ip behind it. right now, even if that did go to court, meta has enough money to fight it for a long time. >> thank you for joining us. we will see what happens. that would do it for me. deadline white house thoughts right now. ♪ ♪ hi, everyone. it is 4:00 in new york. think of it as the exact moment when donald trump lit the match. an event in american history that would propel our entire country, going toward mayhem. quote, be there, it will be wild. it is no wonder that we are learning today just how interested special counsel jack smith appears to be in the chaotic hours before that tweet was sent. this is the january 6th committee, making it pretty clear that evocation to the u.s. capitol on january 6th,

that tweet, be there, we will be wild. it was a tweet that set up a violent chain reaction that resulted in a deadly attack on our government. cnn is not reporting the special counsel is asking witnesses about a contentious oval office meeting on december 18th, 2020. more than a month after the election, and mere days after the electoral college made official the decision of the american people. in short, that trump had lost the election. in that moment, the disgraced ex-president had two paths. he had door number one, admit head on that his campaign met the end of the line, keep in pace simple peaceful transfer of power. behind door number two, not just fall, but vaults into the abyss, commit to antidemocratic measures. of course, we all know the rest

of the story. on this night in december, this crucial juncture, the six-hour cage match essentially unfolded deep inside the white house. on one side, it would summon trump's own white house team, quote, crazy. as you know, people like sidney powell, the term crazy weaseled its way into the white house, thanks to the help of a junior staffer. team crazy ends up alone with trump. >> in fact, you did get to see the appointment? >> we did. >> how much time did you have with the president? you had other people with you before the crowds came running? >> probably no more than 10 or 15 minutes. >> that is supple only setting a

speed record, as she jokes there. they were what would come to be known as card-carrying numbers of team normal. news of the ongoing feud, or powwow with trump set off a fire. listen. >> that was the first point that i recognized, there was nobody in there from the white house. what is going on right now? >> i opened the door, i walk in. i saw the general, i saw sidney powell sitting there. i was not happy to see the people in the office office. >> explain why? >> first of all, i had no idea who this guy was. the first income i walk in, look at him, i said, were you? he told me. i don't think any of these people were providing the president with good advice.

i didn't understand how they had gotten in. >> the overstock person. it ensues as a tug-of-war to determine what donald trump's next steps will be. a tug-of-war that went from the oval office all the way to the residence. they were screaming, swearing, challenges to fight, physically brought right there in the white house. there were plans to seize voting machines, invoke emergency powers, short-circuit our democracy. when the dust settles, trump has settled on a decision. he has chosen door number two, quote, be there, we will be wild. that's the tweet he sends. it's a plan any tweet that determined the course of american history. over to you, jack smith. that is where we begin with some of our favorite x conference. former lead investigator is back . also joining us, a member of

that committee, democratic congresswoman is here. there may be no single event that the committee more successfully brings to life than this meeting. it's through the hard-earned testimony of pat cipollone where you learn the low regard that they hard -- hold team crazy. explain to us what you think the significant is of jack smith focusing a lot of his questions on this meeting and this time period. >> obviously, we don't know. as the committee pointed out, there was a multifaceted effort by the ex-president to overturn the election. this was part of that plan. it didn't really pan out after midnight. the effort with the plan to

have the military take over, rerun the election, seize voting machines, they were not going anywhere. it was then that the ex- president sent his famous tweet , asking people to come on january 6th, promising that it would be wild. i assume that mr. smith is taking a look at every aspect really of the road map that the january 6th committee laid out of the various efforts, multifaceted efforts to retain power, despite the election and this meeting was one of them. >> this meeting seems important on a couple of levels. one, the premeditation is clearly established by the timeline. right? this happens way before january 6th the notion that anything happens is asinine. he has convened a meeting. he has formed stop. he wanted to carry out the

overturn of the election. he says it's bs. cipollone, and i think it is hirschman that is almost ready to go to blows with team crazy in the overstock person. tell me what you think the significance is of this meeting being in focus by jack smith's team? >> i think it is tremendously important in the events that lead up to january 6th. what happens at that meeting, a handful of really crazy desperate ideas are proposed. seizing voting machines, having the u.s. military sees machines. there is actually a draft executive order that is shown during this meeting. it is citing a national security provision that suggests there is evidence of foreign powers somehow interfering with the election. no such evidence existed. he also contemplates appointing

sidney powell as special counsel to investigate election fraud. again, there had been no evidence of widespread election fraud. there is nothing to investigate, and certainly no basis. the council had been looking into that. he is knocking on doors that are locked for good reason. they are baseless. then in the middle of the night, at 1:42 a.m. after that crazy meeting, he turns to his final, most separate ploy. launching a mob at the capital. he tweets, be there, we will be wild. we had so many people tell us, people at the capital, that they went because of that tweet. because of the president's direct invitation. you know, stephen ayers, who was a witness for us. a carpenter from pennsylvania, trump supporter. he believed that what he read on facebook about the election

being infected with fraud, he went to washington because of that tweet. because he felt like the president invited him. a lot of people told us that. the tweet, which comes when all of those doors are locked during the crazy meeting, ends up being, i think as you said in the lead in, the spark that starts the fire that blazes up the capital on january 6th. >> tim, it puts him in the chain command of something other than the u.s. military. standby, what's the call to arm? be there, we will be wild, that the call to charge. tell me how that ties into the violence? >> almost every time i join you, talk about the special counsel's primary task. the president's intent, president's knowledge, presence awareness. his specific desire to interrupt the joint session. his tweet after the crazy ideas are thrown around at that

meeting. really importantly, evidence of his state of mind and his intent. be there, we will be wild. that is a direct invitation. and it is from the leader of the free world, was also the leader of the conspiracy to disrupt the joint session. that is why it is important to jack smith. it is another example of evidence of intent, all of which is leading, and the committee recommended to evidence of crime. >> let me play a little bit more of the evidence that you and your colleagues have developed. this is from pat cipollone about this internal struggle on this day at this time. >> what response did you get when you asked? >> a variety of responses based on her regulation regulation -- things like that.

or, you know, a disregard, i would say. >> then there was a discussion of, well, we don't have it now. we will have it, whatever. >> if it was me, i would have fired them all the night and had them escorted out the building. >> she says, well the judges are corrupt. i was like, everyone? every single case that you guys have done? everyone? even the ones we appointed? i'm being nice, i was much more harsh to her. >> 60 of the cases were lost, one was won on a procedural ground. this absence of evidence, this knowledge that the claims of fraud where lies, this is a thing the community develop layer upon layer, upon layer. every point along the timeline.

what is the significance of revealing that even sidney powell, the craziest of team crazy, maybe that's unfair to mike flynn, who once that title. anyway, among the craziest of team crazy, she has no evidence. her explanation for why there isn't any is that even the judges trump appointed work, quote, corrupt. it seems this is important also. at no point are you trying to overturn his defeat that anyone on team normal or team crazy claim to have any evidence of fraud. >> that's correct. they had none, because there isn't any. the president knew that. he had been told reportedly that his own people that there was no fraud that would change the outcome of the elections by officials who investigated these wild claims and found them to be false. he knew it wasn't true. he still wanted to cling to power.

