it's official, america. xfinity mobile is the fastest mobile service. and gives you unmatched savings with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 a line per month. the fastest mobile service and major savings? can't argue with the facts. no wonder xfinity mobile is one of the fastest growing mobile services, now with over 5 million customers and counting. save hundreds a year over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. talk to our switch squad at your local xfinity store today.

hi, everyone we start with the fireworks in washington, d.c., today. emanating from the committee set up by the housegop. it took republicans 15 votes now in the days and months that fod followed, the house gop has done nothing except projecting the rest of their colleagues and us to the grievance of lies and conspiracies that animate life over on earth 2 where they live. today a hearing by the so-called weaponization commit presumably focused on censorship on social

media and a lawsuit brought by the then-republican attorney general of missouri, he has to be an attorney from missouri, pushing back against efforts by social media to fight disinformation schmidt was one of two witnesses brought forward by republicans, but republican majority on this committee who testified and was dismissed, sent away before democrats could ask one single question so much for a functioning committee in which the free exchange of ideas and sharing of witnesses prevails democrats were justifiably and understandably outraged. here's what happened when a republican member tried to submit evidence from one of the excused witnesses. watch. >> seek consent to enter letter jated january 12, 2021 by louisiana attorney general jeff lanldry where he decries all political violence and calls for an end to that and asks for respect for all political viewpoints. >> he is not here.

>> you cexamine it. >> no, examine him for what he wrote and the intent behind what he said. >> i would point out that that's unanimous consent for documents and we got the document right here >> mr. chairman, i would ask -- >> that's about how things are going on that committee. democrats said that with their republican colleagues, what they are really demanding is a permission structure, license really, to freely spread disinformation one of their witnesses pointed out some of the most prominent purveyors of disinformation sit on the committee watch. >> members of this committee have claimed that dominion voting machines fraudulently flipped votes from trump to biden. that is false. members of this committee have claimed that thousands of ballots were cast on behalf of dead and unqualified voters. that is false. members of this committee have

claimed that election workers around the country counted fake or fraudulent votes. that is false. and on october 19th, 2020, chairman jordan tweeted that democrats are trying to steal the election after the election. that is false. >> facts are facts as we know, as every member of the weaponization committee learned on january 6th, disinformation has real world consequences here is delegate casey plaskett. >> senator schmidt and landry, the two witnesses dismissed before their extreme and false claims to be tested under cross-examination played an active role. they were a key part of the republican attorney general's association which sponsored a robocall urging people to come to the capitol on january 6th. that's what they were here for in their role as attorney generals during that time.

>> an important message. the march is tomorrow at the ellipse between e street and constitution avenue on the south side of the white house with doors opening at 7:00 a.m. at 1:00 p.m. we will march to the capitol building to stop the steal. we are hoping patriots like you will join us to continue to fight to protect the integrity of our elections for more information -- the call is paid for and authorized by the -- >> we just witnessed what was just given to us right now was real evidence, facts we just witnessed our very real crimes and violence that erupted because of what these witnesses' actions did. if they had been here, i'd ask them about that. >> an effort on capitol hill to push back against the republican

majority with facts by democrats serving on the house gop's committee focused on spreading disinformation it's where we begin today. one of the democratic members of that committee joins us, congressman sanchez of california, former republican congressman david jolly and jake short term-is here they are msnbc contributors. he know that democrats have nine members, republicans have 12 it seems that the work product and the effort to be substantive is an area in which democrats are running circles around their republican counterparts. i want to get at what was sort of clashing violently in terms of truth and life today. i want to start with just the fundamental competency of this committee. it seems to be lacking this was the single branded effort of the republican majority, something they started talking about before the midterms and it seems to be

embarrassing even to them. is that how you see it and codo you think that's how ty see it >> i absolutely think it's embarrassing for them. what they are doing is bringing witnesses who are making all kinds of wild allegations and bringing up these grievances and they have no facts to support anything that their witnesses said and every single republican witness that appeared before the committee today was part of the effort to overturn the 2020 election results that tells you about all you need to know about what that committee is up to and the fact that it is stacked on the republican side with donald trump's staunchest defenders and supporters should lead people to have a very healthy skepticism of what exactly is going on there. i mean, it is embarrassing that they have witnesses show up, testify and then they scurried out so that their veracity, truthfulness couldn't be tested

by questioning because i suspect, had they stuck around, we would have dissected all of the lies that they are pushing and made them look like the, you know, conspiracy theorists and extremists that they really are. >> so the way it works is that it's chairman, jim jordan, brings people on and only let's republicans ask questions and then sends them away before democrats can? is that's what's happening >> no, no, no. they give five minutes of testimony and, generally speak, both sides can questions the witnesses. he excused the witnesses and they scurried off. neither side could ask questions. that's how you test the truth of what people are saying, that's how you get at the allegations and ask people to prove what they are saying with facts and, i mean, there just aren't facts to support, like i said, these wild allegations that they are making that have no basising in fact or reality >> i want to show our viewers a little bit more of what

democrats sought to do today to inject facts and reality i have some of delegate plaskett's questions about real threats, real weaponization objectives the republicans carrying out those acts let me play that first. >> mr. chairman, you and other members of this body have sent multiple letters in your capacity as chairmen to seek to interfere in the investigation of the president by a duly elected state representative and demanding the district attorney bragg appear for a transcribed interview in a matter that is under criminal investigation that is not appropriate. that is not what this congress is supposed to be about. that is an abuse of the power of this body, of this committee, and that is the weaponization of congress plain and simple.

>> what if any response did the democrats on the committee receive with that inconvenient truth being inserted into today's hearing? >> effectively, none chairman jordan rolled over everything and diminishes and moves on they are trying to use the legislative branch to interfere in the judicial branch in an ongoing investigation, which we have a separation of branches of government for a reason. and what i suspect is going on -- i know it's going on, is a little bit of projection, because they want to say that the biden administration is weaponizing the government when, in fact, it is the republicans the committee is stacked with donald trump cronies they are trying to interfere in an ongoing investigation into donald trump because they want to protect him they want to intimidate the judicial branch from prosecuting what are, you know, crimes that have been committed by the

former president and, you know, that is the textbook definition of weaponization and abuse of power, and it's going on right now in broad daylight. and if that doesn't scare the american public, it really should. >> i want to show you another example that you just talked about or alluded to, and that's projection this is your colleague, congressman goldman, on the topic of book bans >> now, you want to talk about censorship you imagined in your opening statement a world where the fbi sends a list of books that should be pulled from their shelves. luckily, we don't have to imagine that, sir. are you aware recent laws in florida resulted in the mass removal of books that are now banned in public zmools. >> i don't know about florida. i know that we have sworn testimony from fbi agent that backs up the analogy. >> you should go look into it

because florida right now is banning books and you would agree that's a violation of the first amendment -- >> the gentleman's time expired. >> could the witness answer the question >> no, you are over your time and because you addressed the chair, i will tell you, stay tuned, there is much more to come in this committee. >> it would be funny if it weren't so bleak it's like a dmv office in belarus or something, oops, we're close,erred, can't answer the question what is the purpose of this if they don't have the confidence in their witnesses to actually engage on the substance? >> i mean, it's embarrassing and the hypocrisy is thick in that committee. and i would suggest that, you know, if my colleagues were less interested in banning books and more interested in reading them, then this committee would just be disbanded we call it the insurrection protection committee for a reason all they are trying to do is perpetuate these conspiracy

theories, these lies about the 2020 election. they are trying to blame it on joe biden. i mean, this has been litigated time and time again in the courts there has been no fraud that would have impacted the election and, you know, i honestly don't know how they can continue with this committee again in the glaring lack of any real true evidence that supports any of these crazy allegations that they are making. >> congresswoman, stay with us i want to bring in someone who covers the body and someone who once served in it. jake, you have to suspend reality to even go along with a straight face with the people on this committee i mean, it is like the rogue's gallery of apologists and defenders of the big lie that led to the deadly insurrection, that led to 140 officers being wounded, some with trauma they will deal with forever, some physical wounds that ended their careers in law enforcement where did the audacity not just

to do this, but do this in such subpar performative way come from >> well, i'll put some context here, nicole jim jordan, the chairman of the weaponization committee, is not only the chairman of the weaponization committee, but also the chairman of the judiciary committee, also somebody in charge of immigration policy, overseeing the fbi, the department of justice, and when he created the weaponization committee when republicans created it and jordan took it over, they demanded a budget as big as the january 6th committee and have got be it. that was a concession from the speaker's race that kevin mccarthy gave into jim jordan is the most powerful republican in the house. period maybe aside from mccarthy. but i would even put jordan up there. he is what we call the uber chairman he is the chairman of so much. he has so much influence, so much power, so much staff, and,

