancers. i'm for people 45+ at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you.

but in the context of terrorism, your conclusion is that racially and ethically motivated violent extremists are a more lethal threat to americans than isis or al qaeda or hezbollah? >> the fact that it is the most lethal threat with respect to u.s. persons is something that we actually stated, i think, over two years ago in another report as well that similarly laid out these different issues, and it simply is a question of how many people, how many u.s. persons are killed or wounded as a consequence of attacks. >> director burns, do you agree that racially and ethically motivated violent extremists are a more lethal threat to americans than isis or al qaeda? >> i agree with senator with what director haynes just said, that if you measure this in terms of, you know, american lives lost or people who were wounded, i think those statistics bear that out. >> it's just a numbers thing, senator tom cotton today in an annual hearing on threats to the

homeland either couldn't or wouldn't accept it at face value, that the intelligence community's annual assessment of global threats facing the united states right now today gave top billing in terms of the data and the numbers to racially and ethically motivated violent extremists. let's bring into our coverage "washington post" intelligence and national security reporter shane harris, and ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser to president obama, he is now an msnbc contributor. shane, these are two very sober intelligence professionals who are just not built to deviate from what the data says. what was this line of questioning about? >> yeah, i mean, senator cotton was essentially trying to get them to say do you think, you know, domestic radicals are more of a threat to americans that are foreign terrorists. they're very careful with the language. if you look at the threat assessment that was released of how they classify racially or

ethically motivated extremism, it's clear that it's not saying only domestic actors, it can be foreign ones as well. if you just add up the numbers, if we talk about threats in terms of people who are killed or injured, and i think we would all agree that's a pretty decent metric for this, that yes, that these kinds of ethically and religiously motivated groups are killing more people and are a threat to more americans than isis or al qaeda is, not that those are incidental threats that they haven't been bigger. just a stat i looked up, this is from the government accountability office, which remember is the legislative agency that reports facts to members of congress, which finds that according to the department of homeland security, between 2010 and 2021, there were 231 cases of dmis domestic terrorism in the united states, and of those about 35%, the largest category were classified as racially or ethically motivated. that's congress's own research arm saying essentially what the

heads of the intelligence agencies just told senator cotton. >> you know, ben, it's the resistance to the facts that i think is the ominous thing in this story. the facts speak for themselves as shane just said. they are the facts produced by the branch in which mr. cotton serves as well as the branch in which he's questioning. it is the pressing against the facts and the resistance to the facts of where the threats lie that i think are really alarming and especially as you hear these things come out of, you know, in tom cotton's case, people who have the ears and the attention and the respect of a lot of other republicans. >> yeah, and i mean, what's really important here as you say, nicolle, this is not like an assertion of an opinion. this isn't like an analytical forecast that this is a building problem. that's how it's framed on the right, that people on the left are trying to label them as

something. you saw this at cpac, there was kind of a bizarre display, we are all domestic terrorists, as if it was either a badge or honor or they were kind of making fun of this label, but the reality, the cold hard facts are that americans are being killed and wounded by that form of extremism. and this is what's really important, it's not just simply that crime is happening. it is an ideologically supported movement that is fueling those racially and ethically motivated acts of violence, those acts of domestic terrorism. and you know, if you're looking from a national security perspective, you separate out violent extremism that leads to violence from other types of crime. and this is the facts that avril and bill are representing in the hearings. it's just this is what's happening. it'shearings. this is what's happening. it's like arguing with the weather or something. for tom cotton to think that's a gotcha moment for the intelligence community is kind of a self-owned in its own way.

>> he's been having a lot on the hill. i do. the to ask you both about china, which also came up in this hearing. stick around through a quick break. we'll all be right back. quick break. we'll all be right back.

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! ♪♪ 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. moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. it disrupts my skin with rash. with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection. it's one pill, once a day. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin while some saw up to 100% clear skin. and, they felt dramatic and fast itch relief some as early as 2 days. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal, cancers including lymphoma and skin cancer, death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq, as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant.

disrupt the itch and rash of eczema. talk to your doctor about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save. diabetes can serve up a lot of questions, like, "what is your glucose?" and "can you have more carbs?" before you decide... with the freestyle libre 2 system know your glucose level and where it's headed. no fingersticks needed. manage your diabetes with more confidence. and lower your a1c. the number one doctor prescribed cgm. freestyle libre 2. try it for free at freestylelibre.us despite this directly critical rhetoric, we assess that beijing still believes it benefits most by preventing a spiraling of texs and by preserving stability in its relationship with the united states.

