that this room of about 400 folks was going anywhere but to donald trump. there is not some ground swell movement away from him. kind of like, you know, eight years ago all of a sudden bernie sanders was a clear alternative to hillary clinton who saw folks consistently coming out wearing the paraphernalia. it's not like you're at an event like this that is supposed to be neutral and several of the leaders told us it's a neutral group. i just have little reason to believe that at least among republican party activists like the women in this room, that there is that much room here, katy. >> vaughn, thank you very much. that's going to do it for me today. "deadline white house" starts right now. hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a tape just might be the $64 million answer that

special counsel jack smith is looking for in the classified documents probe. as with the $5 million defamation and sexual abuse judgment against donald trump, his own words are once again being used against him in a court of law. this time we're of course talking about that stunning february 2021 audio recording. donald trump bragging about a secret document with plans to attack iran at bedminster. to a writer working on a book, the discovery of that recording according to report from "the wall street journal" we discussed on this program last week, we know was a watershed moment that helped spur doj into pursuing a criminal case against the ex-president. days after his indictment on 37 felony counts, the ex-president claimed this. >> there was no document. that was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about iran and other things, and it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document. i didn't have a document per se.

there was nothing to declassify. these were newspaper stories, magazine stories and articles. >> that was not a document. well, now we can hear what trump was talking about for ourselves. it includes statements from trump that do not appear in the indictment, including trump telling the writer who does not have the clearance needed to view classified documents this, quote, these are the papers, end quote. nbc news has just obtained the tape. it was first obtained and reported on by cnn. it appears to show trump fully aware of the fact that he's in possession of material that's classified, that he's in possession of material he had not declassified when he was president. here it is in its entirety. listen. >> these are bad, sick people. >> that was your coup, you know, against you that -- >> well, it started right at the beginning. >> when milley's talking about oh, you were going to try to do a coup.

no, they were trying to do that before you were sworn in, trying to overthrow your election. >> well, with milley -- let me see that, i'll show you an example. he said that i wanted to attack iran. isn't it amazing? af big pile of papers. this thing just came up, look. this was him. they presented me this. this is off the record, but they presented me this. this was him. this was the defense department and him. >> wow. >> we looked at some. this was him. this wasn't done by me. this was him. all sorts of stuff, pages long. look. let's see here. >> yeah. >> i just found -- isn't that amazing? this totally wins my case, you know. >> mm-hmm. >> except it is highly confidential, secret -- this is secret information. but look at this. >> hillary would print that out all the time, you know.

>> no, she'd send it to anthony weiner. >> yeah. >> the pervert. >> please print. >> by the way, isn't that incredible? >> yeah. >> i was just thinking because we were talking about, and you know, he said he wanted to attack iran and what -- >> these are the papers. >> you did. this was done by the military given to me. i think we can probably -- right? >> i don't know. we'll have to see. yeah, we'll have to try to -- >> declassify it. >> figure it out, yeah. see, as president i could declassify it, now i can't. isn't that interesting? it's so cool. look, her and i have -- and you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me. >> no, i believed you. >> it's incredible, right? >> they never met a war they didn't want. >> bring some cokes in, please. enough about anthony weiner, back to my classified papers. just wow. it also happens to be a smoking gun piece of evidence in the

classified documents investigation now public for the very first time. it's where we begin today, "new york times" justice reporter glen thrush is back, also joining us the editor of the bulwark, charlie sykes, also here for the hour former senator, our friend claire mccaskill and former justice department prosecutor and senior member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation, andrew weissmann is back. i'll always remember where i was when your first assessment came down last night. tell us what you think the significance of this is to jack smith's case. >> sure. so first let me give you the good news, and then i'm going to -- turn to a little conundrum. if you're a prosecutor you know what you want? the defendant on tape admitting the crime. it's hard to imagine something more devastating than this, and it also flies in the face of the latest defenses that were used,

you know, that he's been putting forth, which is that these are newspapers and i sort of made this all up. you can't listen to this and believe that's true. you couldn't have these kinds of reactions. you can't show a newspaper to someone is say, gee, this is highly confidential or what are you talking about. so this is really a great piece of evidence with respect to his possession and actually dissemination of classified material, and you only have to prove actual possession. the thing that's a little unanswered is the indictment describes this incident at bedminster in detail, but it doesn't charge it, meaning that there's 31 documents that he is charged with illegally possessing, and the document at issue here is not one of them. it doesn't mean that the tape is not admissible. i think it will be admissible,

but i'm wondering why jack smith didn't also charge this because you have such strong evidence of this particular crime with respect to this particular document, and there are a whole bunch of theories people have been, you know, tossing around including myself, but that's the one, i would say, weakness if you are the defense. that's like the little bit of argument you might have, which is you get to tell the jury that, yes, okay, whatever this may be very strong, but it's really, you know, nothing related to these 31 documents. this is for something that happened in new jersey, not in florida. >> so what are the theories? i mean, what do you think, andrew? is it one -- i mean, one of the theories i've heard is that they don't have it. it didn't turn up in the mar-a-lago search, and for whatever reason they didn't search bedminster. >> yeah, i have heard that too. the thing that makes me think that that may not be right is

that if you look at the language in the indictment, it actually -- the preamble to this particular description says that the defendant, donald trump showed and disseminated classified documents and then goes on to describe this. so that doesn't sound like the government doesn't have the document. now, it's possible that they have sufficient evidence that he shared some classified document, but they don't know if it's the exact one. in other words, that they have something that looks a whole lot like what's being described, but it may not be the very same one, and so they're worried about having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. another theory is that because this is material that relates to something that happened in new jersey that they're sort of holding this in abeyance to see what happens in the florida case, to see essentially how bad

judge cannon is, whether she makes crazy rulings. whether she puts the trial off. and that there's always the possibility of then charging this in new jersey. i think that's sort of an unanswered question is why this isn't playing a little bit more of a central role in the case. and don't get me wrong, this tape is still really strong, but it does leave a little room for the defense to make the argument that, yes, this tape may be strong, but don't relate it to these 31 documents that are actually charged. and if you have a juror who's sympathetic to the defense, you know, you never know, and you know, as claire knows, if you're a prosecutor, you're always worried about that standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and you want to close off any wiggle room. >> andrew, how many people have this tape? what is the universe of possibilities for how it made itself onto cnn's air last

night? >> sure. well, you know, this happened when i was in the mueller investigation, and people will say, oh, gee, the government must have leaked this. of course the government does have it, but also the defense now has it. it's been turned over as part of discovery, but even more than that, it doesn't have to have come from the government or the defense camp, which would be obviously improper if it came from either of those. but think about the people who were at the meeting. so if you are one of the two staffers who are reported to have been there, and there may be, in fact, more than two. you know, they're reported to at least one of them have taped this meeting. the ghost writers for mark meadows who were at the meeting, they also are reported to have at least one of them, to have taped the meeting sochlt i would suspect if i had to sort of guess, i would say it's coming

from those sources who were at the meeting who did the tape. and by the way, there's nothing improper or illegal about that, about, you know, making a tape recording and then giving it to the media outlet. and of course there's nothing wrong with the media outlet accepting it. >> let me play the part where it's clear he's on a revenge tour against chairman mark milley one time for you, glen. >> these were the papers. this was done by the military and given to me. i think we can probably -- right? >> i don't know. we'll have to see. >> yeah, we'll have to try to -- >> declassify -- >> figure out -- >> declassify, see as president i could have declassified it. now i can't. >> isn't that interesting? it's so cool. i mean, look her and i have -- and you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me. >> no, i believed you.