team crazy, for lack of a better word, had no evidence to show him, because there was no evidence. yet, they wanted to work with him to keep power, even though he lost the election. as judge carter said in the california evidence case. >> let me read a little bit more from cnn's reporting. multiple sources are telling them that investigators have asked several witness is before the grand jury interviews about this meeting. several others have faced questions about it more recently. that includes rudy, someone you when i talk about often. let me show you her own description of the fighting on that night. this is rudy speaking for team crazy and eric hirschman speaking for team normal. >> i think it got to the point

where the screening was completely, completely out there. it was late at night, it has been a long day. what they were proposing, i thought it was nuts. >> i will categorically describe it as, you guys are not tough enough. or, maybe i put it another way, you are a bunch of [ bleep ]. excuse the expression. i'm almost certain that word was used. >> -- got up, turned around and screamed at me. i yelled back. -- had to back down. >> tim, a lot of evidence is presented of how intense this fight was. in this juncture, rudy and hirschman don't even disagree

on the intensity. the word that is bleeped out, trump thinks famous people can touch woman. tell me about the emotion between these two sides. >> nicole, when i watch that, it is really similar to the january 3rd meeting in the oval office when the president contemplates replacing his acting attorney general. the same criteria is put forward. at least he will fight for me. at least he is willing to do something, that is what the president says as a basis to replace his leadership to the department justice with an unqualified acting -- the currency there, who's going to fight? that is the wrong criteria, right? it should be, well who has effects? who has the evidence? who has the better argument as

to what is the appropriate way forward? this sense of you had to fight on to your last breath, it is a little bit crazy. there are no facts or legal pathways that would justify that fight. again, jack smith is interested in what was the present focus on it. is he focused on who will fight for me? or focused on what he should be. >> we know the answer. go ahead, congresswoman. >> it is really, who was loyal enough to commit crimes? or the ex-president to keep them in power? that is the debt -- the bottom line. he knew that what he was doing was not lawful. he needed minions to help him commit a crime. >> let me ask both of you, do

we think jack smith is replacing the word minions with co-conspirators? do you see evidence, congresswoman, that this could be the group that we described? that the committee branded this team crazy. do you think jack smith might be eyeing them as co- conspirators? >> the committee made referrals to the department justice. one was conspiracy to defraud the united dates. clearly, these are people conspiring with the president to overturn the election. mr. smith has to make the decision on whether this activity beats the standard in the code. whether he has sufficient evidence. it looks like he is working pretty hard to put this case together. >> tim, same question. it doesn't clue that witnesses have been asked about the -- i believe it is mr. byrd, as well as mr. easement, sidney powell. are these the potential targets

of the conspiracy to overturn the election? defrauding the american people? >> first of all, team crazy is not something that the committee came up with. >> that was us? >> president trump's campaign manager, he himself, he defined the rudy, sidney powell team as team crazy. again, that was president trump's own team manager who gave the team that name. i think to be a conspirator, there has to be an agreement. that is what the law of conspiracy is. two or more people agreed to commit a crime. someone took it a step toward commission and overact. not every conspirator needs to commit. i'm looking at this conspiracy beyond the leader of the conspiracy, the former president. evaluating whose conduct evidenced an agreement for this

official proceeding. this is the standard. and then taking a step in that direction. someone they just advocated it might not be charged, even though legally, he could be if you shared the goal. he or she. absolutely. the lawyers on team crazy are absolutely targets and are potentially charged co- conspirators if they agree with the president to take steps to obstruct the proceeding without -- particularly if they did something. like -- testifying in these mock cases around the country. that puts them very much in the center, not just in his head, but by his actions. >> is in a trump taking that next that by sending the tweet? quote, be there, we will be wild? >> absolutely.

that is conspiracy. i think there is no question that he is the leader. he is the decider. he is the one to whom all of these ideas are proposed on december 18th on january 3rd, with respect to doj. all of it. others helped him. others supported it. i think what jack smith is looking at is a conspiracy. how broad and how wide does that extend? they recommended rudy, jeff. jack smith is looking at a broader list of possible co- conspirators. we will have to make hard decisions about who was in a charged conspiracy and who is not. go ahead. >> i just think you can't look at this, important as this meeting was, you can look at it out of context with the things that followed. in january, especially january 6th, as well

as the individuals that the committee one was unable to interview. mr. stone and others who were working with the ex-president. we have evidence of direct communications. presumably, mr. smith will be getting that information. when you put it with the information on this meeting, i think there are very interesting possibilities. >> jack smith is now post interviews with meadows. i wonder what connected tissue you would have liked to develop in conversation with meadows, or mike pence about this meeting subsequent tweet and everything that follows. >> meadows was everywhere. he knows practically everything. he is a key witness for things that we wanted to find out

about, and probably things we never knew about. certainly, he seemed to be playing a key role in this, and actually leading up to it. we do know that the podcast from the witness who has been convicted, who refused to testify to us, really was prescient. he said january 6th will not be what you thought it was. you will be surprised. they were talking the night before. >> right. they all seem to know how bad it was going to be. if this is gonna be wild, it's going to be something. it's an unbelievable turn of events. we are so grateful to talk to you today about it. we will have much more on this one-hour panel joins me and tim in the next block later in the broadcast.

prosecuting donald trump in the classified documents case. the physical threats they are up against and what is being done. plus, -- may not be longer having it time in the sun. we will talk about that and more when deadline white house continues after the quick break. don't go anywhere. ♪ ♪ where. ♪ ♪ uh... here i'll take that. -everyone: woo hoo! ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar. enter the nourishing moments giveaway for a chance to win $10,000. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. 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

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. now, donald trump is calling on his supporters to descend on washington, d.c., january 6th.

>> he is now calling on we the people to take action and show our numbers. >> we are going to be only saved by millions of american and moving to washington. >> some who have been indicted from their involvement on the capital also responded. one of them posted on the 19th, quote, calling our patriot, be in washington, d.c.. the jt has invited us, and it will be wild. some of the rhetoric turned openly homicidal? what nationalists, such as, why don't we just kill them? every last democrat. it is time for the day of the row. why revolution is the only solution. >> they would act on that, right? national investigator for the

-- former intelligence, pete. tim is still with us. you and i talked a lot about what jack smith might be doing in this part of the murky, dark, dangerous forest that is trumps world, and the control over the violence that ensued. we talked about the lack of public facing chain of command from the insurrectionist it does appear that he is probing this area to try to maybe investigate it from the other direction. the call the to action. >> yes, and the reason i think you and i have both had our noses so focused, and our eyes so focused on this section, what is the connective tissue? if the department of justice had an idea of building brick by brick from the riot and the

insurrection to whoever the mastermind was, there were findings by fbi agents, justice department prosecutors that they didn't see a connection between the violent insurrection and some sort of leadership at the white house directing those militiamen who were on a warpath to take the capital by force. however, what is really interesting, the january 6th committee has highlighted over and over again. the meetings in september with the michael flynn suggest thing they sees voting machines, with sydney powell saying she should be named the special counsel to investigate fraud in the election. those mid-december meetings at the white house had the white house staff so upset, they were trying to lock certain members coming into this meeting from