specifically beijing wants to preserve stability, avoid economic punishments from sanctions and partners with the united states. to help relationships around the world even while signaling opposition to claim provocations including the shoot down of the balloon. he wants a period of relative in difficulies. >> that was the director of national intelligence. that was the latest assessment on china. >> it's an important cautionary note. one of the notable things in the hearing is that unlikely a decade ago in al qaeda and foreign terrorism were teached, china and russia are the two adversaries.

you have congress taking this up as a select committee focuses on the communist party, the administration is taken a hawkish stance. she does point out that china is intermangled with the united states economically. there's an interest in china in not seeing relationship go off the rails. which was not the discussions in washington as balloons are being shot out of the sky. it's also very important she noted one of the incentives for that is they are going to at a rough edge themselves the reality this is not in a cold war space that they may want the

to preserve the stability. that's not always the message out of a confrontational washington these days. >> you get the last word. >> i think ben is right. with the director is trying to do here is signal to people it's a phrase you hear in foreign poicy say russia is the weather, china is climate change. it's a long-term strategic challenge for the united states operating on multiple levels. and you can do worse than the threat assessment to really the get a pretty nuanced view of that. officials reallyed to leave lawmakers in the public with this message that we're all focused on what's going on with russia and ukraine and that conflict is grinding on. but it is china that pose this is long-term challenge to the u.s. but importantly, they are thot necessarily looking to get into a fight with the united states. they are watching what's happening with russia too. and turning the west against them. that's not necessarily a fight that china. s to pick. that's the message out of the intel community today. >> thank you so much for spending some time with us on

that. up next here, a joint interview with the the lead investigator of the january 6th committee and a member of that committee. don't go anywhere. of that comme don't go anywhere.

y'all wayfair's got just what you need for your home. do they have stylish beds at great prices? 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.

it's security for a reason to keep bad guys from breaking in and overturning the government. we're focusing on january 6th and the maga mob, but isis, there's a lot of bad guys in the world that would like to know how to get in. >> it's 5:00 in new york. it comes on the heels of fox news host tucker carlson two years, two months and two days after january 6th airing highly senitive security footage from

the insurrection. it could become a road map for those who could do us harm now or in the future. footage that was gifted to tucker carlson by republican speaker.com km and is being used to down play and distort the events of january 6th. the condemnations are piling up at this hour. late today president biden tweeted this. quote, more than 140 officers were injured on january 6th. i have said it before. how dare anyone diminish or deny the hell they went through i stand with the capitol police. i hope house republicans feel ashamed for what was done to undermine our law enforcement. and now after and in the wake of tucker carlson's dangerous and potentially deadly, we get word that republicans are taking it one step further as they always do. launching an investigation into is the january 6th select committee itself. which, quote, will review whether pertinent information

about the riot was omitted the cherry on top, it will be headed up by, you can't make this up, none other than representative barry loudermilk, the congressman accused of giving tours of the capitol in the days before the insurrection. the goal of this new investigation, if you will, will be analyzing how the panel kuktd the january 6th investigation. this subcommittee will be made up of four republicans and two democrats and will comb through 2 million documents and records. it's expected to focus on the security failures around january 6th. in other words, what we have is investigating the investigators 2.0. or 3.0? can't keep track. former select committee vice chair liz cheney tweeted, if the house gop wants new january 6 hearings, bring it on. let's replay every witness and all the evidence from last year. but this time, those members who

sought pardons scl/or hid from subpoenas should sit on the days so they can be confronted on live tv with the unassailable evidence. liz cheney's battle cry is where we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. former lead investigator is back. also joining us is congresswoman so lofgren of california. current member of the judiciary committee is wac. and joining us at the table is. i start with you, congresswoman. on the news that's broken just this afternoon that congressman loudermilk of all members of the body, will conduct an investigation of the investigation. your reaction? >> well, barry is a member of the house administration committee, but it's an unfortunate choice. the committee did ask him to

explain why he was giving a tour to somebody who showed up on the 5th of january, who showed up the next day at the capitol threatening the life of speaker pelosi. and this guy was taking pictures of the tunnels from the building into the capitol. he was taking pictures of stairwells and hall waist, not usual tourist spots. we didn't accuse him of anything. we just wanted him to explain how this happened. i would still like to know how he ended up doing that. maybe he will explain it. >> do you think that's what is going on here? that he's interested in explaining anything about this tour he gave. again, i know we're in this moment where what we see with our own eyes is being called into question, but we can see with our own eyes that we have

all been on tours. this is not a normal tour when you're filming stairwells and doorways. >> exactly. as was said, we developed evidence that representative loudermilk was escorting some constituents, some add-ones, this person taking pictures had met the constituents on a bus the day before and was taking pictures of stairwells and of tunnels. they didn't go to the capitol. it wasn't a tour of the capitol. it was in the house office building, but it was on the day before the riot. it was a time when the building is not open to the public. so anyone who came in had had to be escorted in by a member of congress. and we had a lot of questions for representatives of congress. we wrote them letters. we issued some subpoenas, and no one came to tell us of their perspective. we were very open minded and every relevant fact not just about so.net find it ironic that