>> it's incredible, right? >> no, hey, bring some cokes in, please. >> glen, do we know who the staffer is that says, i think -- well, we'll have to see, yeah. we'll have to try. i don't know. do we know who that was? >> i think we're attempting to sort of chase that as we speak. but what's fascinating about that beyond the legal context of that is it's kind of donald trump's psyche laid bare in 30 seconds. like the whole gamut of motivations, right? because remember, really tating -- dating from the beginning of this issue last august, people are asking themselves why did he do it, and you know, the working theory was always that he wanted to keep these trophies, and i think it's clear when he says, wow, this is cool. it actually reminds me of one of his favorite trophies up in new york in trump tower, where shaq

o'neal's sneaker. i mean, it seems to me just superficially and he would always show that off to visitors, and it seems to me that he's almost talking about it in the same kind of light. but the other end of this, as you pointed out, the sense of grievance he had after reading susan glasser's great story in "the new yorker" about milley. so it's kind of bookending donald trump's character as a political actor and his personal -- and his sort of personal style to all of this. grievance and also kind of the collecting of souvenirs. one thing i wanted to add to an andrew in terms of potential snags and seizing on that, seizing on the fact that this wasn't included in the charges, the other thing that could be a possibility is that this is so highly classified that there's

some turbulence in the intelligence community about wanting to declassify the entirety or parts of this document because it's viewed as being so potentially compromising. that's one other potential possibility for why it wasn't included. >> well, glenn, that's really interesting. i mean, obviously chairman mark milley is still the chairman of the joint chiefs. he's still in office, and any strategy for -- i mean, i hate even saying it out loud, but any sort of strategy for attacking iran may still very well be operational. it may still represent the current strategy. i mean, it raises the question at the center of all of this, what he was so casual and loose about with a writer who's, you know, guffawing, and you know, making jokes about anthony weaner and hillary clinton. it is what you just said. it is this true reveal. the curtain comes down, you see his naked pettiness, his naked callousness with state secrets and his pure unbridled hatred of

anyone who's ever criticized him. >> and it's also potentially fodder for his opponents in the republican primary. look, you know, he is clearly ahead of the field with a tremendous lead, and being indicted seems to have given him a bump. but you don't think this is going to come up in the debates and in stump speeches about whether or not he is responsible enough to be given access to the nation's secrets again? i think that's going to be -- should be -- one can expect that would be a central theme in a lot of the campaigns against him. >> claire, let me bring you in on this as you've been invoked as a prosecutor who would know exactly how to deploy something as evidence. what is your take on what the impact could be on a jury? >> well, i think -- you know, i've been hard on doj for a lot of reasons, mostly their speed,

but in this instance, i want to recognize the pain they have to go through right now. there as andrew said and glenn said, they're walking on a knife edge because they want to present the most egregious examples of donald trump taking classified documents, hiding classified documents, treating them as if they are somehow equivalent to shaq's tennis shoe and showing them off. i think the problem is is this is probably a really serious document because what it is, it is milley after being asked, he prepares a document that talks about how we would go after iran. that is big, serious secret stuff that has wide implications not only to national security of this country but throughout the world. so the notion that the

government lawyers are going to somehow bring that in to open court and prove how bad he was, there is a real push/pull here as to whether or not that's a good idea. and i have to believe that's, as glenn said, one of the main reasons that this particular document was not charged. in fact, i would make the argument that probably the most serious documents have not been charged. that they have charged enough that are serious that are not going to put the security of the nation in jeopardy if they are revealed. it would be very hard to go through a trial and use these documents as evidence and have them remain as secret as they should be. >> charlie sykes, i don't have to tell you, but one of the foreign policy issues republicans still pretend to care about is incredibly aggressive posture towards iran is part of the sort of bucket of policies that republicans see in themselves as making a statement of our support for israel as well as a true menace in the

region. that stated, i haven't seen any republicans criticize trump for waving around a highly classified document with the u.s. military's plans for attacking iran. have you? >> no. and that is stunning on top of stunning. look, let's just step back for a moment to think about what we've seen here. the former president of the united states on tape confessing to multiple feloies while he is laughing about it and then tries to surround this with lies. in any other case, at any other time, this would be disqualifying. there is no parallel to this. we've never seen this in american history. it is inconceivable that any other candidate for any other office other than the presidency right now would be able to survive this allegation or all of the others. you know, this is not the first time that donald trump has been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women, this

time making it very clear that he was -- that he had absconded with war plans, which by the way, if they leaked out could actually put american men and women's lives at risk. so when we talk about what are other republicans going to do, think about all that they've swallowed, but also just a step back and realize what a moment, you know, of history we are in. you know, for seven years some of us have been saying this man is deeply unfit to be president. he is reckless. he is deceptive, he will not put the needs of the country ahead of his own personal grudges and petty feuds. this is all laid out. that tape is donald trump in full, as glenn said, every aspect of donald trump is laid out there, so you know, again, we don't know what the -- how the republicans are going to react. maybe this will give them another bump in the polls, but let's not pretend that this is anything other than absolutely disqualifying for anyone who's running for president of the

united states. >> you know, charlie, we talked a little bit yesterday about the tension that people in the national security agencies have largely been reluctant to jump into the fray with a few exceptions. general haden has been warning about trump and his effect and he's served democratic and republican presidents. john brennan is on our air waves as a national security contributor. as this sinks in some of the folks who have been reluctant to say what they saw, people like generalmattis, people who still try to thread some needle that trump wasn't the horror with u.s. national security that we can all now hear with our ears that he was. do you think it represents a moment? >> it should be and maybe it will be. i think what's been happening is that a lot of those folks have been saying these things in private, keeping their concerns to themselves but have been

waiting for someone else to do this. but yes, because this is not ambiguous, there is nothing ambiguous. in terms of the facts and the law this is game over. the question is will there be accountability. think about all the generals that at one point donald trump surrounded himself with, you know, because he had a thing for generals. each and every one of them i think has an obligation to come out and say right now, look, this man poses a real imminent threat to national security. this is a clear and present danger, and you know, to ka claire's point, mark milley is still in office. these plans are not -- these are not historical documents. these may be operational documents. the severity and the gravity of this is so overwhelming. if there was ever a moment they were going to speak out, this is it. if this is not it, what are they waiting for? >> exactly. no one's going anywhere today. when we come back, there's much

more on the state and status of trump's seeming, obvious criminality in the mar-a-lago documents case. plus, a big blow today to the republican party's blueprint to steal the next election in 2024. the u.s. supreme court with a monumental decision this morning in what is being described as the most important case for american democracy in the two and a half centuries since our country's founding. and on the topic of gop scheming and those fake electors, later in the program, justice department now reportedly taking a long, hard look at potential criminality associated with efforts to overturn the last election. we'll be joined by two key players from the january 6th select committee later on in the show, all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. break. don't go anywhere.

type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes.

taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. bridgett is here. she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, and once-in-a-lifetime. so... i know you and george were struggling with the possibility of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath. a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure, spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home. a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins

of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces, convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage™ to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day. they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself. stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to receive 50% off installation of your kohler® walk-in bath. and take advantage of our on interest for 12 months financing.