actually getting inside the west wing. that is the level of concern there was about people like the -- man and michael flynn getting inside and being able to pull on the year ear of donald trump. after this nearly six hour-long meeting, it involves shouting, screaming, people coming in on conference call, and the national security advisor being asked, you know, is there a possibility we can seize the machines? screaming, shouting. donald trump leaves the meeting at one point, comes back for another round of all these ideas, in which people that want to have his ear and have crazy ideas suggest the hold onto power in different manners. this is something the january 6th committee nicely focused on in trying to show that there were moments that donald trump was essentially showing his

desire and his intent to block the government proceeding, to obstruct a government proceeding. while in the end, they recommended to the department of justice that there was significant evidence to suggest that he had an intent and a plan, and was running a hydra headed conspiracy to exactly do that, obstruct the proceeding. >> i want to show you some of the evidence jamie teased out and developed. everyone close to trial is asked to testify before the committee. on these questions about violence, and on organizing the events, they took the fifth, which was their right. nobody defended him. nobody said he privately discouraged the insurrectionist. no one said to you on a taped disposition in public hearing or otherwise after the

committee stopped existing that trump was worried about his vice president. there is not a scrap of evidence. anything other than seizing the violence, what committee violence, and celebrating it as it is happening. >> yeah, nicolle. exactly right. we had testimony from the people who would provide information about the president statement. again, there were very few. most of the folks we interviewed invoke the privilege and would not share with us direct communications with the president. the few people did. cassie hutchinson said that mark meadows reported during the right, having a conversation with pat cipollone. you know, pat, he doesn't want to do anything. this is a direct account of something that the president said, or how he felt during the ride. as you said, no one told us

that in the days before, or on january 6th, that he expressed concern about violence. he noted it. he said on january 5th, the night before, he had the doors the oval office open. he was listening to a rally down the street at freedom plaza. he said, these people are very, very angry. not like, oh no, but rather excitingly. wow. these people are really fired up about the stolen election. there is no evidence of his attempt in any way to squash violence, oppose violence. it wasn't until he is forced, reluctantly skip being -- the statement in the rose garden, which says, we love you, but you should go home. >> yeah. the entire prime time lineup of fox news. so they don't, quote, ruin our legacy. let me show you the evidence

congresswoman jamie -- develops , tying the tweet to the extremist movement themselves. >> we asked pat cipollone if he had the authority to name a special counsel? he said, yes. then we asked him if he had the authority to give whatever security clearance. pat cipollone he said, yes. then the president said, okay. i am building our security clearance. shortly before we left, it totally blew up. and whoever the other young man was. >> is much as i love the conversation about seem crazy, that's not the one i wanted to show you. my mistake. this is jamie raskin tying the extremist to his tweet.

now donald trump is calling on his supporters to descend on washington, d.c. >> he is now calling on we the people to take action and show our numbers. >> we will only be saved by millions of americans moving to washington. >> everyone i think is familiar with this program, and familiar with his investigative work. what he was focused on, having that sweet operationalized, the incredibly organized efforts of the extremist on that day. the carrying of zip ties, chatter that is picked up by an fbi filled office, the people that don't go to, quote, walk to the capital. the people that go straight to the u.s. capital. i think it is described in the most harrowing

terms from the law enforcement officers, protecting the capital, the republicans and the democrats inside who engaged in what they described as medieval combat. talk about this being a focus for doj, for jack smith and his investigators. the call from trump on december 19th, be there, be wild, and their response on the sixth. >> nicolle, i think it clearly shows a certain amount of premeditation. when you look at frankly a large number of congresswomen and congressmen who showed up may have had some sort of involvement. we don't know on the outside the extent of their involvement. all of these things come together in the mid-december timeframe. it is clear as we look at the results, looking at the trials of the testimony and the evidence they came out. this was not a spontaneous,

hey, what are you doing tomorrow night, let's go protest. this is something that came together over weeks, and weeks. his statements, his tweets, the be there, be wild. it points to something that was brewing for several weeks. as we have said together, it certainly causes the question to be asked, where was the federal law enforcement response to all of this? did anybody, pat cipollone, mark meadows, or anybody else hearing these plans, hearing this excitement about potential violence, the use of the national guard to cease voting machines, that a single person turn to the fbi director, chris ray, or anybody and say, hey, look. there are not just one, but there are number of really concerning things that are all coming together at once that point to the potential of violence. frankly, i have yet to hear a good answer about why this wasn't done, and why everybody that was so apparently caught

flat footed on january the sixth. >> yeah, there is a part of this that remains incredibly opaque. the hurdles for investigating folks. liz cheney made it very clear. the other black box really is what pete is articulating. there was not really an intelligence failure. we pulled the clips, those weren't classified, or secret. those were on right wing media sources. the tweets about bringing zip ties, where the tunnels were, those were posted on right wing channels. what, if anything, do you think is being examined about the government itself? or do you think with the supervision of the molar pro, he is simply investigating crimes?

>> you know, there is no reason for him to investigate the fbi. i hate to say it this way, but there is no really good reason to -- question people about mr. byrne, miss powell, their meetings, figuring out how the fbi dropped the ball. i cannot emphasize how right you are to emphasize his element. we were chilled as reporters, as we combed through not just the memo, which the washington post first wrote on, but the other clear in the open wordings in which domestic extremist groups were talking not on private dark web, but on open online sites about being ready to drop pulleys. even right now, the hair goes up on the back of my neck about why federal law enforcement and homeland security officials didn't take that sears. i would like to rewind a little to something all four of us have discussed quite a bit.

that meeting december 18th, peter mentioned the members who are part of it. if i had subpoena power, and i have said this before to you, nicolle, i would be wanting to be able to question several members. again, as they left the white house, taylor greene posted a video, we just left a wonderful meeting with the president. we have a plan for january 6th. what was that plan? there was no question that the effort was to block the certification. i have always wanted to know, why can't law enforcement get the answers to the questions from lawmakers? you were part of this, you freedom caucus members making a plan. allie alexander, a chum supporter. she was bragging not marry me --

not many days after. making a deal with the president to ring maximum pressure upon congress to stop the peaceful transfer of power. let's hear what that was exactly and what his role in it was. >> yeah, and what do they know to tell the secret service agent details that he is really threatened tomorrow? if not, that they are in the conspiracy. we thank you for doing that. thank you for spending time with us today on these developments. up next for us, every single occupant in this meeting we are talking about, this team crazy gathering in the oval office, whether they knew it at the time or not, they had been suckered by none other than russia. we will explained that next.

my kids are sports kids. we're always running from one activity to another. i'm still tonya, and i got botox® cosmetic, and this is like the first thing i've done for me in a really, really long time. my life is still crazy, it's just as full as it was before. just with less lines. botox® cosmetic is fda approved to temporarily make frown lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping, and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history. muscle or nerve conditions, and medications including botulinum toxins. as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. see for yourself at botoxcosmetic.com we've got one hope. as these may increase the risk of secret laboratory.s. in the middle of nowhere.

our nations best scientists focused on one goal. end this war. our boys would come home. i can perform this miracle. robert, try not to blow up the world. cut! another health insurance commercial, another aqua-aerobics scene. yup. most health insurance companies see us all the same: smiley seniors golfing, hiking... don't forget antiquing. that's why i chose humana. they see me, not a stereotypical senior. i'm pre-diabetic, so i talked one-on-one with a humana health educator who really helped me. now i'm taking free cooking and meditation classes. not aqua-aerobics? better care begins with listening. humana. a more human way to healthcare.