you know, that should be taken for what it is in republicans circles. so, listen, this is a -- there is a real peril here, nicole, politically for republicans. polls that the leadership seats, and i know they see it because i talk to them about it, shows that these investigations are broadly unpopular. most investigations are not popular. people see inflation high, you know, food costing too much, all of those things, and they say why is congress going on and on about this, that or the other thing? why aren't they doing anything to help me so that is the danger in carrying out these investigations for too long of a time, too long of a period >> jake, right now you are accustomed to this i think this sort of normal context and contextualizing of a person standing in their caucus is really important, but it's why the incompetence is the story we are leading with today. you jaisd jim jordan is the most

powerful republican in the body. kevin mccarthy wouldn't be speaker if not for jim jordan. he is also - >> that's true. >> voted to, other than never wearing a jacket, investigating donald trump in ways that aren't rooted in any facts. so the fact that this, you know, i'll call it bad faith, you can call it whatever you want, jihad, that he got a mountain of money -- you described a money truck being backed up and poured on to this effort. the fact that it is so shabby, the fact that the witnesses are so subpar, the fact that the nine democrats to the 12 republicans are so scary to jim jordan that they are not allowed to ask any questions, that feels like a bigger part of the story that maybe if you are staring at the trees, the forest isn't as obvious. why does he suck at this >> well, i do like the no jacket look, as you can see i hope you don't lump that in his shabbiness i think, listen, a lot of these

republicans, jordan included, have been living in an echo chamber in which reality is not reality and things are upside down and i think that is true for not only jim jordan, not only the majority of the weaponization committee, but the majority of the house respect conference has been sucked into a vortex in which up is down and down is up. any interception of that world view, nicole, is not welcome and anything they can could do to control that narrative, they are going to do. i am surprised there were no questions. i have never seen that in a congressional hearing that i have covered in my life. but any interruption of that world view is a threat and i hate to put it so bluntly, but you bring out the blunt in me, nicole any interruption of that world view is a threat to these republicans. >> i guess, david jolly, we are back at what's the point i mean, just go on the 8:00 p.m.

hour on fox news if you don't want to be interrupted in your dilutions. the dominion lawsuit proves there are things even the hosts know are delusional. why does this exist, and are you surprised by what a bad job they are doing over there on earth 2 by their own standards >> it's easy to laugh it off but it would be wrong it there is a blinking red light here, nicole, in watching what has transpired with this committee and the shutting down of any opportunity to examine witnesses, an that blinking red light is around it it suggests a permanency to this republican thread of both protecting insurrectionists and also undermining our federal institutions and federal agencies, which is ultimately what they seek to do with this committee. and then it also suggests that they really are not interested in these public debates, about in sending the clips straight to fox news where it doesn't matter what the other side could have possibly done. and the reason that's a blinking red light is understand what they are trying to do. the weaponization committee

suggests that there is a victim to the weaponization and they are suggesting that it's you, conservative, america. it's the america people that the government is after. you see them attack the fbi for trying to work with social media when the fbi and law enforcement actually, what they do with social media is try to prevent terrorist attacks and get involved in situations where information need ds to be mined to protect the safety of the american people. the other one they like tie tack attack is around covid what you see in government actors, particularly since the biden administration and cdc and nih, to advance public health and actual science and to ask social media platforms to diminish or shut down true misinformation that would risk public health. the case of inneglectk bleach into your arms or taking horse pills, whatever it was what they are seeking to accomplish, and what we can learn from their behavior today, is that they intend to continue to tell the american people your

government is after you. and if they are after you, you have a right to rise up against it that is the thread that led to january 6th. it's why the important work of congresswoman sanchez and her colleagues on the committee to insist on truth is so important. but in the republican ecosystem it may not matter. it's a blinking red light for how they intend to enter the '24 cycle i am afraid. >> i never disagree with you i don't on the hole. let me push back, respectfully i think that the result of their work is what you just said these unfiltered snippets. they don't need that they have an entire network. frankly, again, you read through the dominion lawsuit, there is so much proliferated on the right. you can get out any kind of message. frankly, on the right and disinformation, fox may have higher standards than other outlets. i think what they believed is that john durham missed something. i think they thought there was something to be found, to be -- some revelation that jim jordan

would find that john durham didn't and the fact that these two things happened at the same time, a massive years-long investigation into lack of ethics, potentially even some prosecutorial corruption or malfeasance in the durham -- happens right as jim jordan is getting geared up. and so someone that's good at this failed. i think that he got, you know, the hot air balloon gassed up ready for takeoff and then -- again, i don't know if they are capable of hearing reality, but understand that there is nothing to be revealed there is nothing >> well, unless they convinced themselves that there is understand some of these younger members who have just been elected came up in the trump conspiracy world in that crazy right wing conspiracy world around covid and the fbi and the russia probe and they got elected platforming those conspiracies i know many of them truly believe them does jordan believe them i think he does. i don't think he is a particularly smart guy i think he is a cagey guy.

clearly he falls for the conspiracies for the last three years and follows someone like donald trump who is not a person of intellect and said he is willing to embrace a conspiracy. the final piece of this, nicole, the reason they will continue to pursue it is because they have nothing else right? first the reality is they won't have any legislative accomplishments, just simply because joe biden's in the white house and democrats control the senate and also because it is a party devoid of policies and ideology the government is coming for you and we are going to be a protector and in the fight with you. that is the true danger. those are the themes that led to january 6th. >> congresswoman, i'll give you the last word. >> i was going to say that, nicole, it's true they could could upload these snippets to fox news, but it's important to them to create this appearance through using the committee structure, using the committee rooms to give this, you know,

this is serious and this is real because i think if you take the actors out of that set and put them elsewhere, then people would see them for the nuts that they really are. but i think it's important for them to have the trappings that this is somehow some kind of serious pursuit. and i think you're right that at the end of the day the american public is going to scratch their head and say, how did this help make my life easier? you know what are they doing to bring down health care costs for me or what are they doing to, you know, help make energy more affordable you know, they are not doing anything they are doing these investigations, so-called investigations, and i think at the end of the day they are going to end up with nothing and the american people are the ones that are going to suffer >> it is amazing it is an amazing spectacle i was riveted by the news that started to come out. i am grateful to you congressman sanchez and you, jake sherman. you should never wear a jacket

you heard that from me david sticks around for the hour when we come back more on what democrats have been saying is the real weaponization the twice impeached ex-president has been railing about the people who he thinks in his imagination are out to get him for years. but "the new york times" fact checks all of that with a brand-new piece of reporting with new interviews from former senior white house officials who say trump was the leader consumed with doing exact same thing. he rants about to this day. plus, was rupert murdoch calling trump's election lies quote? more just redacted emails released that reveal the extent of the right-wing media empire knew that trump's lies had inevitably led to the insurrection of the u.s. capitol and an exclusive interview with the former fox news producer on her lawsuit against that network

later in the show. the legal battle over key witness testimony called for in special counsel jack smith's january 6th probe continues. the former lead investigator for the congressional probe will join us to go through the big, big witnesses, what they could fer jack smith all those stories and more when "deadline whitehouse" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere today. ghter 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! (vo) some people say the metaverse will only be virtual. let's roll, daddio! but firefighters entering a burning house... will one day save time when lives are on the line. visualizing a patient's most recent scan...

will help speed up decision making in the er. and while the woolly mammoth is still extinct... that doesn't mean students can't take field trips to visit them. the metaverse may be virtual, but the impact will be real. you're doing business in an app driven, multi-cloud world. that's why you choose vmware. with flexible multi-cloud services that enable digital innovation and enterprise control, vmware helps you keep your cloud options open. we got the house! and enteyou did!ontrol, 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.

i am a victim of one of the great political smear campaigns in the history of our country. >> the entire thing is a witch hunt there is no collusion. there were lawyers, they would

be disbarred for what they are doing. it's a one-sided witch hunt. i am a victim. i will tell you. i'm a victim they are after me for so many things oh, those prosecutors. the biden regime's weaponization of law enforcement against their political opponent is something straight out of the stalinist russia horror show >> it's something, right coming from him. claims about abuse of power, weaponization, lawyers being disbarred, being smeared trump's claims about weaponization have always been about projection and we don't need degrees in psychology to understand that. frankly, an admission, sometimes even a prediction of his own guilt. in a piece of reporting "the new york times" titled trump says the justice system has been weaponized, he would know, we learn more, more firsthand accounts of exactly how as president trump tried to work

and manipulate the criminal justice system as a cudgel to use against his political rival. from his second white house chief of staff john kelly, quote, he was always telling me we need to use the fbi and irs to go after people he was constant and obsessive and it's just what he is claiming is being done to him now. i would tell him why it was wrong and while i was there i did everything i could to steer him away from it and tell him why it was a bad idea. mr. kelly said that. joining our conversation "new york times" washington correspondent mike smith, david jolly is still here. mike, it feels like the blunt ex est accusation against donald trump in black and white accusing him of seeking to use doj and the irs against his political enemies. tell us more >> look, this was a story that looked at the ways that trump tried to use the justice