there might be a tape recording, quote, where you acknowledge that you understood -- >> yeah. >> -- that these were classified documents. first of all, do you know who this call may be with? do you know anything about it? >> no, i don't know anything about it. all i know is this, everything i did was right. if you're the president of the united states, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it because you're sending it to mar-a-lago or to wherever you're sending it. >> why did you take those documents with you when you left the white house? >> i had every right to under the presidential records act. i was there and i took what i took and it gets declassified. >> claire, it's the classified documents version of when you're famous they let you do it. it's ludicrous. i mean, to the point char lea made and glenn, do you think

there's a point where as the legal sort of process whirls on, the political screws get turned to him as well this time around with opponents like chris christie and others making some arguments as ex-prosecutors? >> well, i'm not going to be optimistic that this -- >> me neither. >> you know, it's about 30% of america that are buying everything this guy sells. >> it's so dumb. >> it is so dumb. i mean, he is so stupid. it is just amazing how stupid he is. it reminds me of making closing arguments and andrew can probably relate to this. but i always loved as a prosecutor because you got the last word and invariably the defense would in their closing arguments say, well, nobody could be this stupid, and i'd always stand up in my rebuttal and say if we have to open the prison doors for stupid, we won't have anybody in prison because everybody who does criminal activity at some level is dumb. they think that i won't get

caught or they think they're too smart or they think it's worth it, whatever. this guy -- the thing also about this case, nicolle we have to remember is a courtroom is a different thing for donald trump because all of the stuff falls away, and the only thing that comes in front of the jury are the facts. as the judge determines are relevant. and oaths are taken not only by witnesses, do they stand in front of everybody and take a solemn oath before god. so does the jury. the jury takes a solemn oath before god about their duty and following the law and listening to the facts. so in is a very treacherous territory for a guy like donald trump because his wheeling and dealing and his lying at every turn just doesn't work in a courtroom. >> yeah, and i mean, glenn, i guess that's where our only parallel recently is noting --

and that's why we started with it -- how the jury that heard trump in his own words for a million years if you're famous, they let you do it, do wha grab them in the you know what. at least that jury, that group of jurors saw him say what he was accused of doing in his own words and found him civilly liable. >> well, you know, he has some advantages with this case being in aileen cannon's courtroom. we don't know if all of the assumptions people have made about her orientation towards him and this whole process is true. it appears that the jury pool in fort pierce is pretty conservative, but you know, it doesn't necessarily imply that there's going to be a result in his favor. but i think there's a little bit of proof in the pudding here. right before he was indicted. there was a rash of stories in my paper and elsewhere about him

having difficulty obtaining permanent counsel in florida to represent him. when lawyers don't want to represent a client, i think that tells you something about the client and about the relative strength of the government's case. >> andrew, can you weigh in and give us your read on some of these rulings. they're a little technical. they involve whether the list of witnesses is public or private. trump already has them, so it's actually not about what trump sees. it's about what the public sees. how do you read those? >> sure. and one point just about the tape is it's useful to remember that the document that we're talking about was clearly -- it was intend by trump to be used during this interview. so there's a staffer who had it who hands it to him. this is all extremely intentional on his part to show this to the person who is writing the story about mark meadows. so this is not something that's

casual. this is part of his plan to show this. that sort of back story and also the number of witnesses to that, it's much more than -- as bad as the audiotape is, the government has, as sure as we're here, has interviewed all these people and has that full story. judge cannon, some good news is she is required by july 6th that the defendants have to put this a response to the government's request for a december trial date, meaning she's requiring them to respond so she can make a ruling on that. that's good that she's not letting that languish. we're all going to see what date she picks. she may hear from the parties before she makes that ruling. that's good that she's getting that. she also has accepted the government's date of july 14th for what's called the sepa hearing.

that is the first date where the parties will start discussing how they're going to deal with classified information. that's also a good sign because as we've talked about, the thing that's most likely to slow the process is how the classified documents will be dealt with. the conundrum being that a trial has to be public, criminal trials are public. classified documents are private. the hearing that we will not really be a party to is all about how to sort of thread that needle. what will become public, what will not become public. then there's the issue of the so-called list of 84 witnesses, and it's a -- i just think that's sort of not -- it's been over read. she has not said that the list of 84 people need to be made public. she basically just said i don't know that i need to see it. like don't file that in court so the whole issue goes away. just give it to the defendants, which the government has, and they know that they cannot communicate about the case with

those 84. and so i think that was actually a fairly wise decision in saying it doesn't really need to ever really be in court, and so the motion by the media to get access to those names, which by the way if i were a judge i would never grant, sorry to say. i know that we're on a media show right now, but, yeah, there are limits to how much can become public. so i think that's a bit of a -- in a teapot in terms of where that landed. >> charlie sykes, i wonder if you can pull together some of these threads. to andrew's point, there's always a room full of people. trump is so emboldened in his role for so long without being held accountable. there were lots of people on the perfect call. there were a room full of people as he waved around classified material, and the staffer knew it was problematic. there were many people on the text with walt nauta where he was talking about, you know, my

boxes, my boxing boxes. there are a whole bunch of people who know exactly what trump did. it sounds like a lot of them knew it was wrong. >> and jack smith knows all of that. jack smith has that case buttoned up. donald trump's strategy not for the first time is to gaslight america, to say, no, you did not hear what you just heard. what you think happened did not, in fact, happen. he's done this over and over and over again, and he's found that it's been politically effective, at least in republican circles. but it is going to be an extraordinary moment where he's going to have to have to essentially, you know, say that -- you know, what are you going to believe? are you going to believe your eyes, or are you going to believe your ears or are you going to believe me. members of the cult, they're going to believe him. this becomes more difficult for him. you played his defenses that he made on fox news. that tape undermines and

destroys every single one of his defenses, and he's gone through them. remember the first defense the fbi planted the documents. then he said i had already declassified them. now he's claiming that they weren't actually documents. each and every one of those defenses is going to be shredded, so all he can do basically is to continue to tell his alternative reality and hope that his base is so -- is so loyal to him and the rest of the republican party is so cowed that he's able to get away with it or even get a boost from it. but this will be an epic case of gaslighting for the next year and a half from the former president. >> it's amazing, it's really amazing. it's are remarkable to see it in this context. thank you all so much for starting us off today on this story. andrew sticks around a little bit longer. after the break, a no doubt about it victory for free and fair elections in this country. the u.s. supreme court saying no

to a fringe far right legal theory that would have allowed republicans to run roughshod during the 2024 election and beyond. our friend neal katyal who argued this case in front of the supreme court joins us next. don't go anywhere. t of the supreme court joins us next. don't go anywhere. check it out, you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, i'll look into that. let me put a reminder on my phone. save $700 dollars. pick up dad from airport? ohhhhhh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ fundamental freedoms are under attack in our country today and there is a national agenda at play by these extremist so-called leaders. it will be a national ban on abortion. it is the tradition of our country to fight for freedom, to fight for rights... to fight for the ability of all people

to be who they are and make decisions about their own lives and their bodies. and we will fight for the ideals of our country. (bridget) with thyroid eye disease i hid from the camera. and their bodies. and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d. was beyond help... but then i asked my doctor about tepezza. (vo) tepezza is the only medicine don't go anywhere. e source don't go anywhere. he symptoms. in a clinical study more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion. patients taking tepezza may have infusion reactions. tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure, fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before getting tepezza, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar even if you don't have diabetes and may worsen ibd such as crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. now, i'm ready to be seen again.

visit mytepezza.com to find a ted eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos. ♪♪ alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders. that's what u.s. bank is for. and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura? that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno? fres-yes. encinitas? yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole?