there's an investigation being led by people who were refused to provide relevant information when it was sought by the committee. >> how much of this is because jim jordan bombed? >> i think that kevin mccarthy has wanted to do the investigation for awhile. if you recall he did send a record of preservation letter some months ago, and he has been talking with barry loudermilk about conducting it. they feel personally aggrieved by the january 6th committee. he thinks he was smeared and he is -- really, the strategy of this is to try to get back at the investigators so they are going to see what they can find. this is under of protecting the

capitol. i would get guest they will allege that security failures were covered up by the january 6th committee, but that seems to be the type of inquiry they are going down. >> and louder milk is -- at some level, it's funny, but he was aggrieved because this indisputable evidence of people he led around the house office building hurt his feelings? why him? >> they think that he was painted atsz an insurrectionist and he claims he's not. he feels personally agrieved by the january 6th committee as well. so a lot of this is kwut personal. if you were looking from strategic political lens, this would not be the move you'd do.

>> this is courthouse. >> to make january 6th once again the focus of the country when that day was so bad for your party and you want everyone to focus on this again and again, i would think if you're mitch mcconnell or one of the senate republicans who is trying to take back the senate, this is the last thing in the world you want to talk about. so we'll see how this pans out and how the strategy works. >> congresswoman, to luke's point, wouldn't you call mitch mcconnell, who associated himself with the police assessment? you really have over here on earth one where we reside and all democrats, all independents, journalists outside of fox news, and many republicans it would appear, associate themselves with the capitol police assessment of that day. it was not sightseeing. it would appear that if he thought it was sightseeing, why

would he be aggrieved? >> i don't get it. we didn't accuse him of anything. we just wanted to find out why this rioter ended up with him taking pictures of the tunnel between the office building and the capitol and other stairwells and the like. he wouldn't answer. it wasn't just that. we tried to get to the bottom of a lot of information. we asked first for our colleagues to come in and talk to us. when they refused to respond in some cases, we subpoenaed them. they just blew it off. so i guess a subpoena to a member of congress is a mere request or suggestion. i guess that's their position. i don't see how they can pretend that january 6th was anything other than what it was. a riot, people died. there was an effort really led by the ex-president to overturn

the election, to seize power illegally. how they are going to try to paint that as something else, good luck. >> this brings us back to what is a conspiracy to rewrite the day. i'm not suggesting a criminal one, but kevin mccarthy, whose patron political saint is donald trump, has bequeathed 41,000 of security footage to tucker carlson. it's a closed circuit. what tucker carlson has said on air is that it was nothing more than sightseeing, which is like saying a bar is nothing more than nachos or or the super bowl is nothing more than beer. there might have been a couple sight seers, but it was a deadly insurrection, so said all the republicans and fox news hosts if their private texts in one way or another. what do you think is going on? >> the president's son said the same thing. really what bothers me on so

many levels thatter they are trying to lie about this, but the capitol police, they took a tremendous beating. and i've talked in many officers. they were injured. the woman who testiied covered in blood on the west steps of the capitol. and to diminish their brave service is just really disgusting. and i'll tell you another thing that really bothered me was to diminish the death of officer sicknick. he was injured terribly during the fight to keep the mob out of the capitol. he died the next day. to diminish that is a disgrace. i just don't see how they can look in the mirror. >> your thoughts on both the decision to are recast the

insurrection y ways that are at odds with what republicans saw and said out loud that day. >> two points. we thought it was really important to release everything. this narrative going back to the investigation of the investigation that there's anything hidden is just ludicrous. we wrote a report. we held hearings which present ed a subset of the evidence, but then we released everything. so every person whom we spoke in a transcribed interview or a deposition, that is available. so general walker and men and wum who valiant ily defended the capitol, all of that is part of the. to suggest there was a misleading impression given, we showed our work. we didn't just give you the sum of the equation. we showed you the work sheet that informed that conclusion. i'm glad we did. ms. lofgren is one of the people arguing correctly that this should be made part of the

record so we can learn from it. what tucker carlson is doing is picking and choosing bits and pieces of capitol police surveillance footage and creating false narratives. the officer sicknick example is a great example that she was just talking about. officer sicknick continued to engage with rioters, continued to try to disperse crowds from the crypt. he then died the next day of natural causes that was informed by the stress and experience that he suffered on january 6th. that's the opinion of the medical examiner, a doctor, whose view i trust more than tucker carlson's or any of us. there were a lot of officers that while injured continued to do their duty. caroline edwards, one of our