department proactively to go after his enemies. and i've always seen that type of behavior as falling distinctly into its own bucket there was the obstruction bucket that we knew a lot about trump's attempts to throw sand in the gears ever all of inquiries looking at his conduct. that's not the way the system's supposed to work and people can be prosecuted for it but there was this other bunt which, you know, for lack of a better term, the proactive bucket where trump was trying to proactively use the government's powers to target his rivals. and i think there is an insidiousness to that type of behavior that is distinct and it really shows someone trying to use the sacred powers of the federal government, and with trump we didn't just see it on the law enforcement side kelly says trump was talking about trying to use the irs, as

we saw in the weeks after the 2020 election when trump had a different crew than was there when kelly was there around him. trump was trying to use the powers of the pentagon to help him overturn the election results. so you have this enormous body of behavior that went on when he was there. you know, comments from folks like kelly talking about how he tried to steer trump away from that, and now fast forward to 2023 and donald trump is claiming that he is the victim of this type of behavior and that's, obviously, just ruch >> i mean, but, mike, between when kelly says easy was there and tried to do what he could to block this and 2023 when he is projecting, a lot of people did end up investigated even if they weren't prosecuted by doj their lives were disrupted by investigations jim comey, andy mccabe

we learned from jeffrey berman's book john kerry was investigated seems like doj didn't hold strong against trump's stated desires. >> well, i think that you raise an important important of all the investigations that have gone on, we have never seep a full, thorough, deep dive by someone who has the badge or a gun or the powers of subpoena to look at how trump tried to weaponize the federal government against his enemies. and i think it's a tdistinct dive-bap your than the other behavior we saw. i'll leave it up to the former federal prosecutors to assess whether it's illegal or not illegal, but it has larger ramifications than that because it has -- we now have all these different examples of a president of the united states who tried to use the justice department against his enemies like, imagine if one of those

people had actually been prosecuted and thrown in jail. that would have been a great extraordinary thing. a lot of these people were investigated people in the media this their phone records taken. i had my phone records taken why did that happen? when you have someone like donald trump who is out there saying that he wants to use the power of the justice department against his enemies, it's very difficult to accept on its face what the department was doing at the time why did they take my phone records? i don't know you know, we'll never know but was it because trump told them to do it or because they were following the law and following the facts? and trump has cast that shadow over everything that went on at his justice department because of just his public rhetoric, not even talking about what he tried to do in private >> mike, it's not unknowable has general kelly offered to testify before the senate judiciary committee and answer questions like the ones he answered for you about what he is talking about when he says

trump sought to use the irs and doj against his political enemies? >> you know, what's interesting about kelly, we have never really heard from kelly in any of these investigations because of some -- by emmett ford when he came into the white house, kelly was is a shielded from the mueller investigation. he did a short interview with the mueller investigation that was contained to certain issues because of the way that he had basically outmaneuvered the special counsel's office and mueller on that issue. you know, i don't know of any investigation or investigators that have ever spoken to kelly certainly kelly was not a public witness at the impeachment trial. i don't think he is someone that the january 6th committee spoke to but my guess of general kelly, that if general kelly, if he was served a subpoena or asked questions by, you know, congress

or investigators, he would answer them. you know, that's -- john kelly's a guy who is a product of the military and, you know, by all accounts is someone who tries to contain trump. >> david jolly, just real quick, and apropos, there is a legitimate line of questioning about the politicization of the federal government it isn't remotely what the republicans on this clown committee are doing. it is serious work for -- and if republicans are interested in participating, that wouldn't shock the pants off of me. i mean, why doesn't the senate judiciary committee in a bipartisan manner try to understand what general kelly is talking about when he says trump sought to politicize the irs and doj against his rivals >> historically, the senate has not been the place for soum of these high-profile investigations you are right. senate democrats need to step up to the pliert because it's the only team that could possibly do it because it's clearly

dangerous. what i'm currently captivated by is the permanency of trumpism and the trump tactic i used to think donald trump was uniquely dangerous, would shred the constitution and others would be pushing far-right ideologies within the framework. constitution i am not sure that's the case any more the theory of using the federal government against your political enemies is something we saw with nixon, saw with trump. it may be a brand now for desantis and others and we are in that cycle where we are watching will the republican party move past trumpism or will this type of abuse of power be part of the perm nensy of the republican party and fearfully what might be the next administration i think that's the dangerous question we have to approach >> well, and congress has a role in answering it. i mean, because are they going to be a coequal branch they let trump jump all over them they got don mcgahn deep into the biden presidency to answer questions.

i think there is a question to congress, too. are you going to see things like this and do your part in understanding how doj and the irs, which is almost as shocking, were politicized thank you for the reporting and joining us david jolly sticks around. up next for us, former fox news producer turned whistleblower speaking out today exclusively to msnbc news about what she has to say about her case, her lawsuit against her former employer, fox news that is next

we must finally hold social media companies accountable. it's time to pass bipartisan legislation to stop big tech from collecting personal data on our kids and teenagers online. ban targeted advertising to children. asking the right question and teenagers online. can greatly impact your future. - are, are you qualified to do this? - what? - especially when it comes to your finances. - are you a certified financial planner™? - i'm a cfp® professional. - cfp® professionals are committed to acting in your best interest. that's why it's gotta be a cfp®.

you need to deliver new apps fast using the services you want in the clouds of your choice. with flexible multi-cloud services that enable digital innovation and enterprise control, vmware helps you innovate and grow. hey, man. you could save hundreds for safe driving with liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance. so you only pay for what you need! whoo! we gotta go again. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

just about two and a half weeks ahead of the curtain rising in the historic, unprecedented $1.6 billion dominion lawsuit against fox news, and we are hearing from the former producer turned whistleblower at the red hot center of this case for the very first time kbroes grocery was a producer at fox news who in a dramatic plot twist announced she was suing her former employee alleging, among other things, that fox lawyers tried to position her, not the murdochs, not the primetime anchors, but her to take the fall for fox's repeated airing of conspiracy theories and lies about dominion voting systems by doing this. quote, coaching her in a coercive and intimidating manner before her deposition. we should share that fox news has called grossberg's claims,

quote, patently false. now grossberg is speaking out in an msnbc exclusive with my colleague cynthia mcfadden. >> in the course of a couple of weeks after the election, sidney powell and rudy giuliani appeared four times on the show that you were producing. do you think that any of what they said added to what eventually happened on january 6th? >> it took me a long time to connect those dots i don't think that we'll ever quite know that for sure, but i do know that rudy giuliani and sidney powell gave fox viewers and the american people false hope that this election could be overturned. >> wasn't just giving them false hope it was also saying that the election was rigged. that's what they were saying over and over again. the election had been rigged. >> i was still looking back on it, thinking so much about

politics as it is about a major corporation programming for ratings that they don't necessarily understand impact people's emotions and get them upset and get them outraged to where they want to take action and that's a great, great responsibility that's not being considered >> unbelievable window into fox news, right? and as you heard, grossberg says it took her, quote, a long time to connect those dots between the conspiracy theories pedaled by rudy giuliani and sidney powell on fox news and brutality and death and bloodshed we witnessed on january 6th based on emails, dominion shook loose during the discovery process some of which we shared yesterday, it appears that someone else was connecting the dots more quickly. that's rupert murdoch. an email from january 20th, '21,

from rupert murdoch to his son loughlin murdoch and fox ceo suzanne scott. quote, trump fsing on the election being stolen and convincing 25% of americans will be huge disservice to the country. pretty much a crime, all caps. pretty much a crime. inevitable it blew up on january 6th. best we don't mention his name unless essential and certainly don't support him. pretty much a crime? what inevitable that it blew up on january 6th? wow. joining us now, nbc news senior vuf and legal correspondent, the woman who conducted that fantastic interview, sincynthia mcfadden, she sat down with that interview with abby grossberg. also law professor laurence tribe is also here take me through this stunning conversation. >> you know, part of this is about whether they were putting

things on the air. i mean, the lawsuit, the dominion suit really is banked on did fox knowingly put on the air this slanderous untrue material, did they know or should they have known and one of the fascinating things that grossberg said to me, i asked her, i mean, come on, you are putting people on day after day saying this stuff. what did fox want you to do about fact-checking? she said i received text message from my boss saying, you can let maria, the host of the show, know there will be no fact-checking today. she can do what she wants. go wild. >> oh, my god. >> i find that, you know, stunning and she in her conversation, she said, listen, we did not investigate whether what these two were saying was true, but we were doing this because we believed this is what our bosses

wanted at least in her case, she said i believed this is what my bosses wanted. >> she doesn't deny being in receipt of multiple communica communications about the fact that what those people were saying on the show she produced was not true >> no. she says that she was essentially the only staff person on the show she was not executive producer there was not an executive producer she was the senior producer and she and maria were doing the show he should got a lot of emails from dominion. she didn't read all of them. she acknowledges that. and, listen, journalistic practice 101 would suggest this was not a good position to be in when i challenged her about this, she says that she didn't feel she had any choice, that tto keep her job she had to keep putting this stuff on television regardless of whether she was able to -- determine whether it was true or false. >> the whole conversation is