i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists photographing thousands of miles of remote coral reefs. that can be analyzed by ai in real time. ♪ so researchers can identify which areas are at risk. and help life underwater flourish. ♪ in a major win for u.s. democracy today, the supreme court rejected a radical legal theory that would have upended american elections. it would have done that by grant

state legislatures unchecked power over federal elections. this theory is popularly known on the far right as the independent state legislature theory. it was at the center of a case before the supreme court, which concerned a voting map drawn by the north carolina legislature. the case was viewed by many as a test for the independent state legislature theory, which in the lead up to january 6th was pushed by none other than john eastman. he is the architect of donald trump's failed coup. if upheld, the theory would have meant if a state legislature was not satisfied with the state's election laws, that legislature could refuse to certify the results of a presidential election at the will of the people in the state and send their own slate of electors, potentially creating a constitutional crisis. but today the court ruled 6-3 against this outlandish theory with chief justice john roberts joining the majority ensuring

one basic check on independent elections remains protected against conservative attacks. joining our conversation is neal katyal, the former acting solicitor general, supreme court lawyer who made the oral arguments on behalf of becky harper, common cause and the other voters in today's supreme court victory. andrew's with us as well. congratulations and please tell us what this was about, what was at stake? >> thank you so much. it's a really exciting day, not least of all for me but most of all for american democracy. the republican national committee went to the supreme court and said state legislatures should be able to do whatever they want when it comes to federal elections, that there would be no check and balance that the state constitutions wouldn't matter, that the state courts would have no role, and they are of course reacting to the 60 or so times that state courts in the 2020 election ruled against trump. and this was -- the immediate

case was about gerrymandering and redistricting, but it affects all voting rules, all voting regulations, everything. everything from absentee ballots, hours for polls or anything, basically what the u.s. supreme court said today is, look, the way we've been doing this for 200 plus years is to have courts as a check on a state legislature that acts in an unconstitutional way. and it was, use point out, the john eastmans of the world who are pushing this theory. john eastman filed a brief before the supreme court pedaling this independent state legislature theory, and today the court to use the words of a "new york times" columnist nuked it. nuked the independent state legislature theory. it's dead. it has no place in american law. it's gone. >> let me ask about that because what happens with dobbs is conservative legal activist sent case after case after case to

the supreme court to be tested until they had their victory and overturned roe. will this deter the john eastma? is it decisive or is there anything in clarence thomas's dissent that means they'll keep pressing on this. >> i'm not sure anything will ever deter john eastman, but nicolle, i think it's important that this opinion, this was a 6-3 opinion, but it was actually 7 to 2 on the merits of the independent state legislature theory because justice alito didn't take a position on it so there's at least six votes right now that are saying we don't buy these kind of election shenanigans. to me at least for now it's saying for the 2024 six justices saying you engaged in these shenanigans and we're going to act as a bulwark to protect american democracy.

can that change over a period of years? absolutely. if you can make up dobbs, you can kind of make up anything, but it's going to take a long time for the composition of the court to shift away and to lose the justices that were in the majority opinion today. so i think for now we're pretty safe when it comes to the independent state legislature theory. i think it's important, you know, the weird thing about this case is that after i argued it in december, the republican national committee and others went to the north carolina supreme court where the case was from and said, change your opinion. change it, and they did. they changed it entirely, which i'm not sure has ever happened in the history of the u.s. supreme court, and that led to all sorts of people, including everyone on my side of the case to tell the supreme court don't decide it. don't decide it. all those other lawyers were just worried the supreme court would decide it the other way. we had come and caused we believe strongly that the u.s. supreme court would repudiate this indpentd

theory, and we thought it would be important there was a decision now. the supreme court's spoken defin defin tivoli and thoroughly. >> what do we know about the supreme court today that we didn't yesterday? and i guess by that, do we -- can we deduce anything broader about their views on democracy and elections from this decision? >> well, i think at least for me, i'm in the same place i was before, which is i think that this chief justice and several other justices do want to protect democracy. think see that as a fundamental corner stone of what america is. when you get past that to other issues like abortion and so on, i think it's a much more open question. as to where they're going to wind up want but yang -- i think this decision today is consistent with the 60 or 10 cases that were decided before, many of which trump tried to bring to the supreme court in the 2020 election, and the

supreme court had none of it. they just thought this was ridiculous and didn't even bother to hear any of them. so this is of a piece with that. you know, to the extent there is a move to try and throw out the popular vote in some state and replace it with fake electors, which obviously there was a plan to try and do that in 2020, the decision today while not on its own terms but i think the logic of it would say that's unconstitutional. that's antidemocratic, that's wrong. >> andrew weissmann if you had told me, you know, three years ago that i would be explaining the independent state legislature theory on live tv, i would have said what are you talking about? but some of this is the laboratory of anti-democratic policies and laws and practices on the right has forced these issues to the forefront. our viewers are very attuned to all these issues and legal theory, and what it, i think, shows is that on the right the

forces pulling and fighting against democracy are doing it at all levels, right? there's the information level, which is everything trump says, the assault on the law, which is everything jim jordan does, and there are these cases which is something people like. john eastman are working on 24/7 in corners of the country we probably aren't aware of. what do you make of that fight? and again, it was a victory in this battle. but on the right the war is underway. >> so this is just a huge, huge case, and neal and his team did a remarkable job. and i'll note that there were eminent so-called liberals and conservatives who were in support of the position that neal advocated. because it really was about the rule of law and the role that our courts have in our society,

and you know, we are now seeing just how much they are going to be under attack in the way that the media's been under attack by donald trump and the far right. so are the courts because there's such accountability that is coming their way. and this case is about that. it is about the fact that there is a roll of -- for the courts to have a check on sort of naked political power, and that is the position that, you know, advocated and he got the chief justice of the united states to -- you know, to write on this and to say that this goes back to a decision called marbury versus madison, which is a core case in our sort of legal history about the role of the courts in assuing the rights of the people and making sure that naked power is not what this country is about. and so this is such an important

decision, and to your question about, you know, could it change? of course, but this is quite strong. i agree with neal completely that this is much more of a 7 to 2 decision in terms of its strength because it's remarkable that justice alito didn't throw his weight into the dissent here, which was, i thought, another huge win on his part. >> so neal, you're always so humble, but we get to be proud of you and brag about having you on this show explaining all manner of things to us all the time. we all want to associate ourselves with the kudos coming your way from andrew and everybody else. we're going to ask both of you to stick around. on the other side of the break, the other cases we are still waiting for and watching on the u.s. supreme court's to-do list. some huge decisions with big, big impact for lots of americans yet to be made, ones that could impact all ofs. stick around, we'll tell you about them next. l tell you about them next. now i feel free to bare

my skin, thanks to skyrizi. ♪(uplifting music)♪ ♪nothing is everything♪ i'm celebrating my clearer skin... my way. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin, even at 5 years. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. thanks to clearer skin with skyrizi - this is my moment. there's nothing on my skin and that means everything! ♪nothing is everything♪ now's the time. ask your doctor about skyrizi, the #1 dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis. learn how abbvie could help you save.

imagine you're doing something you love. rsv could cut it short. ♪ rsv is a contagious virus that usually causes mild symptoms but can cause more severe infections that may lead to hospitalizations... ...in adults 60 and older... ...and adults with certain underlying conditions, like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. talk to your doctor and visit cutshortrsv.com. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire.

i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire somebody would ask her something and she would just walk right past them. she didn't know they were talking to her.

i just could not hear. i was hesitant to get the hearing aids because of my short hair. but nobody even sees them. our nearly invisible hearing aids are just one reason we've been the brand leader for over 75 years. when i finally could hear for the first time, i started crying. i could hear everything. call 1-800-miracle and schedule your free hearing evaluation today. in this final week of its term, the supreme court has seven outstanding cases on which to rule and issues at stake include student debt cancellation and affirmative action. more relevance than ever. neal and andrew are still with us. just take us through a couple that you are watching for in this final week, final days. >> so there are four big ones but i think that the two that

will get the most attention are the ones that you flagged. affirmative action and a public and private institutions. are colleges allowed to consider things like race, national origin and deciding the makeup of their class. this really could be the death knell of a affirmative action. so that is i think the next huge big decision in terms of how this country is going to operate. and i'll tell you, i think other institutions are watching this closely is for what will happen to their practices. and the other is student debt. so the president has canceled 400 billion with a b dollars worth of student loans. so the issue is whether he had congressional authorization to take that action. there was quite a bit of skepticism in the argument, but