okay everyone, our mission is complete balanced nutrition. together we provide nutrients to support immune, muscle, bone, and heart health. everyone: woo hoo! ensure with 25 vitamins and minerals. enter the $10,000 nourishing moments giveaway. we are back with pete and tim. could this story not get any darker? using the twitter feed today to remind us that team crazy, these three individuals are also of great interest to russia. >> nicolle, what was interesting, when you look at this team crazy, particularly that night, three of the individuals who people have no idea how they got into the oval office, all three of them had very close relationships with people who were either

convicted agents of the government of russia, or who were in the employers acting as agents with the government of russia. looking at rudy giuliani, he was receiving information from somebody who the u.s. government has identified as a long-term russian agent. we certainly know that -- the connections were so bad that he was the subject of a warrant by the u.s. government to trump that rudy was a target. when you look at michael flynn, the russian propaganda outlet invited him to speak at moscow during an anniversary dinner. he later went on when he was just before he became national security advisor, had a series of conversations that he lied to the fbi and was prosecuted

and convicted for that. finally, when you look at patrick byrne, he had a long- term relationship with a woman named maria, who was convicted of being an unregistered agent of the government of russia. after she served her sentence, he gave her money to help her land, i think that is the words of the effect that he said. she then went on to work for rt again, some video of him when he was in solitary confinement. she went on to run for the russian parliament and won election. the three of them in this really critical meeting were things like invoking martial law, using the military to seize , you had three who had these long-term connections to the government of russia. set aside the criminal issues, the interest of smith, the interest of the committee. when you look at this national security for active, it is absolutely chilling.

not one, not two, but three folks had such close content with russia? >> this takes us back to where we began, the freak out on the part of the lawyers. they would have been in receipt of all sorts of these warnings. again, it does describe even more motive. >> yeah, there is no question. we heard a lot of testimony about the lack of rigor, with right to access to the president of the united states. we had several chiefs of staff. he said it was clear that there was no gatekeeper in effect. lots of people had access to

the president. pat cipollone he said himself in the clip that you played before. i just wanted to go back quickly to something pete said before that i think is really important. that is the systemic law enforcement issues. this is very similar to 9/11. the commission found the attack on the twin towers. we have a similar dynamic here. that attack was made easier by systemic failures of lawn worsening. the failure to share information among agencies. the very first amendment restrictions that the fbi places on its own ability to gather intelligence from open sources, and frankly, i think some implicit bias about how law enforcement assesses the danger that is posed by middle-

aged white guys who proclaim to be pro believes, versus the danger they assess when it is black men who are protesting. all of those systemic issues are important parts of the january 6th story and context. they don't excuse our resolve donald trump in any way. they're the proximate cause of the attack, but those law enforcement issues are important and deserve further discussion by the folks that work in those important agency ps. >> they get short shrift. i will put you on the spot and ask you to come back and talk about them. i think you're right. to a person, everyone in law enforcement agrees in everything you're saying, tim. so that conversation between the three of us is continued. thank you so much for spending so much of your afternoon with us. a quick break for us. when we comes back, donald trump doesn't seem to help himself in the times he's had to sit for deposition in lawsuits against him. well, there's news today that

he'll have to go back for another one in another civil lawsuit. why this under-oath appearance could be an illuminating one. nge is going to run the entire world. all of that responsibility falling very squarely on oppenheimer's shoulders. we were intervening in the course of human history. we're in a race against the nazis and i know what it means if the nazis have a bomb. tide is busting laundry's biggest myth... that cold water can't clean. cold water, on those stains? ♪♪ cold water can't clean tough stains? i'd say that myth is busted. turn to cold, with tide.

we really don't want people to think of feeding food like ours is spoiling their dogs. good, real food is simple. it looks like food, it smells like food, it's what dogs are supposed to be eating. ♪ ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪

struck was removed from then special counsel mueller's russia probe after text messages critical of donald trump between him and fbi lawyer lisa page were made public. he was later fired. we'll rely on our good friend, former u.s. attorney and assistant attorney general ha harry lipman. my question is about trump's history of doing harm to himself in depositions, thinking of e. gene carroll's case. >> facts can be used against him. this is an exquisite example of his being hoisted by his own petard, you could say, because he was out there in 2017 and 2018 vilifying pete struck and

lisa page, who, in part, because they were having an affair, which had nothing to do with anything, but he dragged them through the mud mercilessly, and because he boasted about it. because the doj said you can't actually depose the president. there are other ways to get the information. what judge jackson said yesterday, and it's a motion for reconsideration, so that will be the end of the line unless there's a mandamus petition. she said, hey, as it turns out, rob rosenstein, chris wray were a little foggy, we could still use trump's testimony. besides he boasted about it. beshids she said tartdly, he's got a little time on his hands because he's filing all this civil litigation. so he can sit and he has to sit, and that's the order. >> it seems that mueller and smith and now judge jackson have

used his public statements against him. why does he keep talking? >> unponderable. he keeps talking and gets himself in trouble. he says stuff in the political arena that could haunt him at trial, but this is really as sowing what he reaps because of the way he was boastful and vicious about them in 2017 and 2018 that's made him on the hot seat of deposition. >> we'll be watching. harry, thank you. we are grateful to you. up next for us, the very real threats facing prosecutors today who are working to hold the ex-president accountable. much more news straight ahead. le much more news straight ahead. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ 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 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. ♪ (vo) it's time to switch to verizon. osadie did. and now she has myplan. the first unlimited plan that lets her choose exactly what goes in it. now she gets to pick only the perks she wants and saves on every one. and with an incredible new iphone on us, no wonder sadie is celebrating. introducing myplan. get exactly what you want. only pay for what you need. act now and get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon.

i have a message tonight. for merrick garland and jack smith and joe biden. if you want to get to president trump, you're going to have to go through me and you're going to have to go through 75 million americans just like me. most of us are card-carrying members of the nra. >> the federal government, like what we thought about the gestapo. >> if they try to prosecute president trump from mishandling classified information after hillary clinton set up a server in her basement, there will be riots in the street. >> how about that, huh? hi, everyone. the list of things the disgraced twice impeached, twice indicted,

legally liable for sexual assault ex-president has normalized is too long to list. we'd be here till 7:00. treating the justice department like it is one's personal blunt force political weapon, treating women like they and their private parts are there for the taking, treating classified documents and the nation's most sensitive national security secrets like you are starring in a reality show about hoarders, none of that behavior was normal or excused by the likes of those people until trump came along and helped, i don't know, brainwash a swath of americans into thinking that behavior is, you know, no big whoop. well, add to the list now the ex-president's calling card of lobbing vicious, potentially dangerous threats, including threats of violence, against justice department officials and federal prosecutors. special counsel robert mueller and his team of federal prosecutors were targets, and now as "the washington post" reports today, so the v is