witnesses, was concussed, knocked over. then pepper sprayed. she was standing right next to brian sicknick, yet she continued to defend the capitol. and everyone whose lives were at stake because of this attack. and to suggest that the january 6th committee is somehow spin ing a false narrative that the officer was a victim is offensive because officer sicknick and lots of others brave fought and suffered ultimate consequences as a result. >> because of the dominion suit, we're all learning just enough about first amendment law to be slightly dangerous. is it defamatory? >> i'll leave it to the litigation to say whether it's defamatory. what's been fascinating to me about the litigation is that it just proves what we were saying all along that this was a big lie. that lots of people who knew that the election was not stolen, was not infected by massive fraud, continued to

repeat the allegations that it was. the former president first among them and including some of his mega phones on fox news. irresponsie pedaling false narrative. that's outrageous. that reenforces that the attack on the capitol was motivated by lies to the american people. a lot of people at the capitol sincerely believed that the election was stolen. that's because people lied to them. that was one of the central take aways of our investigation and the dominion lawsuit is just provided further evidence of that. >> so not people, tucker carlson lied to them. fox news lied to them. i'm sure he was not watching this show. if they watch television, had they watch fox news. when you read through the dominion documents and i'm not a lawyer, i'm not a first amendment lawyer, but i have lived in this political moment.

i have existed in a different version of the republican party. i have watched this version of the republican party and fox news with horror. and the e-mails bear it out. it's a horrific place. it's a place where their hatred for donald trump is their political prisoners in some ways of trumpism, which they helped create. what is your feeling reading through the internal calculations to knowingly lie to their viewers? >> as a journalist, you can understand when there are heated debates in newsrooms about what to do. but the debates are always about the truth. it's never about lying or should we spin this in some way and take something back. so what happened at fox, it was the two people that called arizona correctly got fired. and then the rest of the company is trying to take back the correct call, the good analysis

that they did because it's upsetting the viewers because trump is demanding it. so then even the straight news reporters are get spoog saying, we have to change this. so over and over again in that lawsuit you see how considerations were being made that were not about what was right and wrong, but about how to please this audience and losing viewers to even further write outlets like newsmax, who had a tempered resurge at the time because they were telling the people what they wanted to hear that the election was stolen and trump had won. and that fox was panicking to try to respond. and really got themselves in a lot of hot water because of it. >> the foremost journalists covering the select committee's work in their investigative methods and their investigative product, this decision to disclose everything was in if a part to blunt what's about to happen.

but i wonder what you think about the fact that so much evidence came out about their own conscientious of guilt. that cassidy hutchinson testimony is clear they were all pigs at the trough. how much of it is also concern that jack smith may be interested in scrutinizing them? >> one of the things that's been alleged at the very start of this congress was that the house investigations would act as a bull work to protect house republicans from these investigations. that they could try -- they try to allow access to ongoing criminal investigations. now that hasn't played ball with any of that. they told them to pound sand when they demand these documents. but you can see how you can try to use these committees to interfere with an investigation and to try to create a bull work for the very members of the

house republican caucus. >> and how much of your understanding having been inside doj, having worked at doj, do you think any of these members should be scrutinized criminally? >> jack smith has proven he's going to look under every rock and open every toor for relevant thfgs. and no person is sort of carved out from or exempt from that investigation. our investigation showed that there were members of congress who were in direct communication with the president and his legal team about the alternate electors theory, whether the vice president is would send back slates of electors or accept these. i think the special counsel will examine that entire course of dealing in the course of making decisions. my guess is they are focused on

con spear tort y'all conduct. and if evidence they shared that intelligence and took steps to that goal, then they are absolutely targets of the investigation. i don't know that. the special counsel is in the midst of that investigation, but what's in our report suggests that there's potential evidence of congressional involvement in that conspiracy. >> we have much, much more with our panel. we'll turn to kevin mccarthy's gift of the thousands of of hours of january 6th surveillance video someone who through this lawsuit we know clearly knew what he was doing when he pedalled the big lie. now despite everything that we all have before us, he is still using it on his broadcast every night this week, we believe. talk about its aftermath and risking national security as a business model. don't go anywhere. national secua

business model don't go anywhere. ♪ ♪ enough was enough. i talked to an asthma specialist and found out my severe asthma is driven by eosinophils, a type of asthma nucala can help control. now, fewer asthma attacks and less oral steroids that's my nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. nucala is not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. talk to your asthma specialist to see if once-monthly nucala may be right for you. and learn about savings at nucala.com there's more to your life than asthma. find your nunormal with nucala. migraine hits hard, so u hit back with ubrelvy

u level up u won't take a time-out one dose of ubrelvy works fast it can quickly stop migraine in its tracks within 2 hours without worrying if it's too late or where you are unlike older medicines, ubrelvy is a pill that directly blocks a protein believed to be a cause of migraine. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. most common side effects were nausea and tiredness. migraine pain relief starts with u learn how abbvie could help you save. ask about ubrelvy, the anytime, anywhere migraine medicine.