amazing. cynthia mcfadden, thank you so much for joining us to talk about it you can see more of the interview with former fox producer turned whistleblower abby grossberg tonight on "nbc nightly news" with lester holt lawrence, i am not a lawyer. i feel like if i could go back and do my life again, i would go to law school so i could cover the trump-era better but my understanding is that all of these communications in the record and all of the acknowledge of receiving the fact checks and all of this written communications from fox's own editorial hub, the brain room, it's really damaging set of legal facts for fox news in this case >> damaging puts it mildly you would, obviously, do very well in -- >> i'm coming. >> they could learn a lot from

you. you know, when abby grossberg says that she got the signal that perhaps they didn't want fact checking, we know that because in the unredacted materials that came out, i think just yesterday, suzanne scott, the ceo of fox, said when she saw something as terrible as fact-checking going on, this has got to stop now. it's hurting our bottom line this has got to stop so just as you quoted rupert murdoch saying that he basically knew that it was pretty much a crime, the big lie about the election having been stolen, we know that the c of fox was fully away that they were putting out false information, alternative facts what be a kind way of putting it the standard that the supreme court set, and i don't think it would be -- to go to law school to learn this because it's very

well known across the spectrum, the tstandard is if you are reckless or knowing falsehood that injures the reputation of something like dominion or of any other public company or public figure, then you are liable reckless or knowing falsehood is written on every page of the material in this case. and if it i were judge davis presiding over this case, i would give very serious consideration to granting summary judgment to dchl, that is to say, there is no genuine dispute about whether fox and the people who ran it knew that they were putting out lies let's move to the damages phase. he may or may not do that, but this is as strong a case as i have seen in 50 years of studying constitutional law and

the first amendment. the strongest case i have ever seen for ruling in favor of the plaintiff based on just what we already know and what has been admitted by the defendant. >> what is the meaning or significance legally to all that dominion is putting into the record and all that the judge has released about the motive? because you're right it is beyond dispute at this point. both fox news' own brain room, their editorial hub and dominions's 3,280 messages into fox were acknowledged by senior people at fox made it abundantly clear they knew these things were lies. but so much what we're seeing in the filing centers around the motive for broadcasting, in some instances rebroadcasting lies. how much is that ratings deal,

that fervor to keep the numbers as high as some of the other right wing outlets does that have a legal significance or does that just explain the motive to those of us reading it as a narrative >> it makes it easier if the case does go to a jury rather than being resolved just summarily by the judge it makes it easier for jurors, regardless of their politics, even if they initially believed the big lie, it makes it easier for them to say dominion should win and fox should have to be held accountable but you don't have to prove motive from time to time people think well, fox didn't have an evil motive they weren't politically motivated. that's not relevant. the idea that they were motived by greed, that's no defense. it's neither here nor there. we we know what their motive was. they wanted to have greater revenue.

they wanted to please their audience they were worried they would lose audience share if they told people that what they hoped was true, mainly, that the election had been stolen. if they told people that wasn't true, that they would turn off the channel, switch to another station, member listen to cnn or god forbid msnbc that was the motive. but it really doesn't matter it's also odd that it's being argued by some people that unless fox news itself endorsed all the lies, they can't be held liable well, number one, they came as delos endorsing all of these lies as anything i've ever seen. number two, that isn't the standard "the new york times" itself when it was sued in "new york times" versus sullivan they just ran an naacp ad that had some false statements they didn't endorse it but the u.s. supreme court said they would be liable any way for

those false statements if they put them on the page knowing they were false or being reckless about it. in fact, all the debate in the country about section 230, the section that protects certain internet companies from liability or what third parties say, there would be no such debate if the law you can be held liable only if they're your own statements on the contrary, the law is clear. if you provide a platform for things you know are lies and that causes people harm, they collect damages. you know, if i were the judge, i would, as i say, really consider giving summary judgment to dominion and if i were a juror, even if i were a juror who loved donald trump, and even if i initially believed the big lie, it would be hard for me to listen to all this stuff and not vote for

dominion and that's why i don't think if i were counsel for dominion, i would be advising them to consider settling. this is a case where there is no reason to settle because there is no defense for fox or fox corporation, for that matter >> it is an unbelievable look inside fox and if you're on the outside and especially for me, i've tried to figure out what was going on, you're right the facts are so stark that if you had to bring a set of facts in a case like this to a jury, these are about the clearest ones you could present laurence tribe, it's always a treat and pra ivilege to get to learn from you thank you for spending some time with us today. >> great to see you. >> we'll be right back don't go anywhere. there is much more ahead

(wheezing) asthma isn't pretty. it's the moment when you realize that a good day...

is about to become a bad one. but then, i remembered that the world is so much bigger than that, with trelegy. because one dose a day helps keep my asthma symptoms under control. and with 3 medicines in 1 inhaler, trelegy helps improve lung function so i can breathe easier for a full 24 hours. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. trelegy contains a medicine that increases risk of hospitalizations and death from asthma problems when used alone. when this medicine is used with an inhaled corticosteroid, like in trelegy, there is not a significant increased risk of these events. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase risk of thrush and infections. get emergency care for serious allergic reactions. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ♪ what a wonderful world. ♪ ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy for asthma - because breathing should be beautiful. living with diabetes? glucerna protein smart has your number with 30 grams of protein. scientifically designed with carbsteady

to help you manage your blood sugar. and more protein to keep you moving with diabetes. glucerna live every moment you're doing business in an app driven, multi-cloud world. that's why you choose vmware. with flexible multi-cloud services that enable digital innovation and enterprise control, vmware helps you keep your cloud options open. >> tech: when you have auto glass damage, trust safelite. we'll replace your windshield, and recalibrate your advanced safety system. so automatic emergency braking and lane departure warning work properly. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ we're going to show our work here as a show there has been a story developing as we've been on the air. on our breaks, we've been trying

to learn as much as we can about it news has broken over the last 45 minutes out of new york city three law enforcement sources telling nbc news that additional security measures are once again put in place by the new york police department around that courthouse where alvin bragg's case is being heard by the grand jury investigating donald trump. it is at this hour unclear if prosecutors have made any decisions. we don't have that much information, frankly, but they've standarded to move forward on charging the ex-president or not, we don't know sources stress that the stepped up security is simply a precautionary measure. the grand jury was there today, though, they did meet. and they're expected to convene again monday possibly thursday. tim heisey joins us. "new york times" congressional reporter luke broadwater also joins us we're gathered to have a slightly different conversation, but as this story is developing, we find ourselves together asking big questions,

unprecedented questions that you've investigated, tim, that you've covered, luke, about the conduct of the last person to serve in thes ofs thes of oval donald j. trump. as you see your work becoming a body of evidence now pored over by doj as you see prosecutors looking at the same person's conduct in new york, it's his financial hush money cover-up that is really under scrutiny, not the federal campaign finance violation that sdny looked at in georgia. it's another part of what you probed and i wonder your thoughts this afternoon as it looks like in new york city, at least, safety and security of its citizens are top of mind. >> nicole, absolutely. thanks for having me again they would not be putting up extra barricades and worrying about physical security if they were not moving toward an indictment this is yet another sign to me

that an indictment is likely imminent, that they are braced for anger and potentially violence and we've seen before many events that the president has stoked political violence, and that some of his supporters may very well be moved to commit acts of violence i think we're getting closer and closer to accountability you're getting closer and closer to criminal charges from a number of different directions, all of the ones that you just mentioned. and i think that's justice that's what our system does. it looks to me we're getting closer and closer to having that debate in law. >> tim, what is it like to investigate someone who was so frontal and brazen the intimidation, mob-like doesn't get it, right? because mob-like intimidation is something different. it's insidious it's physical.