special counsel jack smith and his team. "individual prosecutors involved in the classified documents case against former president trump are facing substantial harassment and threats online and elsewhere according to extremism experts and a government official familiar with the matter. far-right trump supporters are posting the names of prosecutors and government workers online and yelling them at demonstrations, threatening them, and sometimes revealing details about their personal lives. at the justice department, officials have responded by trying to keep the names of prosecutors and agents working the trump cases from becoming public in official documents, congressional hearings, and less formal conversations about the case. that's a tricky task, given that prosecutors' names are listed in public court filings, and their names and information about witnesses are accessible as trump is a defendant in the case." in other words, once followers of the disgraced ex-president think it's perfectly normal and accept to believe viciously and dangerously threaten the safety

and lives of federal prosecutors investigating donald trump, and those same people know the names and identities of those prosecutors tasked with simply doing their job, upholding the rule of law in america, is a powder keg, potentially lethal threats that need to be dealt with. also another despicable part of what donald trump has ushered in. as we await potentially more indictments against donald trump from georgia, smith, the ongoing january 6th case, is an open question where these threats go from here today. we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. mary mccord is here. democratic congressman eric swallow of california, no stranger to threats from trump and his supporters. also joining us at the table, paul reichhoff, host of "the

independents" broadcast and host of the group veterans for america. and at the table, molly. congressman, i don't want to replay the threats, we've played them on this program, the voice mails threatening your life and the life of your family and i think some of your staffers. but they're real and they change the way you go about your life, and more tragically -- and i think this was the impact of paul pelosi's attack on anyone in the public arena -- they change your family's life forever. they rob them of their privacy, of their ability to feel anonymous anywhere they go, and of their sense of security. >> thank you, nicolle. maga extremism is so bankrupt of any ideas that it really relies on violence and threats and ultimately chaos, you know, to tear apart our communities. and, yes, too often the victims are family and stamp who are often in fixed positions while

the target of the threats is often on the move. and that's what's so disturbing. there has to be accountability. too often, you know, because it's very difficult to prosecute these threats or get the police to bring cases forward, i have to just repost the threats online and have found out that the individuals have been fired or lost their jobs or ultimately they take down their accounts because of the shame. but you have to push back. that's the only language, you know, many of these bullies understand. but there has to be legal accountability. i'm actually working on the judiciary committee to reshape the criminal threats language that prosecutors can use, of course make sure we respect freedom of speech, but make sure you can't use violence to intimidate public officials. that's the aim of maga extremism. >> mary, trump, docs, obama.

sims we talk about the b.s. his supporters do. what's her name from az ace, kari lake, the sycophants, but trump docked the former president, who had a would-be assailant arrested outside of his house. it starts at the top. what do we do? >> it is. this makings it so much more serious now. i would say historically, you know, there really have been relatively few serious threats against prosecutors and similarly against judges, much less actual, you know, undertaking of assaults or even murders. the numbers, we think about how many prosecutors there are in the country, both at the federal level and the state level, the numbers are relatively low. i was a prosecutor for almost 25 years, and it's not something i really worried about. i'd get casual threats but i never actually worried that someone might show up to my

house, place of work, and actually try to kill me. that is changing because of exactly what you just pointed out. it's not just people deciding, you know, in their own case they want to take out some sort of retribution, against the prosecutor. for one, most people don't do that because prosecutors are fungible. judges are fungible. if you kill one of us, there will be another who will prosecute that case. so it didn't make sense for people to do that and increase their exposure to criminal penalties. but now when you have people in positions of power like the former president, like people who are elected officials on capitol hill, and i would even say, you know, representative swalwell is sitting on a judiciary committee led by representative jim jordan who is every day attacking the fbi and the department of justice for being politicized, who's having supposedly an oversight hearing next week to focus specifically on what he calls the political, you know, prosecutions of donald

trump. that is at the same time that we have prominent conservative former attorney generals, republican attorneys general like bill barr and roberto gonzalez agreeing the current prosecution is a righteous prosecution and respect for the rule of law means respecting our governmental institutions and the department of justice doing their jobs. so i think this whole situation of threats is made so much more serious and so much more difficult to tackle because of the permission that is being given by people in positions of power. >> and the permission is given by the silence and the complicity of the republican leaders. and everything that trump ushered in, from good people on both sides of the kkk rally, grabbing people down there, all of it goes unremarked upon by most republican leaders. we looked today to see if anyone has condemned what "the washington post" reports today,

and no one did in response to the reporting about jack smith and his team. but in the past, chris christie has said, has tweeted this about trump's vicious -- what do we call them, truth socials, socials truths, whatever. he said, "what kind of person calls a federal prosecutor a crackhead? sound like a president to you? someone you trust with the nuke codes? get real. jack smith is just doing his job, and trump can't handle it because he's scared and only cares about himself." i wish i had a medal to give chris christie because it was the only defense of these prosecutors that we could find. >> he's created a command climate in this country over the last few years that weaponizes languages, that directs his supporters to take violence in furtherance of their political objectives. i've called it an american insurgent si. it is far reaching, national, millions of people with guns who are being directed with language from people like kari lake, who's extremely effective and

persuasive and dangerous. we all have friends who work in elected office. they've all increased their security. they all have threats on a regular basis. there are so many more direct threats we know about in the public sphere. this is our new reality but can't be our new normal. it is a national security priority, the number one. not just a political story. it has to be treated as something that's a direct threat to the national security and well-being of everyone across this country, not just people in the political sphere. >> the other piece of it is that there has, to this point, been no price to pay for this. we are wrong waiting for a circuit breaker to flip, waiting for a watershed moment to say it's getting real. i mean, "hang mike pence," if that doesn't do it, nothing will.

that was a threat put in motion by trump that he celebrated at the time from cassidy hutchinson that he wasn't going to tell them to go home because he thought he was right. we know that from jaime herrera beutler, who talked with kevin mccarthy during the instruction, that trump was happy with it. he was into it. the violence is a point. i don't know how to put this to the country, how enthusiastic the current leadership is for republican violence. >> they refuse to say that it's wrong, right? we don't hear members of the republican party saying that violence is wrong. >> they don't condemn it, don't go to the steps with democratic leaders. they could get on fox news in a nanosecond and condemn violence and reach millions of people who might act on it. we searched high and low.

no example of that. >> it's such an easy thing to do. they don't want to lose their base, they want to stay in office. you have this permission structure and it keeps going and going. it's scary. i interviewed nancy pelosi after paul was attacked and she said the thing that upset her most was she was concerned younger women would not run for office because they wouldn't want their families to get hurt. >> to mary's point, if younger men and women are going to think twice before stepping into the public arena, and it's not just public-facing jobs like this one or the congressman. it is jobs as prosecutors. it is clerking for judges. i mean, the softest targets are the ones with the least ability to marshal security. and i'll come back to you, mary, on this. i wonder if we don't want to admit how effective these right-wing strategies are and the chilling effect they have. >> well, you know, there may be

a piece of that that's about, you know, us refusing to sort of accept it, although i think a lot of us are -- you know, that's why you're having this segment on your show. to molly's point about the base, i think it's the base that really needs to revolt because it's the base who's being used. they're getting cajoled into engaging in acts of political violence because they feel like they're being asked to do so. and who is going to jail? it's not trump -- so far. it's not kari lake. it's not, you know, jim jordan. it's the people who attacked the capitol, the people who engaged in the actual prosecutable threats against public officials. they're doing the dirty work. they're the foot soldiers. they need to wake up and say why am i being used like this? why am i allowing myself to be used like this? if you want to threaten somebody, go do it yourself. of course some of them are doing that. you know, cracking down on them