i was in the vicinity of the conversation where i overheard the president say something to the effect of i don't care they have weapons. they are not here to hurt me. take the mags away. let me people in. take the mags away. >> they are not here to hurt me. take the f'ing mags away. it's stunning to listen to. the indictment of the disgraced ex-president's willingness to play fast and loose with lethal

weapons on january 6th. because as he said, they weren't there to hurt him so he didn't care. that was cassidy hutchinson's testimony. as we said, haunting then. as we watch tucker carlson do what he's doing, playing fast and loose with the safety and security of members of congress today, by choosing to broadcast highlytive security footage from january 6th the movement has been condemned not just for how it distorts the events, but how it the creates a road map for others who would do us harm domestic or torn. the panel is back with us. congresswoman, i'm coming back to you on this persistent question i have about how far the committee went in proving trump's knowledge and enthusiasm for the violence and the people carrying it out. what role do you think trump views tucker carlson as playing now in this rewrite?

it's called truth socialing for tucker carlson and kevin mccarthy this week. why do you think it's so important to trump's potentially even his legal defense to have it written as peaceful. >> i would never try to guess what the ex-president is planning or thinking or what his motive is, but obviously, there's a jury pool. if members of the jury think that this was a tourist visit instead of a riot, that would be one issue. he is going to run, clearly, for reelection. calling a mob to washington and sending them armed to the capitol is not really a great talking point to most of the electorate. so it might be helpful to him to try to rewrite that history. finally, i don't know what kind

of conscioudisdisplayed it, but a woman was trampled to death. the poor woman who was convinced by trump that she should break in and attack the members of congress in the speaker's lobby, she lost her life. officer sicknick died. there were others grievously injured. i don't know if he feels guilt from that day. so maybe that's a factor in trying to rewrite it to escape the blame that he deserves. you never know with the ex-president. >> i think those close to him have attested that there is no capacity for remorse in him. let me ask you one more thing, congresswoman. you have been so generous with your team. he said in speech, i am your

retribution. what do you think is going on at doj when you have trump so clearly talking to them? trump's speech at cpac wasn't for the sad few who gathered there. his speech was for jack smith. it was for alvin bragg. it you're trump, it looks like it's worked so far. other than your committee, everyone else has blanked in the face of seeking to hold donald trump accountable. what do you think prosecutors are say whg he said i am your retribution? >> i think he's shone that he has no respect for the rule of law. throughout our report, we proved that. he's made it pretty clear that he would like to pardon rioters who harmed police officers and who have pled guilty to crimes.

he really is not on the side of law and order. you're probably right. this is an explicit threat to the prosecutors and i'm going to bet that they are not going to be intimidated. you can't allow somebody to undercut our constitution, our rule of law and escape accountability for that. our committee was not willing to allow that, and i don't believe prosecutors, both state as well as federal prosecutors, are going to be intimidated. i hope not at least. >> hope thot as well. congresswoman, thank you for your time today. tim, i want to come to you with the same question. donald trump is doing what he has done. he taunted robert mueller from the oval office and used the bully pulpit of the presidency to tweet hourly at comey until he fired him, the at rod rosenstein, who was harassed into an incredibly diminished political state, jeff sessions,

who have reported to have wept. he's doing it again. from your read of those inside doj today, how do you think they received that? >> i think it makes no difference to them, literally none. i take general garland at his word that he's going to make this decision based on the facts as developeds and the law. and bluster from the former president, krut schism or praise from outside sources, i don't think matter. he knows that a lot of people are going to praise the charging decision either way. a lot of people are going to criticize it either way.

there's no scenario by which he threads the needle and somehow pleases everyone. prosecutors aren't there to please people. they are there to do justice. i credit his repeated assertions he and the people around him that that is what will guide them. he's hired an incredibly talented team of really veteran doj lawyers who have been through trials, very difficult and contested trials, public integrity and otherwise in the past. he's geared up more recently and made recent hires, which is adding even more talent and fire power and trial skills. and the subpoenas to the former vice president, to members of the president's family, all of that to me looks like we're getting increasingly close to a decision. that decision is likely an indictment. it's happening in atlanta. i don't think they are intimidated by the president saying i'm your retribution. she's a long-time law and order prosecutor who has made hard decisions knowing they would be