this is amplifying images of physical violence. donald trump reposted an image of physical violence being carried out against alvin bragg. it's going to waco, a place that is so symbolic with the birth of militias, that it's so tied to donald trump's own political rise with roger stone's ties to the branch davidians it is intimidation on this national scale as the leader of the republican party what is it like to investigate somebody like that >> it's frightening, candidly for anyone but particularly for someone with that platform to continue to use incendiary rhetoric and incendiary images. and, nicolle, importantly, it bears on the critical issue, you and i talked about this before on your show, the critical issue for special counsel is intent. did he intend to disrupt the joint session? did he even intend there could be violence used in is that would be evidence of guilt of

seditious conspiracy so the more he continues to glorify the political prisoners of january 6th, to defend them, to repeat these allegations of election fraud, that is continued evidence of his intent of which is drawing the close attention of the special counsel. >> let me ask you this question. lots of times on this side of an investigation that is largely opaque, and the investigation you oversaw was a service that because it was congressional in nature, it was more transparent that what we have had to cover when it comes to trump in the past but there is a sense that his criminal conduct happened in the past and his reaction to it bears heavily and mightily on the prosecutors. there is no one the conversation swirls more heavily than merrick garland, that his concerns about the optics of investigating an ex-president, the leader of a

political party in a country that happens to be the opposite party of his boss joe biden weighs so heavily on him but what if what you're saying, the criminal behavior goes up to and includes the response of being under investigation? it seems that mueller had a swing at this. and by not taking the obstruction cases and saying these are clear acts of crimes and they should be charged the day he leaves office, we were left with all this evidence of ongoing criminality, and in consequence. do you want to say anything? >> right. >> or help us think about the way trump interferes with elections into him as they're leading up to this point >> yeah, two things. it's notoriously difficult to prove someone's intent to look inside the human mind. that's hard to do. you're relying upon circumstantial evidence. and a person's statement about what happened bear directly upon his intention during those events so the more the president praises the rioters, talks about those incarcerated as political prisoners, that is direct

evidence, circumstantial, but evidence of his state of mind. and the fact that this continues, that the rhetoric continues is making to me, and this is me the former prosecutor speaking, even more compelling case the only other thing i'd say, nicolle, there are times as a prosecutor when no matter what you decide, you know that there will be extreme criticism based on that decision no-win cases this is one of those for merrick garland. he knows that whichever decision is made to pursue an indictment, or to decline an indictment, he will be criticized by a large number of people in this country, because they will think that is the wrong decision to me, i take him at his word when he says that that just doesn't matter, that he will continue it through the work of this special counsel elevating to attorney general to make this decision on the facts and the law. the facts continue to get more

compelling, beyond what we found. he is going to have access to new information, beyond privilege assertion or people that refuse to come in to the select committee are going to have to now go in front of the grand jury i think all of that is going to make an even stronger case than the one on which we based our criminal referrals accountability in this country has to matter. the law applies the same whether you're an accused drug seller on the streets of new york city or the former president of the united states, the same rules apply. and that principle i think is going to guide the attorney general and his team to the right decision >> i want to bring our viewers into the loop here, because you brought us to the conversation we intended to have with you and luke but we came on the air with some breaking news out of new york city, that the nypd is sort of refortifying the area around which the grand jury investigating donald trump's alleged crimes around the payments to stormy daniels, where that grand jury has been meeting.

we're going turn now to this story about this special counsel's work and tim heisey has done a great job previewing it. but we want to pull through to top of this hour some of what we know now to be ahead for jack smith, new people he'll get to talk to that will build on the extraordinary body of evidence that the january 6th select committee has before gotten. donald trump's chief of staff mark meadows was anywhere and everywhere all the time when it came to every tentacle leading into and out of january 6th. making him a gold mine of information for special counsel jack smith it makes perfect sense that the ex-president doesn't want meadows to testify before the grand jury, and he just took a big step to try to prevent it from ever happening. trump is now appealing the judge's appealing which was unveiled last week which reveals meadows along with other top

trump aides to not use executive privilege to avoid testifying in the spoubs's probe trump hasn't had success on this front of late in his fights over executive privilege. the hill report says, quote, the matter will come before the d.c. court of appeals where a three-judge panel recently upheld another of judge howell's decisions ordering evan corcoran, that's trump's attorney in the mar-a-lago investigation to cooperate with investigators and return before the grand jury to answer questions he had previously dodged citing the client-attorney privilege. and earlier this week, judge howell's successor, that's judge bowesburg denied a different trump effort to use the executive privilege claim. he said mike pence, former vice president had to comply with his subpoena from the special counsel. now it comes to these fights it looks like history is on the side of jack smith nbc reports this, quote, legal expert says a criminal investigation usually supersedes executive privilege as it did when the supreme court forced president richard nixon to hand over tapes of his oval office

conversations. luke, just on the historic nature of this volume of evidence amassed in a historically quick and effective and efficient and well produced and narrated way now being super charged, turbocharged by the kinds of witnesses that tim really would have dreamed vicente fox having access to >> right well, you can see that donald trump does not want mark meadow, dan scavino, mike pence, other people to testify. january 6th committee accumulated so much evidence, so many interviews and laid out, you know, a voluminous case of criminal referrals to the justice department but they didn't ever hear from mike pence, from mark meadows or dan scavino. and those are the very people who will have to testify if this

judge's ruling stands. now it's under appeal right now, and it's a secretive process but it does seem like based on some past rulings that these gentlemen will have to end up testifying and just so, just as you said in your intro, mark meadows was basically in touch with everybody who had anything to do with january 6th that's everyone in the white house. that's the rally organizers. that's the members of congress, that's the protesters in some cases. and so he would have really insider knowledge of exactly what was happening at every step dan skav voen know was essentially trump's right-hand man, with him all the time, in charge of the social media he knows exactly what donald trump is dictating to be tweeted out, or what those discussions are like and he never testified either before the january 6th committee. it opens up a whole new well of evidence for the grand jury that the public and investigators have never heard >> so, tim, you're e.f. hutton

i know when you talk, people listen mark meadows, adam kinzinger describes mark meadows as your star witness, even though he didn't come and almost got in legal trouble for not doing so what would you have started with, with him if he is sitting down with jack smith's investigators, what are they asking him? >> he is, as luke said, in the middle of everything he is the chief of staff so he is involved from the election on the stop the steal campaign, the discussions about election fraud, which ultimately, after litigation is unsuccessful and criminal investigators of the fbi and justice looking into them do not bear fruit he has been involved in outreach to state legislators and state officials. he is involved very directly in the possible personnel change at the department of justice. he is involved in pressure on the vice president and then he there all day with the president at the white house on january 6th we would obviously want to walk

him through that important chronology in his direct communications with the president would bear directly on and keep coming back to it the crucial issue of intent but nicole, look importantly, we talked to people all around mark meadows, people who were in the room when it happened he didn't talk to us, but his principle deputy did several of them did. pat cipollone who was in the rooms, the white house counsel shared with us what happened my expectation is what jack smith will get will be a direct account from mark meadows if he is truthful and doesn't assert the 5 amendment which he might do, what we have heard from the other people who were present. i don't expect bombshells or new information. i don't expect things are excul exculpatory. i think it will be more of the same because, again, we worked around that hole that mark meadows created by his lack of presence by talking to lots of people who were around him.

>> and you had his text messages you had half the conversation. you have both sides of the text messages let me ask you this about meadows. he has a real lawyer not everybody in trump world can say that do you think george terwiliger is working out some limited immunity for meadows before he sits down? it seems if you're looking at conspiracy, he could have legal exposure on the obstruction of a official proceeding, on insurrection, on false statements >> i don't know. that would not be unprecedented if a good, reasonable defense lawyer were to look at exposure and has very important information that a prosecutor could use to build a case against an arguably more culpable product it would be a bargain for exchange, immunity and exchange. i don't know if it is. i do think there is a chance that meadows will continue to resist by now being forced to go under oath, asserting fifth amendment privilege. and then that's calling the

doj's bluff that is him saying i'm not going to answer your questions because i have exposure and then the question is will he be included in an indictment >> and what would that look like a conspiracy that includes john eastman and people like that >> yeah, look, it's important to keep in mind that the department is not just looking at the most culpable approximate actor here. they're looking at others with whom he conspired to obstruct, interfere with, or impede in a official proceeding. that could be lawyers. that could be giuliani and others it could be members of congress or state officials or other members of staff like mark meadows. i'm not sure how far that net will extend, but it's important to see this as a conspiracy, not just a single actor potential case >> you know, luke, i asked you this question earlier in the week and i'll just read this reporting from talking points. mark meadows exchanged text

messages with at least 34 republican members of congress as they plotted to overturn trump's loss in the 2020 election based on tpm's analysis, meadows received at least 364 messages from republican members of congress who attempted to discuss the election results with him he sent 95 messages of his own there are a ton of republican members of congress who were so concerned about what they did in that window. we don't know if it refers specifically to the text but they were so concerned about their own conduct that they called or visited the white house and asked for presidential pardons. that was a big pillar of some of the evidence that the select committee presented. you said earlier in the week there is no indication any of them are sweating any of this. do you think that could change >> i don't know. we do know that these text messages are now in the hands of the justice department, the evidence from the january 6th

committee has been turned over so they, i'm sure are going through them right now and looking at them. from my reporting on the hill, none of the congressional republicans have been told they are under investigation or believe they are that said, they're doing everything they can to try to support donald trump, who they believe is under investigation and do whatever they can to loudly defend him or try to intervene in various investigations against him they're viewing themselves right now as sort of a defense system or a bulwark against prosecution of donald trump. i haven't heard a ton of worry from the house republicans to date obviously, there has been this fight over scott perry's phone he is the head of the freedom caucus his phone was seized by federal investigators. but he was told that that investigation is into jeffrey clark and not into him, and that he is a witness in that