if it's an actual prosecutable threat is important. we can look back at some of the violent means that members of congress actually, you know, posted on social media last year and, you know, it comes awfully close to making out the actual elements of a threat or incitement to an act of violence. >> courage on the right would be effective in saying oh, the left is hysterical, they say we're all violent, no. let me be clear, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying all known acts of political violence of late have come from people animated by the lives platform and repeated and amplified by figures on the right, including acts of extreme violence. and i wonder if you think that the fact that the vast majority of americans don't support that but a growing number of republicans think that if all else fails violence is acceptable, if that's a conversation to take to the country ahead of the next presidential election. >> that has to be the

conversation. the conversation going into this election has to be in america we are a country of community or we are a country of chaos. and in community, you have freedom. you have the freedom to vote, the freedom to read, the freedom to live in peace, and you have a democratic party and some reasonable republicans working for those freedoms. and then you have the chaos agents who are fighting to deprive every american of those freedoms because they don't have ideas on health care or the cost of child care, college. and so that really has to be the framing going into this election. we can have community or we can have chaos. i'm team community. >> paul, what do you think the message is to i think really bluntly lay out what the congressman just articulated, that on one side, they're not all talking about political

violence, but by refusing to condemn it, they've put in place a permission structure where some see a green light. >> i think the message is this is a threat to all americans. it's that simple. it's kind of a parallel after 9/11. either you're with us or against us, either with america or the enemies of america. not just the message, the messengers are also important. this modern political battlefield like in ukraine and other places is not just linear or blue versus gray. it's more like a shark tank. it's asymmetrical. i'm not holding my breath for lindsey graham to step up and save us, for kevin mccarthy. i'm pinning my hopes on the fbi, the justice department, department of defense, people who are supposed to be wyatt earps and supposed to hold the line. but i'm not waiting for the republicans to have a come to jesus moment and i'm not counting on the democrats to defend us either. >> let me read you this. chris wray is finally, quote, pissed but in favorite. this is from "the washington

post." he confided in a weekly video call with senior fbi officials that he was, quote, pissed by the attacks of threats and violence. he spoke anonymously. that flash of anger was rare hint at the private frustrations of a leader who has seemed determined to avoid the political scandal that dogged his far more publicity favored predecessor james comey. do you think it would be helpful if christopher wray, chris christie's former defense attorney, someone who has had any emotion that he's experienced play out very much behind the scenes -- >> absolutely. it could also be dragged before congress to testify to it. we've seen other people come off the sidelines. former secretary of defense esper came out and condemned trump. especially from the law enforcement community to resonates and they can get through to not just people in the republican party but people who are persuadable, the moderates, the independents, people who decide the elections,

people from the sidelines who will run for office. this is a gut check moment for america, and anybody in the public sphere has to be counted. our national security is at stake. not just about an election, about our national security. every day we want to keep ourselves and our families safe. >> so important. i want to put this to everybody else here. i have to sneak in a quick break. everyone is sticking around so i can do that. also, an alarming episode in the trump white house involving the now ex-president's flagrant disregard for the security of classified material. plus, endless infighting, one of the leading legislative clauses foundering and a prominent legal figure facing massive consequences for their roles on january 6th. the maga movement appears to be gotten into a mets of its own making. why that matters to what paul was talking about, domestic and national security. later in the program, a potential new chapter in the effort to hold those who spread the big lie accountable.

a watchdog group has filed a challenge to a fox station's broadcasting license over fox news' decision to knowingly air false election claims.

first, there's an idea and you do something about it for the first time with godaddy. then before you know it, (it is a life changer...) you make your first sale. small business first. never stopped coming. (we did it!) and you have a partner that always puts you first way. (no way!) start today at godaddy.com.

is it possible to protect my business from cyber threats? it is, with comcast business. helping every connected device stay protected. yours. your employees'. even... susan? hers, too. safe. secure. and powered by the next generation 10g network. with comcast business, advanced security isn't just possible. it's happening. get started wih fast spees and advanced security for $49.99a month for 12 monts plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

nbc news has just obtained a copy of a forthcoming book called "blowback" by a friend of this program, miles taylor. he's a former trump administration official. he was one of the first people to blow the whistle on trump. in an exert from the book, he pulls on this pattern of trump's

behavior when it comes to handling of classified documents and material. the episode took place on october 18, 2018. he writes he was in a private meet in a west wing with john bolton. "white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders came into bolton's office and described an interview trump had given in the oval office. he'd been talking to reporters about jamal khashoggi, the dissent and journalist killed earlier that month by saudi assassins in turkey. sanders told bolton the president had picked up classified documents related to intelligence on khashoggi's death and displayed them so that the reporters were unlikely to be able to read the text." "bolton gasped at first but breathed a sigh of relief when sanders told him there had been no cameras in the room, according to the book. still, we were all disturbed by the lapse in protocol and protection of classified documents, "he writes. mary, there again is example

after example of mcmaster and powell when sergey lavrov is back in the oval and there's a disclosure of classified documents. trump agreed to meet with putin, so no one knows what he disclosed with him in private with no one listening except putin's translators. there are no known examples from his most sycophantic defenders of him snapping up classified information saying don't look at that. stephanie grisham was on this network talking about things in mar-a-lago, war plans, eating chocolate cake with world leaders. there is example after example, a years-long pattern of his reckless disregard for state secrets. >> yeah. i'm not surprised to hear of this one. again, you know, sometimes i think we question what his motives were. sometimes it looks like it's just bravado, look what i have access to, but no matter what his motive, you know, it's

absolutely destructive to national security. it shows that he's actually vulnerable to being pressured into giving over information because he's so cal louse and cavalier with it. you indicated instances he wanted to be sure he's speaking to other leaders without witnesses there, which makes you wonder what he might want to share with them. of course we know he has chosen in a very public way, he chose putin over his own intelligence community, you know, with respect to the investigation into any coordination between russia and his campaign in 2016. so i think all of these examples not only lead up to just showing carelessness and cavalier attitude toward national security, but really a vulnerability there, a vulnerability that our adversaries are quite aware of and will use whatever mechanisms they have to try to take advantage of. and that is part of why having so many materials at mar-a-lago

is so dangerous and why the case itself has been brought is so serious. >> mary, how hobbled is the national security establishment by the ceaseless onslaught of attacks on it for politicization? mccabe opens the counterintelligence to trump over the firing of comey, which was a destructive act and a potential counterintelligence question. those questions were never answered. that's all the kibosh put on that. he tells mueller, just look at the crimes. the questions have never been answered about whether trump poses a national security risk to america. >> well, to start with the beginning of your question, the attacks on the intelligence community, you know, those continue. i indicated that in the first segment of the piece that the oversight hearing where director wray will testify next week is being pitched as an investigation into the

politicization of the fbi and the department of justice. there have been similar attacks on all other aspects of our intelligence community, not just by trump but by his, you know, more staunch allies. and that really is a tough thing for the intelligence community to really recover from. as sue said, the intelligence community will do their jobs and brief up a president no matter how they feel about that president. they would continue to brief president trump when he was in the role of president because it's their duty to do so and it's not their duty to make their own decisions about whether he presents a risk if they provide that information. and that's because the intelligence community, you know, they take an oath, right, and they swear an oath of allegiance. but that is why it's so dangerous because we have a man here who we know is a national security threat, yet, you know, if he were to enter the -- you