unpopular. president trump always thought that agencies of government were there sort of for him. there's a whole narrative about him attempting to use the justice department to take actions that were part of his plan to disrupt the joint session. and the career people at the justice department, who he appointed, said that's thot how it works. the department of justice follows the and the law. and we're not going to send this bogus letter to state officials in georgia. we are not going to urge legislatures to hold special sessions. that's not our business. so he's always misunderstood sort of the appropriateness that independent executive agencies, the fidelity they have to not new interests. >> nothing less of what you just articulated is on the line as he makes clear he's running. he sits atop the republican

field. as our highly polarized and sort of politics make clear, nothing is impossible in terms of this political fate. i want to press both of you on some of the evidence that we saw from the congressional probe and try to match it up to some of the headlines we're trying to read about the investigation. that's next. don't go anywhere ut the investin that's next. don't go anywher okay i did it. is he looking at my hairline? my joint pain isn't too bad. well, it wasn't this morning. i hope i can get through this. is plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis making you rethink your everyday choices? otezla is a pill, not a cream or injection that can help people with plaque psoriasis achieve clearer skin. otezla is also proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain in psoriatic arthritis. and no routine blood tests required. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss.

upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over 8 years. i'm so glad i made it through the day. ♪ don't hesitate. ask your doctor about otezla today. moving forward with node- positive breast cancer is overwhelming. but i never just found my way; i made it. and did all i could to prevent recurrence. verzenio reduces the risk of recurrence of hr-positive, her2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer with a

high chance of returning,... as determined by your doctor when added to hormone therapy. hormone therapy works outside the cell... ...while verzenio works inside to help stop the growth of cancer cells. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an anti-diarrheal, and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain, and rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. i'm making my own way forward. ask your doctor about - life is uncertain. everyday pressures can feel overwhelming it's okay to feel stressed, anxious, worried, or frustrated. it's normal. with calhope's free and secure mental health resources,

it's easy to get the help you and your loved ones need when you need it the most. call our warm line at (833) 317-4673 or live chat at calhope.org today. . we are so lucky that tim and luke are still here. what i want to ask is you look

at the january 6th investigation. you look at where pat cipollone drew lines. you look at what trump is fighting he's fighting to keep pat cipollone, the most colorful testimony before the congressional probe, and another deputy from getting before a grand jury. why? >> if you read the transcripts of the january 6th committee, which i have and you have, you will see time and time again these people who are very close to donald trump and mike pence will tell a lot of things to the january 6th committee. but they will get up to a certain line where they will invoke some sort of privilege. either attorney/client or executive privilege. they are really close to telling them something, and then they cut it off. and right now, there's a lot of

litigation going on about whether that privilege can be invoked in a criminal investigation. they could do it before congress, different rules, different standards. don't know what those things are that they couldn't tell, so you really want to know this information. so they are fighting very hard to block them from saying whatever it is. i don't know what it is. but there's a reason donald trump does not want the grand jury to hear it. >> this is a great way. we all felt that in your questioning. two questions, do you know what's on the other side of the line? it's clear donald trump knows what's on the other side of the line. does jack smith know what's on the other side of the line? >> i think what's on the other side of the line is more direct evidence of what our committee found secondhand. we got a lot of information from people about their own personal views, but they stopped short of

telling us what they conveyed to the president. pat cipollone was a perfect example. he was in meetings with the president and vice president. when we asked him what was said in the meeting, did the vice president convey something to the president about his position, did you weigh in on the vice president's authority, he stopped short of any privilege. he told us what he thought, which is i didn't think the vice president had the authority to reject certified states of electors. now the circumstantial evidence there is that pat cipollone and others conveyed to the president their view that the vice president did not have that authority. mark short, similarly, withheld from us his personal knowledge of direct communications between the vice president and the president for which he was president or which the vice president told hum about. but he told us the vice president was rz lute from the beginning he had no such authority to reject the lek torts. . his power on january 6th was limited. he never waivered from that.

so we don't have the direct evidence of what mike pence said to president trump. that's why jack smith wants to get it directly from mike pence and overcome the privilege or speech and debate objection. but we know from the circumstantial evidence that we developed what the content of that conversation was. so my guess is when this is litigated and if those advisers to the president are forced to step back from the privilege assertions that we get direct evidence of what we already know occurred that the election wasn't stolen and the vice president had no authority on january 6th to reject these certified electors. >> your knowledge of the law, is there any precedent to lead you to indicate one way or the other how this judge might rule? >> well, the criminal context makes it really different. in a congressional oversight, in