you never know what will happen. but that could have just a huge effect on students and recent students and even not so recent students who have a lot of debt. so in terms of big picture, there is a bit of the two, those are the two big cases that we're waiting for to be decided in the next couple days. >> neal, same question. what are you watching for? >> yeah, i think it is exactly those two cases. affirmative action cases, within from harvard and from the university of north carolina. and i think one interesting question is that affirmative action has been the law since at least 1978. and so repeatedly reaffirmed by the supreme court time and again. but this is the same supreme court that was comfortable overruling a super precedence

like roe v. wade. so will they be comfortable doing that here. it will be a pretty dramatic step if they do it, one question is how do they do it, are they going to say all forms of admission on the basis of race, any self-identification has to be struck out. if a woman writes an essay about being african-american woman, do they have to redact that. like do the proxies for race that schools use sometimes like pell grants like that will it be used. >> and do you have any rituals on days like today wheyou veil before the supreme court? >> i thank my god, my family and the constitution. and i thank my team because i've

had the extraordinary team. this was one of the most conservative jurists in our lifetimes but he's been standing constitution and it was a privilege to have him and just a whole group of young attorneys. i can't tell you how many hours to this fight that they worked. and it is almost ludicrous that we should have this fight. it is absurd just by itself. but we had to spent showers and showers of hours doing this and coming up with a strategy. so i'm grateful to them. >> and we're grateful to you. again, for your work there and your work here. thank you so much for taking time today to talk to us. and to you, andrew weissmann. great to have you both on today. quick break for us, when we come back, one of the most

significant updates to the criminal investigation into trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. brad raffensperger speaks for the first time. why that should make the ek president very, very nervous. next. nervous next ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ get it with gurus. cargurus. ♪ limu emu & doug ♪ what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you make us proud, huh? ♪

bye, uncle limu. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ for too long, big oil companies have bought off politicians so they can get away with ripping us off. that's changing now. joe biden passed a plan to jumpstart clean energy production in america. it's creating good jobs that can't be outsourced and will lower energy costs. $1800. that's how much a new report says the inflation reduction act could save just the average american family on energy costs. [narrator] learn how the inflation reduction act will save you money. hey, dad. i got an a on my book report. -and i scored a goal on ashley. -that's cool. and i went for a walk in the woods and i didn't get a single flea or tick on me. you are just the best. it's probably because of that flea and tick medicine you've been ordering from chewy. we are very proud of you. you never stop surprising us, bailey.

right? i'm great. you are great. i wonder if bailey's ever done a book report. be nice to your sister. what flea bit him? pets aren't just pets. they're more. this flea and tick season, trust america's #1 pet pharmacy. chewy. ♪♪ alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders. that's what u.s. bank is for. and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura? that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno?

fres-yes. encinitas? yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole? i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power. did you investigate whether the allegations were accurate, did 5,000 dead people in georgia vote? >> no, it is not accurate. actually in their lawsuits they allege 10,315 dead people. we found two dead people and i

wrote my letter to congress dated january 6 subsequent to that, we found two more. that is four people, not 4,000. just a total of four. not 10,000, not 5,000. >> four, 10,000, four -- hi again. when it comes to the fraud claims that the ex-president and his allies were spreading about the result in georgia, brad raffensperger knew they were false and he could prove it. tomorrow he will share his intimate knowledge about the false claims as well as now the famous call with investigators from jack smith's office in his january 6 investigation. it is raffensperger's first known interview with doj in the probe, and it signals an escalation in the jack smith investigation. georgia's secretary of state

appearing before federal investigators comes as smith's investigation is, quote, barreling forward on multiple tracks according to some blockbuster brand new reporting in the "washington post" that says that key area of interest is the conduct of a handful of lawyers who sought to turn trump's defeat into victory by trying it convince state, local, federal and judicial authorities that joe biden's 2020 election win was ill legitimate or tainted by fraud. investigators have sought to determine whether they were following specific instructions from trump or others and what those instructions were. smith's investigate informations are reportedly pursuing the lawyers' actions related to the illegal fake elector scheme which would have replaced electors in swing states where

joe biden won with pro trump fake elector substitutes as well as with the 1/6 select committee described as the big rip-off, how fund raising pitches and advertisements were making money or the election fraud lies. and among smith's evidence is an email from jason miller which scissors that the campaign's own legal team and data experts cannot verify the bold bleep being beamed down from the mothership. that is why giuliani and his lawyers were 0 for 32. an apparent reference to the number of times trump's team challenged in court and lost. andprivately didn't believe or were at a minimum skeptical. the pushing of election lies is now under jack smith's microscope and it is where we begin the hour with some of our most favorite reporters an friends.

joining us is our "washington post" reporter and also congresswoman lofgren, and also former lead investigate information for the select committee is here. and also a former republican congressman david jolly is joining us. let's start with the extraordinary and very detailed piece of reporting at what jack smith has turned to, who he is turning to for it and why. take us through it. >> you know, i think what is important to remember about this great reporting by my colleagues especially that whopper of an email from jason miller, he is complaining, you know, we obviously have some questions about this bs that is being presented in all of these campaign ads that are supposed to scare people into thinking

that there is election fraud. remember that four days into being named special counsel, jack smith asked a series of states in a subpoena for all of their communications with these precise lawyers. a group of about 13 to 20 different trump lawyers, any communications that they had with state election officials and others about all manner of things, including validity of the election and fake elector scheme. so four days in to his job, this is the kind of data and information that jack smith was seeking. and also the trail that jack smith is trying to follow. and that trial is did they know

this claim was bogus and if they made money, what did they use it for. was there also a fraudulent claim about how the money would be used, did they comply with the play and how it was actually spent. a lot of questions about that as well. >> congresswoman lofgren, the select committee collected a lot of evidence about the campaign's conduct in a lot of the categories. and i'll start with what they knew. committee seemed to method he cannily present almost like layers of wallpaper.he cannily present almost like layers of wallpaper. campaign official after the lawyer after the data guy who said that we lost, we lost, we told him wes lost. and then the falsity of the fraud claims. bill barr calling them bs. lost. and then the falsity of the

fraud claims. bill barr calling them bs. now this email from jason miller saying of course they are wrong. and in the end i think that they went 1 for 62 by the time all the cases have been heard. what do you make about what this says about where jack smith's criminal investigation into these matters stands? >> well, obviously we don't know, but it is clear from all the evidence that we compiled that these campaign officials and really the president himself knew that these claims of faulty election were false. we did find evidence that the campaign officials, they knew that they would have a harder time getting these false claims on television because some of it, stations would refuse to run it and therefore have more extravagant claims emails and online than they were able to put on the air.

whether takes law violation, the prosecutors will have to say. but clearly they made claims that there was a campaign account that didn't exist. whether it violates wire fraud statutes remains to be seen. >> and congresswoman, you led the public hearing focused on what you coined the big rift. and where do you think and how many people do you think are exposed criminality on that front? >> hard to know, but there was a very large group of people working to promote the fraud, they knew it was and you la. how much of that constitutes the criminal behavior, the prosecutor has to make the charges. i feel sorry for the millions of primarily people of modest means who gave their hard earned money because they were duped by the

master fraudster, the ex-president. >> tim, i want to pull you in on this. the select committee had access to brad raffensperger and a lot of the lawyers that are named, some of the lawyers relied on their fifth amendment privileges. where do you think jack smith is and where can they go that you weren't able to push through based on this reporting? >> well, that email shows that we doesn't have the mothership email from jason miller, but what is interesting to me about that document is the use of the term mothership. that suggests that there is direction coming from above. it is not jason mailler and

campaign workers or ad people doing things on their own. they are receiving guidance from the mothership. i think jack smith continues to be focused on who is making decisions, who is aware of fraudulent claims of election fraud, false representations in these ads. and so it isn't just the substance, it is who is directing that substance and who is aware of it. he continues to get stuff beyond that which was given to us to ms. lofgren and the other members of the select committee. raffensperger is not new. right? his story has been on record for a long time. he gave a very lengthy videotaped deposition to the select committee. his story has remained consistent. he looked at the allegations in georgia and debunked them. he did two full hand recounts of every ballot cast in georgia.