know, be in the white house again, that's the person our intelligence community would be briefing. and, you know, that's what people need to understand and take seriously. we're just not seeing that coming out of those who really should be talking about it, people on capitol hill. >> congressman, i don't mean to pick an you and i don't mean to pick on democrats. the democratic party is all that we have left. i say this to you with those concessions. why isn't there a more vocal and aggressive effort to depict trump as mary and in the bast sue gordon and frankly john bolton and bill barr and chris christie, as a clear and present danger to u.s. national security? >> nicolle, we can't be too nice with democracy on the line. i think frankly that's just one of our flaws as a party. we don't have to lie. we don't have to be corrupt. we don't have to make things up. they give us enough material. but a brit recently said to me,

you know, the problem with you democrats, and this is in a way only a brit could say it, is you fight all of these battles with one hand tied behind your back, and it's always the upper hand. and i think that is the problem here. with donald trump, we should just plainly say he stole military secrets. i'm not saying that because that's what the indictment alleges, because he's actually presumed innocent. it's because what donald trump proudly tells you every day, he stole military secrets, because he thinks that he can do it. and that's why we just have to keep this chaos versus community framing going. it works. people want community. they want competence. they want us to deliver on the issues that matter in their lives like the cost of health care, the cost of college, the cost of child care, and they will reject chaos. so we have to show donald trump as a chaos agent and there is a consequence for his chaos. a guy who would use taxpayer dollars to give the ukrainians -- to get dirt on his

opponent as he was impeopled for the first time, would use military secrets to benefit himself if he ever found himself in a pinch. that's the consequence of it. >> morery, thanks for spending time with us. we'll ask you to stick around. up next for all of us, from the courts to the halls of congress, the maga movement is actually in free-fall today. we'll explain in case you missed it. 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.

tv: try tide power pods with 85% more tide in every pod. who needs that much more tide? (crashing sounds) everyone's gonna need more tide. it's a mess out there. that's why there's 85% more tide in every power pod. -see? -baby: ah.

thanks to a recent string of legal infighting, maga figures to be somewhat in disarray. the top attorneys and master minds and activists facing legal consequences for their roles in the 2020 insurrection. one is facing disbarment for charges of the trying to stop the electricity ral count, which he knew was unconstitutional and illegal. and clark facing disciplinary efforts for his desire to take over the u.s. department of justice to reverse president biden's victory. then linwood, remember him? he up and announced he's retired, in capital letters, as officials were considering in disbarring him for his role in pushing trump's big lie in courthouses. in the maga world in congress,

trump loyalists are holding bizarre and frankly embarrassing, if they were capable of embarrassment, public brawls against themselves and pursuing wildly unpopular impeachment charades. when we say unpopular, we mean among republicans. "the washington post" says, "it seems obvious republicans such as marjorie taylor greene don't care about impeachment ath as legitimacy. republicans have expressed strong skepticism and legal opposition considers them less likely to go along." we're back with our panel. you wanted to respond to the congressman's comment and framing about community versus chaos first. >> i just think it's too complicated. when the democrats try to explain this, it always sounds like word salad. somebody said something about john kerry, you can count on him to say something in seven words that could be said in three.

simplify it. trump had battles plans and was waving them around the white house. he's dumping documents on the ground. democrats have to explain he's doing things that are terrorist based. you have to frame it in terms of 9/11 and talk about bin laden and talk about al qaeda and isis. stop being so nice. i think there's too many people dancing around the edges here instead of going straight to the american people and saying this could kill you and your family if you get caught in the crosshairs. that's what needs to be said in that way. i don't think they trust biden to do it. he can try to make the case but has a hard time. other people, national security, law enforcement, justice department, people who could effectively make that case to the american people. it's their gut in a way that makes them scared for their kids like we all were after 9/11. >> congressman, do you want to respond? >> yeah, look. point taken. i'm not afraid to ratchet it up a little bit. i do think the freedom

frame works, though, free to vote, free to read. they're trying to take away your ability to vote and read what you want to read. most americans, the reason we are special and the reason we're exceptional is because we invented this concept of freedom. that's what we want in our community. and everything about maga extremism is anti-freedom. we're for freedom. they're not. that's, you know, five words, i guess. i'll try and cut it down. i think paul's right, we don't need to be so nice. i want to go back, though, because, you know, to paul's point about, you know, who is going to save us, where is the judge in the classified documents case hauling in the defendant, the former president, and saying you are putting lives at risk when you make these charges about jack smith and other prosecutors? when i was a prosecutor, if any

defendant did that, the judge would immediately bring the parties to the court and just rain thunder down on the defendant and his lawyers. again, that is the responsibility of the judge here, to paul's earlier point, about those are the people who wear the white hats who can really save us. >> i think thoe this is corrected to eight years of waiting for the arbiters and the wraps and the norms to hold. and i think, to take this sort of fighting like republicans analogy to a point that offends just about everyone watching, it was said you go to war with the army you wish you got. and judge aileen cannon is not going to do that. of course that's the right thing to do. other people do it with greater threat or injury or maybe a comparable threat environment. i think what i have observed as an ex-republican is that the most blunt language is being

used by the people calling from inside the house. john bolton reveals in his book he calls bill barr while they're both still in the trump cabinet and says i think the foreign policy is for sale, and it's not just in ukraine. it's turkey. it's stuff that's never been investigated. to the degree that anyone has to sort of delve into the hunter biden stuff, fine, whatever. jared kushner after leaving the white house took $2 billion from the middle east. no one's ever investigated him. the asymmetry is staggering. the assem tri is the successful moving of the window so that the question is always why doesn't the judge haul him in? why -- i mean, i guess the question is -- and biden said this to me sitting right here. you know, his bet is on democracy. my question to you, is that a good bet? >> well, i mean, he's -- he's

done really well. he's overperformed in the primaries, in the midterms. i mean, the man has -- i would not bet against him. remember -- >> it's just scary to watch. >> listen, the stakes are impossibly high right now. if you look at the republicans in the house, right, marjorie taylor greene was kicked out of the freedom caucus for voting to, you know, to not crash the american economy. the stakes are very high. these people act out in really wild and inappropriate ways. but the reality is biden has done really, really well. so it's scary, but certainly this message is resonating with voters. >> and i'll give you the last word to, congressman, and put one more sort of win in your column of freedom. i mean, the successful winning message of the governor of pennsylvania, josh shapiro, what freedom is and what freedom isn't, he ran on freedom isn't

taking away a women's right to choose, freedom isn't taking away the right to vote, freedom isn't depriing our democracy of its traditions. i'll give you the last word. >> freedom wins. it's always going to run. that's why we should run on it. the biden launch video was all about freedom. if you watched it. and nicolle, i'll just say thanks for having me on and giving me the freedom to change rooms when my kids took over during the break. >> we have kids in the studio. we're a family friendly program. i think room raiders will have to judge you twice today. >> yeah. >> congressman, i hope this conversation is to be continued. thank you for participating in this conversation in the spirit of which it is being offered up. paul and molly, stick around. up next, fox news faces a new legal threat over its airing of election lies that led to the january 6th insurrection.