any privilege assertion, it's a qualified privilege. the protection of private communications are weighed against the compelling need for the information. congressional oversight is a compelling need, but it isn't as compelling as a grand jury investigation. if there's criminal culpability, that that overcomes privilege assertion. there's a stronger predicate in the balance of account witties that a judge does in a qualified privilege inquiry. there's a procedural benefit that the special counsel has that we didn't have. if there's a privilege, that immediately goes to the chief judge for adjudication. she can assemble the parties, hear arguments and rule. i'm not sure that the ruing is immediately appealable. that maybe assumed in a direct appeal if there's an dooumt in a criminal conviction. conversely, we did not have the benefit of a judge sitting in chambers ready to adjudication

privilege. we had to go through a civil process, pleadings, weeks and weeks and witnesses knew they could weigh this out. we were on a clock. so they could make a really clearly baseless privilege assertion and we weren't able to get a judge fast enough to rule on it in time before we finished our work. jack smith is not burdened by that procedural handicap and can get rulings quickly. i don't know anything, but he's already gotten such rulings with respect to cipollone and they may have provided testimony about those direct communications where they asserted privilege. >> i just want to ask you one question and conclusion. given your response to luke that there is a much faster and more efficient method in a criminal investigation like with jack smith is waging, and given what you said about the strength and circumstantial evidence, do you have a prediction on how long it could take jack smith to charge donald trump or others?

>> we gave them a huge head start with the evidence we amassed. we gave it all to him. we turned over every transcript and all the of the documents we obtained. it was frantic at the end of our time in existence. we were putting all of that together to provide to the special counsel. so there was a lot there on which he could build. he's going to go further because of this very issue sort of pushing through privilege assertion ises. there's also a policy of not taking any enforcement action that might impact an election. there's generally a zone around an election, before an election where the department stops short of bringing a charge or executing a search warrant or doing anything this might impact. so that argues for haste. and if they are going to do this, they need to do it soon. this spring or summer. well in advance of the primary season and the 2024 election. and the final thing is the fact that he's serving subpoenas to

mike pence and to ivanka and jared. these are central witnesses very high up in the sort of factual cast of characters. for all those reasons, i get a sense he's moving with spach and will be made in the coming months, enough time in advance of the election to abide by the doj policy. >> wow. tim and luke, what a treat for us to get to talk to you for the hour. thank you so much. thank you. i want to let our viewers know that if you like what you have been listening to, there's on our deadline legal blog. we had a chance to sit down with tim. you can find that i by scanning the qr code on the screen right now. we'll twooet it out later. when we come back, since we have been on the air this hour, there is a brand new filing in the defamation lawsuit by dominion voting systems against fox news. we'll tell you about it after a quick break.

don't go anywhere. quick break. don't go anywhere. ♪♪ get $1500 purchase allowance on a 2023 cadillac xt5 and xt6. ♪♪ visit your local cadillac dealer today. a mystery! jessie loves playing detective. but the real mystery was her irritated skin. so, we switched to tide pods free & gentle. it cleans better, and doesn't leave behind irritating residues. and it's gentle on her skin. case, closed! it's gotta be tide. ...will remain radioactive for years to come. well, thank goodness.

it's time for the "good news of the week." and, boy, do we need it. [ chuckles ] well, this safe driver saved money with the snapshot app from progressive. -how do you feel? -um, good? he's better than good. he got rewarded for driving safe and driving less. sorry, barb, just to confirm, this is the feel-good news of the week? this is what we found. -yay, snapshot! ♪ ♪ - why are these so bad? - if i would've used kayak to book our car, we could have saved on our trip instead of during our trip. ughh - kayak. search one and done. we got the house! you did! pods handles the driving. pack at your pace. store your things until you're ready. then we deliver to your new home - across town or across the country. pods, your personal moving and storage team. introducing new sweet and savory 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. a man, his family, and his tractor, penny. these are the upshaws. and this is their playground. there's a story in every piece of land, run with us on a john deere tractor and start telling yours. y'all wayfair's got just what you need for your home. do they have stylish beds at great prices?n a john deere tractor 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. i was always the competitive it'd bone in our family...it. 'til my sister signed up for

united healthcare medicare advantage. ♪wow, uh-huh♪ now she's got a whole team to help her get the most out of her plan. ♪wow, uh-huh♪ with coverage that's better than ever for dental... ...vision... ...prescription drugs and more. advantage: me! can't wait 'til i turn 65! aarp medicare advantage plans, only from unitedhealthcare. take advantage now at uhc.com/medicare there's another new filing this afternoon from dominion voting systems. a defamation lawsuit is a brief responding to fox news and it is in support of dominion's request, which is a ruling i by the judge to basically awe void going to trial. it's an incredible filing and blasts fox news. it begins, finally, fox has conceded what it knew all along.