they are run through dominion voting machines but every vote cast is reduced to paper. and as the clip you played suggested, raffensperger found a very limited less than ten number of mistakes. so he was really confident that he made it clear to everyone inside and outside of georgia. so he again is a witness who was a truth teller who informs what the president and his top team knew and when they knew it. >> mark meadows is someone else that has testified before the grand jury. and may be able to answer questions about who was on the mothership. how far along do you think jack smith could be knowing that he has already heard from mark meadows? >> in any investigation, you kind of march up the chain of responsibility. if you were a responsibility

investigating the corporation, i wouldn't interview the ceo or ceo chief of staff until the end. so the fact that they are interviewing someone centrally involved like mark meadows or mike pence, that suggest that's is nearing the end of the fact gathering process. now, within the department, there is the fact gathering and then there is the assessment of the facts and then there is the internal discussion about what charges may or may not be appropriate. doesn't mean an indictment is coming next week because the fact gathering is done, but it is significant that he is accessing people right at the very center of the relevant conduct. >> david jolly, let's bring you in as well. we know so much about the pressure campaign in georgia because of the recording of the raffensperger call. but for all of his deficiencies, trump was able to count.

he could read a poll, he knew when his numbers were up, when they were down, he knew how many electoral votes he needed to overturn his defeat and georgia would not have done it. what do you think the status is of the investigation into the georgia-like plots in other states? >> oh, i think that it is very telling and very significant. and i think that we can pick up right where tim left off which is that you can tell the maturity of the investigation frankly by raffensperger coming in to speak with the special counsel's office. that was a direct conversation not just with the president of the united states, but with others on the phone call. we know that call took more than an hour and raffensperger has said that it felt like a threat. so that would suggest that you are getting to the fact gathering and charging decision as to whether you could say that

he was raffensperger to do something illegal. and donald trump was also looking at other states and the fake elector scheme was alive and well in other states as well. i think that donald trump and his team has every reason to be worried and i think that is the final piece about this, which is that and his team. it is hard to imagine an environment should jack smith decide and the department of justice decide bringing charges against donald trump, hard to imagine a world in which it is not donald trump plus his allies and the network and others that went along in facilitating the big lie and the pressure campaign. the big question is who has given the department of justice information in return or either no charges or leniency. we don't know that. mark meadows would seem to be a perfect target to someone who is cooperating. but i think if you are around donald trump, you have every reason to be worried right now. >> and i want to turn to a

conversation that carol and i started yesterday. and now that i have, you congresswoman and you, tim, david, i want to play some of the evidence that the committee developed had we didn't have on hand yesterday. and this is about where jack smith may be going in terms of tying trump to the conversation inspired by the reporting from my own colleague julia ainsley that half a dozen secret service agents have testified. and let me play some evidence developed by the commit it about not what the d.c. police or the capitol police were reporting but what the presidential detail was reporting. along the route about weapons and potential for violence and just the surveillance report. >> the individuals about 6 feet tall, brown cowboy boots, blue

jeans and blue jean jacket and underneath the ar-15. two individuals in the group wearing grein fatigues, 5'9", kinney, white male. they have pistols in their waste band. >> the subject weapon on his right hip. >> and that is the metropolitan police department traffic. and there is also an exhibit with some traffic from the presidential detail. let me show you some of cassidy hutchinson's testimony describing what an off the record movement is. >> an off the record movement is confined to the knowledge of a

very, very small group of advisers and staff, typically a small group would travel with him, mostly that are just included in the national security package. you can pull off the record movement available in less than an hour. it is a way to kind of circumvent having to release it to the press if that is the goal of it or not have to have as many security parameters in place ahead of time. >> we've had conversations about the uneven response of documents and testimony from the secret service and some of those missing and lost text messages. what are your thoughts as you hear about those thoughts in jack smith's grand jury? >> i'm glad to hear it. i've always been concerned that we did not get the full story

from members of the secret service. they hid evidence for a long period of time including the fact that the text messages had been erased in violation of the retained evidence orders from several committees. we didn't get the large amount of documents until liz cheney and i went on the war path over labor day weekend involving the secretary of homeland security who is great by the way who made them give us information. and then they dumped the information on us. i think that thinking that we'd never get through it, but we did. i will say that the testimony from in orinato was inconsistent and also i found it to be

incredible in some cases. so i have a lingering concern about some of the members of the secret service. obviously there are many brave members including those who went with pence to the capitol. helped defend him from the mob. but i have anxiety that was never resolved in our investigation and i hope that will be resolved clearly this trip to the capitol was long planned. hutchinson said that giuliani said that it will be great, we're going to the capitol. whether or not what she was told by mr. orinato was true in terms of lunging at the driver. there was ample evidence that there was a big dust up between the president and his team. he intended to go. they dispatched snirps along the

route because he intended to go. metro. >> jules polonetsky: . >> jules polonetsky: metropolitan police said that they had to wait for about an hour. so a lot of evidence that implicates members of the secret service that i'm concerned about. >> and carol, i think the two pieces of reporting make clear that jack smith's investigation into january 6 has reached the literal and figurative inner circle of trump's world. people on the mothership plotting the coup on the highest levels. >> a no question that getting actual sworn testimony under penalty of perjury and under penalty of all sorts of things, getting sworn system of

individuals like bobby engel who was in the front seat of the package taking donald trump where he thought he was going to the capitol but they were actually taking him to the white house, the testimony -- i couldn't agree more, i think that knowing what he has to say about the alleged altercation will be interesting. but far more important, if you are a criminal investigator, will be what did the president say when you relay that there were people with glocks and pistols and ar-15 stocks in their waste bands, you know, and hidden behind their coats. what did he say about whether or not those people were allowed in to the elipse and join him on the march to the capitol. what mr. orinato did you tell the president when he insisted in basically late december and early january either directly to

you or to aides who relayed it to you, who insisted that he was going to be marnlgse marching t capitol even though there was no permit for such a march, even though there were warnings by people hosting those rallies, it would be illegal to have a march because they weren't permitted to do that. and i want to go back to a couple things about the committee's work. many of the things that we have learned in the last year about what happened on january 6 and in the days leading up to it have come from the press, but also built upon by the committee's work. and some of those things are being asked by jack smith. the interview with brad raffensperger, right, something the "washington post" reported in january of 2021. and now he is coming forward for an actual interview. that is a long period of time to wait. even though his story is consistent, a long time to get to the point of asking somebody

who has a firsthand witness to whether or not there was an attempt by the president to interfere in the federal election for president. and another thing very curious, testimony of cassidy hutchinson, has she also been asked -- we understand the department of justice has sought information from her, but only after the committee had her testifying live on television did the justice department turn to her as a potential witness also in a way, you know, on the shoulder essentially of all these events as they were unfolding. >> tim, it is a conversation that you and i pick up pretty regularly. but there is no denying, "washington post" has done the reporting on this gap, on this unwillingness or lag, whatever you want to call it, to do the investigation.