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.

i'm sholeh, and i lost 75 pounds with golo. no you de-thrown the king. i went from a size 20 to a size 6. before golo, nothing seemed to work. i was exercising for over an hour every day. it was really discouraging. but golo's so easy, the weight just falls off. i have active psoriatic arthritis. but with skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, i'm feeling this moment. along with clearer skin skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and 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. there's nothing like clearer skin and better movement-and that means everything! ask your doctor about skyrizi today. learn how abbvie could help you save. - the company goes to the firstborn, audrey.

the model train set is entrusted to todd. 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. when it comes to your hair, ingredients matter. that's why herbal essences is packed with naturally derived plant ingredients you love, and none of the stuff you don't. our sulfate-free collections smell incredible... ♪ and leave your hair touchably soft and smooth. ♪ herbal essences

just months after fox news paid $787.5 million to settle its dominion voting systems over their lies spread on their air of the 2020 election, there is another different attempt to try to hold prup ert murdoch's company accountable. an unpartisan grassroots organization, the media and democracy project, has filed a

petition urging the s.e.c. to revoke the license of a fox-owned affiliate station in philadelphia for its parent company's decision to broadcast election lies. the group cites dominion's network case against the network, saying, "paying a settlement of nearly $1 billion is tantamount to a guilty conviction." the spokesperson for fox news says the petition is without merit. jeremy, it seems that it isn't just the settlement with dominion, it is the ruling before the settlement where the judge in the dominion case rules, decides on known falsity, decides that fox news aired these things knowing they were false, that is at the heart of ongoing shareholder lawsuits as well as this effort with the fcc to delicense a fox station. >> and that's exactly right,

nicolle. what you are going to see and what we already have seen is a number of lawsuits that are trying to in the same vein that dominion did hold fox accountable for various misdeeds during and after the 2020 election. you have the two shareholder lawsuits that you mentioned, which, you know, the people argue that fox to vastly downplayed how much of a liability the dominion case would be. you have the abby grossberg lawsuit which fox news recently settled for the whopping, staggering sum of $12 million. that was just last week. and you're going to continue to see more and more cases. there's this individual, ray epps, who was a trump voter, but he was there on january 6th and somehow became the target of various pro-trump conspiracy theories that tucker carlson

repeatedly uttered on his show. talking to defamation experts, a story i have coming over the next couple days, this could be the next dominion-type defamation lawsuit, because this guy's life was basically ruined by tucker carlson's promotion of false stories about him being a secret government agent. fox paid big for dominion, almost a billion dollars, and it's very likely they will continue to pay because of lawsuits like this and challenges like this, you know, fcc petition. i don't know how successful ultimately that's going to be, but it's an example of the kind of legal pressure that fox is under. >> thank you for previewing an upcoming story of some reporting you're working on, jeremy. but you and your colleagues have written about a defamation lawsuit from a former biden

administration official who was targeted who makes some of the same claims mr. epps sounds like he's going to make, that the reputation was destroyed by constant broadcasts from tucker carlson and others. if a judge has ruled on a falsity, it has sort of already established one of the major sort of legal tenets for successful defamation cases? >> well, that's exactly right. and i think that that's why you will see fox -- let's not forget the smartmatic case. we don't know what fox is going to do with that. smartmatic is asking for an even bigger sum than dominion asked for. yes, there is an established legal precedent now stating that fox knew that it peddled falsehoods about the election. and i have a feeling, i don't know this, but the check-writing

from the murdochs is not over yet. >> what's interesting is that fox, other than the ac sense of tucker carlson, has made no major changes. the "times" did some great reporting, jeremy and his colleagues, is the executive in charge of legal strategy is still the executive in charge of legal strategy. >> maybe 2023 is the year of accountability. >> wouldn't that be amazing? >> for our national security, our media, our politics, our culture. if you do the crime, do the time. that should be the message. lock them up. that should be the message. if you give away secrets, you should be lock up. if you storm the capitol, you should be locked up. accountability, and americans understand the rule of law, they respect the rule of law. maybe this is the year, 2023, accountability will start to finally happen. accountability question all want. it should go all the way up to trump. there are no political candidates from left or right saying, lock him up.

you'd be hearing that to the high heavens from people about hillary, but not trump, why not? who's going to the person who says, lock him up? we won't be safe until he's in jail. that's the messaging that needs to come out if we're serious about our national security and decoupling it from the horse race of the presidential campaign. >> interestingly, chris christie's come the closest. >> the closest, yeah. >> but he hasn't uttered. >> not really yet. maybe he's listening. >> we'll see. jeremy peters, thanks for joining us on the fox story. molly and paul, great to see beth of you. we'll be right back.k. sadie is moving to the big city and making moves on her plan, too. apple one, on. now she's got plenty of entertainment for the whole ride. finally there! hot spot, on. and she's fully connected before her internet is even installed. (sadie) hi, mom! (mom) how's the apartment? (vo) introducing myplan. get exactly what you want, only pay for what you need. act now and get it for $25

when you bring your phones. it's your verizon.

i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder on my phone. on the top of the pile! oh. only pay for what you need.

♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ taylor taranto, arrested outside former president barack obama's home last week, will face additional felony charges according to the justice department. prosecutors say mr. turanto, who faces four misdemeanor counts in his role in the january 6th insurrection, drove from his home in washington state with two firearms and 400 rounds of ammunition before being apprehended near the obamas' home. the arrest came hours after donald trump posted the address of the obama home on his truth social account. torento also allegedly made threats against congressman raskin and speaker kevin mccarthy. we'll keep an eye on this story as it continues to develop.

♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ in america, we value our freedoms. and ceos, they're free to negotiate their salaries

and bonuses as they see fit. president biden just wants us to have those very same freedoms. the freedom to make a good living and have a good life. that's why he's lowering insulin prices, fighting for the child care tax credit and delivering more clean, renewable, american-made energy... protecting our freedom to thrive. (fisher investments) it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same, but at fisher investments we're clearly different. (other money manager) different how? you sell high commission investment products, right? (fisher investments) nope. fisher avoids them. (other money manager) well, you must earn commissions on trades. (fisher investments) never at fisher. (other money manager) ok, then you probably sneak in some hidden and layered fees. (fisher investments) no. we structure our fees so we do better when our clients do better. that might be why most of our clients come from other money managers. at fisher investments, we're clearly different. we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal,

so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch. hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. so when my doctor told me i needed weight loss surgery, a literal ton. i knew i had to make a change. golo's helped me transition to a healthier, sustainable lifestyle. i'm so surprised just how crazy my metabolism has fired up. i have a trust in golo 'cause i know it works. golo isn't like every other program out there, and i'm living proof of it. (announcer) change your life at golo.com. that's golo.com.

during these extraordinary times. we are grateful. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. happy friday. >> welcome to "the beat." thank you, nicole. the white house press secretary will join us live. we begin with a striking development that will be heard by the rattled plotters of not only january 6th but those wider coup efforts. there is heat on that effort to get the u.s. military to try to join a trump coup. the heat is coming from the one federal prosecutor who ever indicted donald trump. if people didn't know his name, they do now, special counsel jack