the charges fox broadcast against dominion are false. fox does not spend a word of its brief arguing the truth of any accused statement. fox has produced no evidence, none, zero, supporting those lies. if fox cared about the truth that it now acknowledges fox would have its top personalities reporting that truth to its audience. today, if not for dominion's sake, then for the sake of the significant percentage of americans who still wrongly believe the 2020 election was stolen. including so many of fox's own loyal viewers. who heard it over and over again on fox's air waives after all as rupert myrrh dock admitted, he's positioned to state the message that the the uniquely positioned to state the message that the election was not stolen, end quote. though fox failed to do so back when it mattered most. back with you now, a first amendment scholar.

what's your reaction to this latest filing? >> well, this is a really interesting brief, in part because it focusses on something that we've not been talking about that much in the dominion case. a lot of the attention has been focused so far on what fox knew and when it knew it. this brief leads off dominion leads into this precursor question of the truth or falsity of the claims. dominion is saying here we're reading the materials that fox has submitted and they've been very careful not to assert that it was accurate. they are not asserting that dominion did in fact engage in the stealing of an election, that dominion did not -- was not started in venezuela to shift boats for hugo chavez. fox isn't asserting this, and

dominion here is leading with this in part i think to demonstrate the tension that is ongoing at fox news between the preferences of those viewers who want to continue to hear a steady diet of election denialism and the position that fox has to take in this case, that we know in part because of the aftermath, the commentary of donald trump in the aftermath in the release of rupert murdoch's deposition that, the online going tension between trump and trump supporters and fox as an entity rises and falls on this question of where fox will stand, what positions fox will take on these questions of election denialism. here dominion is asserting really strongly fox won't take the position that this is true

because it can't. >> you keep thinking about the broader framework for what fox news hosts are now revealed to have said, and it would be as though we had super bowls but if the outcome was going to anger the rowdier fans, it didn't clear it with the refs. fox news is out against itself. it's out to purge its own fact checkers. its animosity and fear of trump surrogates who are peddling the lies to viewers they feared, how much is this sort of cycle of almost operationalized lying to the viewers, how much is that also under scrutiny legally? >> well, this is definitely a theme of the most recent filing. dominion characterizes this as fox being trapped in a problem of its own making, that it

developed a relationship with its viewers that rose and fell on loyalty to trump and then found itself with that audience gravitating away to other sources that were more willing to engage in this election denialism and these conspiracy theories, and even found itself with trump himself suggesting that people shouldn't be watching fox, that fox had failed them. and one of the complicated questions that continues to exist in -- on this case is that as this litigation continues, fox in some respects finds itself in that same box. we continue to see that trump is pushing and suggesting that fox should embrace the election denialism, that it should take those positions that he was advancing, but fox can't do so in the case and as we litigate the deliberateness of the lie, we have to also litigate the

fact of the lie. there is the truth and falsity of these claims are at the center of this litigation and this most recent filing from dominion really highlights that. >> and this is a filing, rennel, for summary judgment. explain what that means and whether you think that will be successful. >> yes, a motion for summary judgment is made suggesting there is no need to move to a jury trial. all of the determination -- if we assumed the facts in the way that is most favorable to the opposing party, it would still come out in your favor. so essentially dominion is asking that the judge declare it at this stage without moving to trial. we have these warring motions, each asking the judge to rule

for them so they don't have to go to trial. the trial has tentatively set for a month from now, in april. assuming the motions were denied, we're getting sort of a precursor, a preview of what they look like, this is the same evidence that, of course, would be presented to a jury should we move to that stage. >> and is it your sense, are you able to predict if it is heading to a jury trial? >> well, we haven't seen any significant indicators that anybody's moving towards settling this case, which is a real surprise in some respects because major libel cases involving the media often settle before they get to this stage. whether either of the parties has a strong enough case to be able ask for this and win this motion for summary judgment i think is a real open question. in part some of what we see in today's filing from dominion really demonstrates the core

tensions that are at stake here. both parties here are arguing that constitutional values and the central values of our democracy are on their side. fox is arguing this is a major first amendment matter, that it's critically important that we protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but dominion is arguing that democracy is on its side, that this was a major lie about an election and lots of people were harmed. >> rennel anderson jones, thank you so much for sticking around and helping us make sense of this today. another quick break and we'll be right back. ick break and we'll e right back

♪ ♪ ♪ get directv with a two year price guarantee. 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. this is going to be great. taking the shawl off. okay i did it. is he looking at my hairline? my joint pain isn't too bad. well, it wasn't this morning. i hope i can get through this. is plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis making you rethink your everyday choices? otezla is a pill, not a cream or injection that can help people with plaque psoriasis achieve clearer skin. otezla is also proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain in psoriatic arthritis. and no routine blood tests required.

don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over 8 years. i'm so glad i made it through the day. ♪ don't hesitate. ask your doctor about otezla today. as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. don't hesitate. 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.

thank you so much for letting us