investigation. so i could see there being somewhat uneasiness. but right now they're pretty much in attack mode and not on the defense. >> tim, as a former prosecutor, with that hat on, would you presume that the special counsel might be pursuing trump's inner cabinet first? >> again, nicolle, this comes down to who was aware of the falsity of the election fraud allegations, or the lack of veracity the president himself was repeatedly told there is no evidence of election fraud yet kept repeating i'm not sure if that evidence is as strong in terms of the members of congress or other co-conspirators in terms of their understanding. again, none of them cooperated with us. we can't have very much success getting into sort of the inner

workings of discussions with members of congress. beyond the meadows texts, which he provided to us, which as luke said, show ample communication between the white house and certain members of congress. so i don't know if that evidence exists the focus is on who is lying who is misleading? who is putting forth the strategy that is based mindfully, knowingly, intending to be on falsity that will be their question. and i don't know if that extends to members of congress >> so a lot of that -- oh, go ahead, luke. >> sure. they certainly should have known that the things they were saying was false. i mean, there was ample evidence that they -- that had been presented. they had lost court case after court case, that they had been paying attention or reading the news in any way, they would have known that the wild claims of election fraud were in fact false. you know, but i guess without questioning under oath and

detailed depositions, you're not going get them in a place where you can really know for certain exactly when they knew certain things were false and whether they kept saying them any way. i think that's the investigative step that has not been taken yet by anybody >> but tim, don't you say so when were you reelected jim jordan what was the date? what was the ballot? do you have a copy of any of the ballots used in your district? do you think that was real the insanity, the stupidity, the inane nature of this entire conversation, and i'll take complete responsibility for it is every house member is there because they believe in the integrity of the election of november 2020. none of them said i'm not going to take my seat because i thought the election was screwed up they all presumably rejected the line in which voters in their own congressional districts chose a president.

isn't that crazy >> curiously, the only allegations of election fraud were in the states the president lost every other state was results on which we can rely. yeah, it doesn't make rational sense. it never made rational sense, and it was never based on fact that's what we keep coming back to, this plot is multi plan to disrupt democracy and subvert democracy was fed to the rioters at the capital affirmatively by the former president and other co-conspirators. it doesn't make rational sense we can spend hours going back and forth because there is no there, there and that is what is so shocking. the fact that so many people believed it and continue to believe it is shocking >> i want to ask you a couple other question, jim, while i have you about what witnesses who we don't talk about quite as much but we know from the evidence that you presented in the public

hearings that people like donald trump's national security adviser mr. o'brien communicated and knew on january 4th, two days before the deadly insurrection that, quote, violence at the hill was possible how much is premeditation something that you can establish? you also have john ratcliffe with someone who didn't want anything to do with the post election period because it was dangerous. what the country is ahead of national intelligence knew that trump was dangerous or what he was doing was dangerous and didn't want anything to do with it the national security adviser knew 48 hours ahead of time, two days ahead of time that there was going to be violence on the hill what can jack smith do if he is able to pierce executive privilege and find out everything that led them to say the things they said to you? >> so we interviewed robert o'brien at length. we spent five or six hours with him. we did not interview john ratcliffe. and robert o'brien was forthcoming us to. but for assertions of executive

privilege with direct communications to the government a lot of witnesses drew this line pat cipollone is another example. marc short and greg jacob. when it came to recounting for us direct communications that they or vice president pence had with the president, they claimed executive privilege. jack smith is going to be able to push through that it sounds like there has already been litigation, and the chief judge of the district court in washington has said the need in a criminal investigation for relevant information outweighs, supersedes, is more importan ths rather than just telling us what happened before the conversation with the president and what happened after, and their personal view about whether there was or wasn't election fraud, and whether the vice president had this authority will now then have to say here's what i told the president and here's what he said become to me direct evidence of his

understanding of facts, of the law that is really important to the special counsel's inquiry. so john ratcliffe, robert o'brien, mike pence himself, and some of the witnesses who we talked to before that missing piece of direct communication are going to provide more information to the grand jury, and that will be crucial, important information. i think it's all going to corroborate since you already know that this was intentional. >> right, and the president was aware that there was no evidence of election fraud, or they knew the vice president did not have the constitutional authority to do what the president was asking him to do. but the direct evidence will be really important, and special counsel is going to get that >> part of the direct evidence is simple. these are about conflicts about what was protected but some of it is just donald trump's knowledge that he'd lost a lot of the witnesses that you presented were campaign officials who went face-to-face and told him he lost there is something in mark milley's transcript that was leased at the conclusion where he has a conversation with trump where he is acutely aware of his

defeat, and they're talking about foreign policy i think in terms of iran. would it be complete that mark milley yeah, trump knew he lost. he talked about the final position for the incoming administration would be about x, y, z foreign policy? >> potentially, sure the grand jury doesn't have to hear from everyone directly. they could get just a small piece like that. that could be recounted to them by another witness, by an agent, for example. the grand jury can rely upon secondhand hearsay in making its determination. what you're referring to -- i remember this when it happened in the interview with general millie he said they're discussing some foreign policy issue and the president said well, we don't have to worry about that it's going go to the next guy. this is after the election, sort of acknowledging that this thorny foreign policy issue, he didn't need to resolve because it was going to go to president biden. and there are several moments. alyssa farah tells the story of

being in the dining room alone with the president, and he is looking at the tv. and president-elect biden comes on and he says "can you believe i lost to this f'ing guy"? there are moments when the president acknowledged to others who i presume have provided this information to the special counsel, being mindful of his loss again, all of that bears upon his subsequent conduct and his evidence that he was misleading america by continuing to repeat those falsehoods >> and those are incriminating in terms of specifically to the crimes of the city refer the false statements and the fraud and the obstruction of officials. that seems to go to his criminality in a way we don't talk about as much because there isn't a legal battle there isn't something that bursts into public view. but it all is incriminating, right? >> yes it all very directly -- again, when you're trying to dive inside someone's mind, divine intent, what they say and when they say them matter and post election statements of

acknowledgment of loss bear directly upon intent >> luke, i want to give you the last word in terms of this reporting as it continues to be about something that was so sort of groundbreaking, if you will in congress. we watched jim jordan fumble and mumble and frankly embarrass himself and his republican majority what they're trying at some level to emulate is the success of the 1-6 committee what are the ripples that are still left behind from this body of work and what is much more opaque at doj? >> yeah, january 6th rocked congress and it rocked the country. but it seems the party's really diverged after the first month sore when there was sort of unanimity about how terrible it was. and now we've seen what republicans are trying to do now

is do some rewriting of history. and one of the things they're trying to do is run their committees in a way that were as effective as the way the january 6th committee did. but it's going to be almost impossible to replicate. one of the big mistakes that they made, and i think most of them would acknowledge in retrospect is by boycotting the january 6th committee, they have -- they took themselves out of the game so to speak. so they could not interrupt the proceedings or do cross-examinations of witnesses live on television or anything like that. and so now they're trying to run their own investigative hearings, you can see democrats crossing the witnesses when they have the chance to do so, or, you know, making their point of view known and it's not having to date the same success that the january 6th committee did. and frankly, they haven't even come close to any of the investigative steps, the number of witnesses brought in, the --

you know, over a thousand witnesses, all the documents that were accumulated. so it's nowhere close to where the success of the january 6th committee. >> and, look, a compliment to the product, that you and your colleagues and the members created. but it's also a sad commentary on the bad faith with which the republicans are going about doing what they're doing and i just wonder what you make of the fact that a vacuum now exists jack smith is clearly pursuing these investigations with some vigor. that is a true statement from what is outward facing we don't know what that will result in. it is also true while you were doing your probe in congress, jack smith hadn't been appointed yet. and there is no communication public-facing i will acknowledge that merrick garland had any appetite to dive into the facts. as you said, there is copious evidence even with all these secret legal battles to free up these kinds of witnesses, there

is stuff in the transcripts that proves that donald trump knew he lost, which proves everything he was saying was false you can get to it the referred crime frankly with the mountain of evidence that you already compiled why wasn't that pursued? do you have any more clarity on that in the first 18 months after january 6th occurred >> let me just say, look, the committee is only as good as the facts with which it had to work. lawyers are not alchemists lawyers present facts. and the reason the select committee i think is perceived as having been successful is because the facts were compelling, right? i think we accessed them and put them together in a compelling report in our findings but to be clear, what makes lawyers successful, what makes investigations successful is the quality of the evidence that is uncovered. and i think back to luke's point, some of the things we have seen, attempts to emulate

and other investigations don't have the fax they don't have the compelling body of evidence to present that we had now whether the department was too slow or not, i do believe that we had to blaze a bit of a trail for them i do think they were focused almost exclusively at first on the blue collar part of the case we've talked about this before hundreds of people charged with storming the capital and they weren't sufficiently focused on the white collar part of the case, this sort of -- the political coup but they got there whether it was because they learned about it from our investigation or from our hearings, they got there they're there now, and they're pursuing it now. and they're being thorough and they're being careful. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, buff someone else has gotten there. wnbc is reporting that the grand jury is voting on the trump case in manhattan right now, 22 minutes ago. the three of us convened and we