but the result of that is what carol is articulating. no one has talked to brad raffensperger yet it is tomorrow. what do you make in terms of someone who has worked with the witnesses and developed evidence, what sort of disadvantage might that put him at? >> he is building upon a foundation as carol said of work done by the select committee and others. so it is tar decide. should have happened sooner. but he benefits in some ways by that foundation. what you just played about the president's desire to travel to the capitol, that is just so powerful evidence of the president's intent to disrupt the joint session. if he is aware that people in the crowd are armed, are angry and gives that incendiary speech

on the elipse about we'll go to the capitol and i'll be there with you, if even after that he intends to personally travel with those armed insurrectionists to the capitol and everybody agrees that there is very strong desire by president trump to go to the capitol, there couldn't be more dramatic evidence of his intent to influence, impede or obstruct the joints session. you can never get direct evidence of a person's intent. as a prosecutor you are always looking for circumstantial evidence of it. but those facts that he wants to develop through whatever source possible are definitely pertinent and directly woven and inform a charging decision about the president's intent. so we talk about it a lot, i wish we had gotten there sooner, there was clear hesitation by the department to typhoon into the dive into the political coup. i think that we did drag them there by putting on some of the evidence.i think that we did dr

there by putting on some of the evidence. but now that they are there, they are going a little beyond and all of it results in an indictment and president trump facing charges of obstructing an official proceeding. >> all right. i have a million more questions for you about that. i believe tomorrow is also the one year anniversary of cassidy hutchison's testimony. i'll check the dates. but i want to ask you about that. and carol, thank you for starting us off and spending more time than i think you anticipate with us. everyone else will stick around. when we come back, what congresswoman lofgren's former colleague liz cheney is saying today. we'll play it for you next. and also ahead wesley lowry who gained prominence with his coverage of the protests in ferguson, missouri on the alarming rise of white

nationalism in our country. he will be our guest. (bobby) my store and my design business? we're exploding. but my old internet, was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. i will be a travel influencer... hey, i thought you were on vacation? it's too expensive. use priceline, they've got deals no one else has. what about work? i got you. looking great you guys! ♪ go to your happy price ♪ ♪ priceline ♪ my a1c was up here; now, it's down with rybelsus®. his a1c? ♪ go to your happy price ♪ it's down with rybelsus®.

my doctor told me rybelsus® lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill and that people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. i got to my a1c goal and lost some weight too. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? you may pay as little as $10 per prescription.

if the republican party continues down this path, and moves towards for example nominating donald trump for the presidency, you know, i think that we have seen day after day after day the party go further and further down this path of not being salvageable. and i think the single most important issue, and i mean that, the single most important issue that faces this nation and

we face a huge array of challenges and threats and they are very complex, but the single most important issue is that donald trump never be anywhere near the oval office again. >> we're back with congresswoman lofgren. and david jolly, two in one week, the other was judge lutig, making the same argument that wasn't front and center four years ago. >> yeah, we have a former president that tried to topple our democracy encouraging the use of violence to disrupt the peaceful transition of power. it is hard to talk about that in a sober way and not get excited about it, but i think liz cheney has been one thing which is consistent. that donald trump remain as threat to the united states. and to the conversation about what jack smith is

investigating, liz smith's comment informs jack smith's motivation here. because the further that you get away from a climatic event like january 6, the more dispassionate and precise the application of law can become. we know it has been a theme from the very beginning that the people who intended to commit violence on january 6 to stop the transition of power were invited to washington, d.c. by donald trump. and we know that those individuals were encouraged to go to the capitol by donald trump. we know it was donald trump that wished to join them in the violence to disrupt the transition of power. that was the incredible work of the january 6 committee. and that is the work that jack myth is now investigating. >> liz cheney has also said if there is not criminal accountability for donald trump for his role in january 6 there,

is no rule of law in the united states. as we head into another election, what is the level of support for him as a candidate for his party's nomination 2024 mean the other party thinks about the rule of law and its important in this country? >> like liz, it is very does his turning. the case is clear that he did try to overturn the election illegally. he has made clear that he intends to overturn the constitution if he is back in the united states. he is a threat to the united states. i hope that the accident of justice is not too late. honestly, until the "washington post" story, i didn't realize that they were not doing this investigation until basically the january 6 committee showed them up. i'm stunned about that. we all thought that they were doing these investigations while we were and that they were not

is very concerning. and i hope that that really unbelievable and impermissible delay does not prevent justice from being accomplished. >> so, tim, tomorrow will be the one year anniversary of cassidy hutchison's life testimony. she had taped depositions, but the live testimony was one year ago tomorrow. and it has been reported that this one hearing is helped spur the department to action. and there are a lot of defenders of the department and i'm far from a blanket critic of the department. but we are now at a point in the political calendar where unless you tell me otherwise, it seems impossible that he could be tried before the next election. >> exactly. i think that he will be charged before the election but not tried. he certainly could decide it is

in his interests to ask for a speedy trial. and i think his better chance -- i'm not as qualified to make this calculation, but probably his political interests to delay. cassidy hutchinson was hugely significant because she was so close to the inner circle. we keep talking about this, that people that were in the room when it happened who were witness to events and were strong enough, courageous enough to tell the truth about those events moved the needle. this was not with all due respect to ms. lofgren or me or anybody pulling a rabbit out of the hat. we had really good facts. and facts were really compelling and they came from people like cassidy hutchinson who were strong enough to come forward. we put her on really kind of abruptly after hearing about some of the more significant

things that she said. and after she testified, we did a lot of work to corroborate that. and largely did corroborate that. her most significant testimony was about the president's very strong desire to go to the capitol and his anger at being told that he could not. while we couldn't corroborate that resulted in physical struggle, we corroborated from everyone in the vehicle and otherwise that the president had that strong desire. as i said before, that is a really, really important fact that but for cassidy hutchinson and other witnesses, we wouldn't have gotten. so i think there was a turning point. and also a huge juxtaposition of the old white guys not coming forward and a very strong young woman coming forward, i think that resonated a lot and it should. her bravery and her relative youth compared to the arguable cowardice of mark meadows and

others mattered. so no question that that hearing made a huge difference. i think that it gave our investigation even more momentum and we continued to get even more significant information after she testified. >> and we've never heard anything to the contrary, but if it turns out that the public hearing was the spark underneath the justice department, her place in history is probably singular. nobody better to talk to than the three of you. thank you so much for spending the time with us. we're grateful. still ahead, the rise of extremism and white nationalism is topic that we cover in great detail on this broadcast. when we come back, a real treat. wesley lowry will be our guest. his new book charts the rise of racist violence since the election of president barack obama. how that gave fuel to donald trump and trumpism and how there may be a way to break the cycle.

stay with us. ith us more shopping? you should watch your spending honey. i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. check it out, you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, i'll look into that. let me put a reminder on my phone. save $700 dollars. pick up dad from airport? ohhhhhh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ (bobby) my store and my design business? only pwe're exploding.need. but my old internet, was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon.

- the will states that mr. marbles will receive everything he needs in perpetuity. thanks to autoship from chewy. - i always love that old man. - and he gets the summer house. - what? - [narrator] save more on what they love and never run out with autoship from chewy. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. more on what they love ♪ things are looking up ♪ ♪ i've got symptom relief ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements at 4 weeks. skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor for crohn's that can deliver both clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. the majority of people on skyrizi achieved long lasting remission at 1 year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease.

ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ jackie: community schools are so important to us. this is truly what students need. cecily: no two community schools are alike because it goes by what is happening in the community. rafael: we want this to be a one-stop shop for our families that puts parents and students first. kenny: the health and wellness center is a part of our holistic approach. terry: medical, dental, vision, and mental health services. we're addressing the students' everyday needs. kenny: what we do allows them to be the best version of themselves. narrator: california's community schools: reimagining public education.

if there is anyone out there who still doubts that america is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our

democracy, tonight is your answer. been a long time coming. but tonight because of what we did on this day in this election and at that defining moment, change has come to america. >> it was a major milestone in our country's history. as president barack obama became first black person to be elected to serve as president of these united states. and it was for millions of americans a moment of hope, hope that maybe we as a country had started to turn in the right direction. or as oprah said, a shift in the american consciousness. but despite that step forward or maybe even because of it, our country has taken a massive step backward since that november night in 2008 as the rise of white nationalism and domestic violence has proved to be the number one threat to our citizens and our democracy and

our homeland itself and that is according to direct door christopher wray. and wesley lowry's book asks the question quite bluntly what the hell happened. he writes it is clear that the election of a black president did not usher us from the shadows of our racist path but it led us to a decade and a half and counting of explicit racial slashing. and wesley lowry is joining us right now. your book is remarkable, it is important. and something that we try to get at and understand, but we just have the one-half, the result. the statistics, the testimony of christopher wray saying that white racist violence is the biggest bucket in terms of the threats to the homeland. tell us about the bigger story

you are telling here. >> thanks for having me. i appreciate it. and i remember thinking back to 2016 around the election of donald trump and beginning to see these headlines. i had covered issues of race and injustice which meant the rise of "black lives matter," how barack obama would handle it as president. but now we're seeing a different set of headlines. we were seeing the homicidal events in charlottesville, we are seeing public attacks of muslims and mass shootings like at the tree of life or in a walmart. and to cover the issues was to cover the ongoing and seemingly increasing threat to merges of color from white americans. so i began to probe the question, i had to look backwards and the rise of donald

trump and the rise of his movement was response to the politics of a black presidency, to the politics of demographic change and anxiety that so many white americans had with the way that immigration is changing our country. i do think it is important to draw a distinction. first off, you have white americans broadly who have increased racial anxiety in the this moment. by the end of barack obama's presidency, something like 55% of white americans believed that they were racially discriminated against, that they believed themselves oppressed racial minority in america but then you insert -- and that anxiety creates the opening that the movement that donald trump led, a movement that includes not just republicans but many former democrats, but almost all of this white, to allow as space for that movement. but then there is a second movement and it is the explicit white nationalist, white

supremacist movement that has always been there. and they were heart ened to see the mainstream politics use the rhetoric that they had been preaching for all these years. >> and we've touched the pieces that are public facing because i think that you are getting at this root problem. i think something that is talked about "it is us." and when you talk about tucker carlson with the great replacement they're, and i think the other part of the question you have to try to answer is why was it the highest rated program at the network. what is the permitted structure for the platforming of white nationalism and blatantly racist theorys? >> and it is an important point that we receive the media that we want or we deserve. that if we look at elected officials we're unhappy with

what they reflect, they are a reflection of our own societal values. that we have been here in a moment where across the political spectrumspectrum, whe have a majority of americans, white americans, who are increasingly anxious around these ideas. that when you look at the history, two things are true. first is that this moment that we've seen is precedenprecedent. every moment that is what is perceived as racial advancement, there has been a push back. but secondarily, that the moment in the movement that we see currently, one of the most powerful in our politics, this conspiratorial movement that donald trump sits at the top of, they run on the same issue that we saw with the rise of the clan in the 1920s. the conservative anti-imxwrabts,

immigrant, anti-change, frustrated about the changes of societal and gender and race, the feeling that the country is no longer the same. and white majority americans will be the losers. and we don't say it to make people feel bad, but we can't address the reality if we can't see it, if we can't talk about it. and if we know that we have much of our country susceptible to this type of dem drengage language, we need to respond to it. >> and i want to ask you about how it getting turbo charged when they adopt these beliefs. so don't go anywhere. they adop. so don't go anywhere

was not letting me run the show. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. (bridget) with thyroid eye disease i hid from the camera. and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d. was beyond help... but then i asked my doctor about tepezza. (vo) tepezza is the only medicine that treats t.e.d. at the source not just the symptoms. in a clinical study more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion. patients taking tepezza may have infusion reactions. tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure, fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before getting tepezza, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar even if you don't have diabetes and may worsen ibd such as crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis.

now, i'm ready to be seen again. visit mytepezza.com to find a ted eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos. you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

moving this summer? join the 6 million families who discovered a smarter, more flexible way to move, with pods. save up to 30% off* until july 10th. whether you're moving across town or across the country. save up to 30% at pods.com today. and there he is. chaz.

the rec league's self-crowned pickleball king. do you just bow down? no you de-thrown the king. pedialyte. 3x the electrolytes. we are back with wesley lowry, author of the new book "american white lash." everywhere from trump talking about great people on both sides of a kkk rally to over the weekend a neo-nazi rally outside of a georgia synagogue, there is a brazenness and a permission structure to waving nazi flags. there's also a republican party

hell bent on the diseducation, right? how do you protect against radicalization and extremism with just one of the two parties willing to tell the truth about our racial history. >> i think it's a huge part of that. when we look at the rise of the new nativist movement and we look at the politics of this reactionary moment, we see failures of our major liberal institutions. when i say liberal, i don't mean that in a political sense. i mean institutions that believe in a democracy and a free society, right? and what donald trump and many others have done is they've played on the weaknesses of those institutions, the refusal of those institutions to stand on first principles, right? that are we institutions that believe first and foremost in a multiracial democracy? in our history, that is not a settled question and has not

been a settled question. i think it could be very easy for us born into multiracial democracy that this is what it is and this is how it works. there are forces and people out there who would have that upended and changed. we have a presidential candidate, the current governor of florida who yesterday said he would get rid of birthright citizenship, which first of all he he couldn't even do as president, but second of all, would be the undoing of a constitutional amendment that was put in place to remedy the dred scott decision that had concluded that black americans were subhuman, right? and were not worthy of citizenship, right? why is that what they're campaigning on? why is that what they're talking about? it's because it's a play to that anxiety and that frustration we see among white americans about the change in the country. it's the way gen z would describe it, this is about vibes. it's not even about particulars. back to your question, we have our institutions, and they have to be willing to stand up, and those institutions are media.

those institutions are political parties. we saw one of our major parties hand the keys of the car over to donald trump and to his movement, and so even if he's not reflective of all of the republicans, all the elected republicans, and we know he is not, because of when our institutions grant this power and this platform, there's no means of reining things back in. i think first and foremost, we have to be willing to name things and see them for what they are, and second, we have to be willing to stand up for our key foundational bedrock principle of a multiracial democracy and a multicultural society is. >> it seems really important that at least that media part of that gets it right ahead of another presidential election. i'd love to ask you to come back, and we could stitch together the history of donald trump as the champion of birtherism and president obama, i wanted to read big chunks of the book and i didn't get to it. i hope this is to be continued. >> it will be continued. so great to be here with you,

nicolle. >> thank you so much for spending time with us, wesley's new book, "american whitelash" is out today. a quick break for us. we'll be right back. us we'll be right back. mr. marbles will receive recurring deliveries for all of his needs in perpetuity, thanks to autoship from chewy. - i always loved that old man. - what's it say about the summer house? - yeah, the beach house- - the summer residence goes to mr. marbles. (mr. marbles chuckles) - plot twist! - i'm sorry, what? - doesn't make logistical sense. - unbelievable. - pets aren't just pets. they're more. - you got a train set, todd. - [announcer] save more on what they love and never run out with autoship from chewy. - this is our premium platinum coverage map and this is consumer cellular's map. - i don't see the difference, do you? - well, that one's purple. - [announcer] get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carrier. starting at $20. consumer cellular. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up ♪ ♪ i've got symptom relief ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪

♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements at 4 weeks. skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor for crohn's that can deliver both clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. the majority of people on skyrizi achieved long lasting remission at 1 year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. ♪

stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ wake up, achievers. onyou're making the most of every hour of your life. except the hours that you're sleeping. so why do we leave so much untapped potential on the table? this is a next level bed, for a next level you. my circadian rhythm is kicking your circadian rhythms butt! it's not a competition. i know, but i'm still winning!

so, it is a competition. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is now only $899. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. shop now only at sleep number. thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly. >> thanks so much. i'm ari melber and we have a new legal breakdown of trump's smoking gun audiotape, the one obtained by jack smith now out in public. that's coming up later. we begin now with major news on these rising