talked about security being ramped up. this apparently for a reason the new york sometimes has also just moved a story on this with three bylines. let me read to you from this breaking news. "the unprecedented case against president trump will have wide-ranging implications. manhattan grand jury voted to indict donald j. trump on thursday for his role in paying hush money to a porn starstar that's according to four people with knowledge of the matter and the statement will shake up the presidential 2024 race and forever mark him as the nation's first former president to face criminal charges." i'm going to continue reading from "the new york times" story on the breaking news "the federal indictment under seal by the manhattan district attorney's office will be announced in the coming days by then prosecutors working for district attorney alvin bragg will ask trump to surrender on charges that remain unknown for now. luke, we've had your colleagues

on earlier in the broadcast today talking about donald trump's projection and constant talk about prosecuting enemies, about using investigations in a political manner the opposite has been true for alvin bragg's office he has been a reluctant purchase sewer of these fax it is the topic of a book by mark mpomeranz, who was an inves investigator to these cases. the southern district of new york investigated these fax and interviewed these witnesses and arrived at the conclusion that donald trump had directed and coordinated a hush money scheme. alvin bragg has picked up this case with some vigor and today i'll read from "the times" again quote, a manhattan jury voted to indict donald trump on thursday for his paying hush money to a porn star. >> it's historic news. he is the first ex-president

ever to be indicted. it shows that the district attorney was not intimidated by the threats of death and destruction against him, by the attempts at congressional and interference, by, you know, the threats of protests, massive protests against him and he went forward with the case this is a breaking story there is going to be a lot of fallout. but how this impacts the presidential election, what kind of jail time or charges exactly donald trump is looking at there is going to be so much developing and i'm going to be right after this rushing around capitol hill to see if there is anyone there to give live reaction. >> and if you need to jump, i certainly respect your priorities are to your paper, and you need to go do that tim, let me share something that was shared with me because bragg's office doesn't have the federal campaign

finance violations as a code or law or something that they enforce, this is largely about the cover-up, which took place while donald trump was president. this is in 2017. again, it's been chronicled by some of the witnesses who have been very vocal critics of donald trump, people like michael cohen, also people who have investigated this this is likely as much about the cover-up as what will surely be dismissed as a trawdry sex scandal. >> i don't know much about the specific charges i guess none of us do until we see the indictment but you're right it sounds to me, nicolle -- this is based on what i read and based on the work of the committee, that this is about the cover. this is essentially a campaign benefit that should have been reported as a contribution that was not. not the payment as much as the lack of accounting or accurate accounting or reporting of the payment. but it is a pattern of dishonesty it's a pattern of not telling

the truth. there is a theme that runs through these cases, it's that it's lying it's lying it's deception that's the thread that seems to tie all these cases together >> and because it's trump, it's something that ties together his political persona, and now as luke just said, his historic brand if you will as the first ever indicted criminally charged former president of this country. let's bring in former u.s. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general harry litman harry, we talked a lot about what alvin bragg has been pursuing based on the witnesses that we know about that have come in and out. the historic news again reported by journalist ben protess and william rashbun that says this, quote, a manhattan grand jury voted to indict donald trump on thursday for his role in paying hush money to a porn star. that's according to four people with knowledge of the matter they describe it as an historic development that will shake up the 2024 presidential race and

forever mark him as the nation's first former president to face criminal charges your initial reaction. >> yeah, it is surely that so we've been what, anticipating some such events for a few years. and here it finally comes. it's now going to be the new normal, nicole that is we now are looking ahead at all kinds of litigation and pretrial challenges trump has apparently committed himself to a kind of vitriolic, nasty prosecution bashing. i think it's very interesting. bragg impressively held his own counsel here the table was completely set once they invited trump to testify. and we were wondering what would happen after that. so we had costello, whom trump asked to the grand jury to hear. and then they didn't even call michael cohen back i think they consider confident

that he hadn't really laid a glove on them. be they did call david pecker back so i'm very eager to see the headline is the headline but what exactly is he charging? and i think pecker's presence there suggests that this is a whole kind of very trumpian scheme incorporating karen mcdougal that basically originated or a little earlier in the campaign when they knew people might be coming out of the woodwork, and they made a deal, a criminal conspiracy to catch and kill that was in fact probably illegal in -- that gives rise to tax violations, financial fraud, and the like. that's the thing we'll want to look at. but bragg, you know, kept quiet as everything was swirling around him and he knew this was coming. it's impressive end game i think on his part. >> illegal end game. a story for our country that is very much just beginning

let me add to our conversation the counsel of andrew weissmann. andrew weissmann, tim happyhy just described a pattern of behavior on the part of donald trump, the understatement of a century. i think people who have watched trump and seen him as a legal houdini feel the dishonest behavior has crossed into criminality. i wonder if you can flesh out for us let me just begin be right on the news nbc news is now also able to report that a manhattan grand jury has voted to indict donald trump. "the new york times" is first to report the manhattan grand jury voted to indict donald trump today we have not seen the charges, but we have seen the witnesses that have come in and out in these final days and weeks and in addition to michael cohen, who has been very public on his way in and out, there has been some other witnesses that we haven't known as much about and based on the folks that were

in there last, what do you believe this indictment will say and read >> well, nicolle, obviously this is a monumental, historic importance i think that we will see at least one, if not more felony charges against the former president. and we will see for those people, like myself, who have been waiting for a long time to see the first step in terms of legal accountability, this being that first step. i do want to say that it is really important to remember that this reporting is accurate, which all accounts would be that it is. it makes total sense that this would be happening, that one, we're likely to see i think other charges and other jurisdictions. remember, this by all accounts is not the most serious thing that's under investigation and i think it actually can

assist other d.a.'s and federal prosecutors in taking the bold step they need to vindicate the rule of law. and the other thing that i think it's very important for people to remember, that at this point, if donald trump is now in a case as a criminal defendant, it is important to remember that he is presume innocent and it's fine for us to talk about proof and all of the things and -- responsible, but in a court of law he is going to be presumed in a sense because the court of public opinion. and there will be a lot of process that he is given, which is also part of our american system of justice. there won't be a trial any time soon, but that is something that should be respected, even though people will be anxious to see that happen. i think people should who wanted to see this day come just to understand that's part of the american rule of law is that

defendants are accorded substantial rights as they should be in facing those charges and bringing the case to a jury but not to take anything away from the incredibly important step that we are seeing today with the first team that an american president has faced criminal charges we join the rest of the world where this is not unusual to see people such as the current head of israel, who is currently under indictment where people obey the rule of law, and it's nice to see that america is joining the rest of the community that we have political leaders who are not above the law and will be held to account in our criminal justice system >> very wise -- please, please,

please >> this is what i meant. andrew, point is well taken. but it's what i meant by the new normal this is a breathtaking monumental event, as he says but we are really have to be thinking about now the new horizon. because there likely will be other charges, and at any given time, there is going to be skirmishes in court up to a year or more. and they will be sort of cross-cutting, and trump will, if all indications are, as they've been, having a kind of slashing, burning, contemptuous defense both in the public's atmosphere and in court. so we're just going to have a whole kind of, you know, brew of legal and political drama that people will be following and the fulton county case maybe, the jack smith case. and it's just going to be sort of weighed down with things that

are freighted, even if there would be normally be conventional litigation kinds of pretrial motions they'll have the impact of the political kind of battle that trump will be waging with tremendous sort of vigor and contempt >> is tim heaphy still with us i was like the houseguest that showed up late and stayed so long tim, i want to root all this, though, in someone that's been there before i think we have to also guard around the other side of this coin, which is he is going to be so scary now that he has been indicted he has been scary the whole time and he came after you and your committee chair and your committee vice chair before that, he came after andrew weissmann and robert mueller. before that, he went after andrew mccabe jim comey.

ending up in four criminal referrals for u.s. department of justice, if you have anything sort of from the other side of that experience to share with us today. >> look, so much of what happened on january 6th was based on the lack of faith that people have in government. the lack of faith that people have in criminal justice there were so many people there that believed that the election was stolen, that they were patriots that were rescuing democracy. part of the way we get that back, we show people that our systems are durable, that democracy works is to have accountability is to have a system that actually works to me, when the facts and the law compel an indictment, and there is accountability, that has the potential to be a restoration of faith in the system and at bottom in this country, i think what we're unfortunately dealing with is a division between those that believe in systems, believe in government,

believe in media, believe in science, believe in things on which you and i might rely for truth, and the people that don't. and that might be a step some people aren't going to accept it, but it might be a way for some people to have restored faith that our system actually works. it's going to hold the former president accountable. then that's evidence that the system can in fact work. >> there is one standard of justice. tim heaphy, thank you so much. i know we made you come on early and made you stay late we're so thankful to have you on a day like today with this story. thank you. >> thank you >> i want to come back to what tim just said. i've struggled publicly and talked to you on and off the air. the sense, and mark pomeranz writes about it in his book, that to pursue the facts and then do nothing is in effect creating two standards one for trump and the powerful -- though i can't think of many people who have been more of a legal houdini than

donald j. trump and then the rest of us i wonder in that context the portent of alvin bragg's careful and deliberate pursuit of the facts in this case >> well, you know, i think about exactly that in terms of my own personal experience. we were in the i have to now say -- i can't just say in the special counsel's office because we have so many, in special counsel mueller's office we looked for 22 months. we wrote a report, and the second part of that report developed substantial evidence of obstruction of justice because of the department of justice policy of not indicting a sitting president, nothing could be done by us at that time we then watched the attorney general, attorney general barr

completely mislead the american public about the report and distort it we also then watched the current administration just look forward, not backwards, even though there was substantial evidence of obstruction of justice by the former president. i was always sort of appalled that that wouldn't be vindicated because there is no point at pointing the next special counsel if you're going to allow obstruction of that special counsel. so now we're in a situation where donald trump is no longer the president, and he like anyone else can face charges for criminal conduct that he committed before he was president, while he was president, and after he was president. and it's important to note that he has -- appears to have been indicted for his conduct before he was president, but we're seeing cases that deal with his conduct while he was president and conduct after he was

president in connection with georgia, the january 6th investigation, and his conduct at mar-a-lago. and so this is the period before he was president in anticipation of his becoming president. and we're seeing this first historic indictment. and as somebody who lived through a time seeing the strong evidence of the obstruction of justice that was not vindicated, there is a real satisfaction in seeing this first step to hold people, no matter what their station, to the rule of law. i think it's also worth noting as you did, nicolle, that this is a d.a. who did not bring the charges a year ago instead he thought they were not ready. so he is not somebody who is sort of quick to pull a trigger until he feels that the case is really ready to bring. and that's commendable

>> i want to just put one thing out there and see if it's possible that what bragg has put before the grand jury through witness testimony extends beyond this period when he was a candidate. it's been suggested to me that the false documents and the falsifying business records was something that was ongoing into 2017, when donald trump was president, that he was writing checks from inside the oval office and if we're looking at a cover-up, it's possible it could include some of that period, right, andrew? >> yeah, that's right. that is absolutely right that is started, but that's a complete correction to what i just said, absolutely. >> another correction. just broadening the conduct, as we've all become experts here. i want to bring in another friend of this conversation. joyce vance, former u.s. attorney, now law professor at the university of alabama and

msnbc legal analyst. we've relied on you and on andrew and on harry to talk us through as a country watching someone who seems to brazenly to flout all of -- not just the norms of our politics, but the laws of our land this started with a federal campaign finance investigation out of sdny. it's in black and why in their sentencing memo from michael cohen, what that office found donald trump to have done. it was directing and coordinating a hush money scheme these charges are likely based around the same period of time it started when he was a candidate. but they go beyond that. can you talk about what crimes were likely under scrutiny by bragg's office in this period where we know that a grand jury has voted to indict him, but we have not yet grand jury has5?■ d to indict him. we have not seen it yet because it is still sealed. ljt5 straight to the heart of the matter, nicole, which is because the chargef■ is under seal --c

remain under seal, we don't know precisely what they are but i think it's fair to contemplate that they may well go beyond what we've been expecting, which is a false business records charge.e "the new york times" is reporting that the sealed so that dispenses with the first question because that central core charge that we've all been talking about can be a misdemeanor or a felony assuming that that reporting is accurate, which seems like a very good thing to assume. we're now looking at a felonye1 falsified records charge there could be more. as you and andrew have just assessed, it's possible there content ta -- could be qentacles that reach far when more than one person is companion charge that could be sort of an extensive issue and a wayt(■ó■ad

the pesky statute of limitations, the legal issue that we've discussed over time whether or not prosecutors have brought these charges within time, certainly something that we can be confidente1 about is that alvin bragg, a verye■ experienced prosecutor who worked in the southern district of new york and in the stateo■ attorney general's office before he became the district attorney, has had the foresight to do anything, the first is to vet any charges he's bringing and the second the

satisfying answer,t■ but i think also we can have confidence about what this does for oure■ democratic e1institutions. ultimately we begin to learn the answer that they are strong enough to take on even the former president >> someone who has been centradi to the story had ae■ we've tried to bring to our viewers and the story that was broughtt■ to this grand jury is michael cohen. he joins us by phone michael, your first reaction >> my first reaction is i wishe■ thatq■ people would have takenea few moments and notu/j jumped t gun the way that we've been watching the media, many of the talking heads worrying about what's happening in a month from now and tomorrow i think we all need to just, as i had put out in my statement, you know, today's indictment is not theqend of the chapter,

right? it's, rather, the beginning. now that the charges haveñi■been filed, it's better for the case to let the indictment speak for itself but there are two things that i want to say. one is■■ that accountability t matters. something, nicole, you and i have talkedjf about on virtually every appearance that i have been on your show, and that i stand by my testimony and the evidence that i provided to the district attorney of new york. alvin bragg first and foremost should receive at leas■ some acknowledgment for doing the great job that they have done, but more important than even that, it's extremely important that we let the process work out and that people do still understand that there is a presumption of innocence in this country and while the indictment is significant, in the fact that it's the first time ever that a united states president, former or past, has beenxd■indicted,

there is still the presumption of innocence in this country.e >> michael, i understand you're not going to tell us, but do you know what trump has been charged with >> you're right, i won't discuss it even if i did know because, againe1 -- >> you don't have to tell me, but do you know? >>e■ we do have to allow the indictment to speak for itself will be released in short or the. you know that the former guy can't help himself so i'm pretty sure that it'll end up on his -- on truth social somewhere and then we'll have something much more -- we'll have more to talk about, how's that? >> let me ask you this one of the things that÷■n andrew weissman and i have been talking about since this news broke this hour is that the time period of conduct under scrutiny by alvin bragg's office goes 0e+■nd the

conducts and the payments to karen mcdougall and stormy daniels as a candidate, they go to the coverup which is what joyce, harry and andrew isu■■■ talking about. can you confirm that is the case >> yeah, nicole, i'm sofá sorryi iuaq■■you. >> go ahead. >> it's that if■ really don't -- case by a truly spectacular ÷j group of prosecutors ande■ ledw alvin bragg. icthink right now we just take a step back, acknowledge that the first time in united states history that a former president has been held accountable and a formalf■ indictment has been th■ the rule of law, that justice still exists in this country and that accountability really

matters. >> one of the first indications we had,t(■michael, was that security measures were being taken down by the courthouse are you taking anyf■e■ extra security measures because of your high profilee1 inq■ this ce >> you know, i'd rather, you know,qsort of not get into that. i certainly don't want to put anybody on notice of what i ame■ or am not doing, right you know, this -- i■look,x$dthe going to be -- >> let's take you out of it. >> let's take you out of it. let's take you out let's talk about the security the city of new york has deemed necessary. the city of new york and specifically the new york department of police, nypd, has deemed it necessary to fortify the area around the courthouse you've written extensively and we'veqtalked a lot about what trump incites, noty■ just on january 6ép■, but in his movemen in general having, you know, once been in that inner circle, what do you want to sort of gird the country (■>g

that donald is very successful in doing is creating a storm, right? he said it in his own rally the other day. you know, there's going to be repercussions. well, i promise you one thing, being a lifelong new yorker and knowing many, many nypdlp officers, new york is not the place that you want to be stupid because the new york police department, as far as i'm concerned, is the best in the world. not evenñók)uáu■the country,t■t. so any -- any silliness like what took place or any, it(■shod say, stupidity%■gok that trump going to try to incite here in new york, it's not going to go over well for -- for any of them, especially not as it relates to law enforcement here inq■ew york. >> michael, who's more e1eq■ráá■

right now, melania orlpok donald >> definitively donald, you know in fact, yeah, she's not the one that's potentially looking at incarceration as well as having to defend this she's just probably going on with whatever it is that she does eachoknd every day.e >> whatñr■1 can you say about t toll this whole process has tañ■ken on you to and including the most recent news çó■ycles, your credibility, which has bee tested by prosecutors in fdny, office, cy vance's office. i knoww■ it bothers you a lot. >> how about all of these genius pundits going on there talkingü% about my credibility from like thei] danny savalosu to paula

reaves everybody wants to attack michaelñi■cohen's credibility? attorney general tish james credited me for the investigation. now, you know what, all of the ì(■% disinf disinformation, mal-information that they are throwingo■ against me will prove what i had provided was rel will he vernt5■ to this investigation and significant in the decision to ultimately hold the former president account ablg.e1e1t(■b■