welcome back to "the weekend," everybody. now, donald trump wants to reshape the justice department. we all know that. he wants to make it into his own personal law firm.

his plan, fill important roles with people who have taken up his many legal challenges. very straightforward plan. late yesterday, trump announced his pick for white house staff secretary. will scharf, one of his personal attorneys that helped him to win near-total presidential immunity from the supreme court. he's the one who made that case when you listen to the tape. trump's pick for solicitor general is john suhr who was also part of the supreme court fight. attorney tony blanch has been tapped to be deputy attorney general. you getting the vibe here, folks? following what we're doing. and emile bow vine, another memr of the losing defense team, has been picked to serve as associate deputy principle attorney general. let's talk about that. joining us now, msnbc legal analyst, joyce vance. she's university of apg law

professor and former u.s. attorney. she's also co-host, #sistersinlaw podcast. good to see you. >> joyce, obviously, there's been a lot of attention about picks like matt gaetz to serve as attorney general, cabinet-level picks. tulsi gabbard for the odni. but these picks that michael just discussed, i mean the staff secretary is the person who brings the president all of the papers. they are the arbitrator of the book that the president gets. if someone wants the president to sign off on a memo, it goes through the staff secretary and the staff secretary compiles it and makes sure that they get it. the deputy attorney general. these are all people who have been seen as loyal, correct? and it seems like that's what donald trump is ing here. >> i think that's right.

it almost looks like trump is surrounding himself with an army of loyal lawyers, hoping that his new roy cohn will emerge. the lawyer who will guide him by a lawyer who was really set aside morality and the rule of law and was only interested in the cost of donald trump. now trump is going to bring that sort of a mentality back into the white house. and the real question, symone, is whether these lawyers will permit that. some of the doj nominees are people who are qualified in the traditional sense. they have at least spent some time in the justice department. you know, i never hold a lawyer's clients against them. everyone who's charged in a criminal case is entitled to a defense, but it's an entirely different matter to sign on to donald trump's leadership team, because this is someone who has said that he doesn't believe in the rule of law. someone who has advocated for

rooting the deep state out of the justice department and other federal agencies. in essence, i think about something one of my mentors told me, when i was a u.s. attorney in hiring. they said, it's never negotiable that you'll hire somebody who's well-credentialed. there are tons of folks out there who are smart, well-educated, and have a lot of experience. what you're really doing is you're hiring for judgment. you're hiring for someone who can handle the difficult situation. someone who won't fold under pressure, and who will stand up for the rule of law. and you know, that's clearly not the criteria that donald trump is using at the justice department and elsewhere. >> because there's a duality here, right, joyce? there's both about putting people in place who will shield him from his own forward-looking criminality and past criminality, and then there's the element of retribution. i'm not going to make you or our listeners listen to what donald trump has said about this, but i am going to read it to you. he, trump, talking about the biden administration had said, they've done indictments, they call it weaponization, and the

people aren't going to stand for it. and this is the part that i think we need to focus on. they have done something that allows the next party, if i happen to be president and see someone who's doing well and beating me very badly, i say, go down and indict them. this is what is on his mind. so talk to me about both pieces. both about the ways in which he is shielding himself, and also building a cadre of people who are willing to carry out acts of retribution? >> right, it's by definition weaponization of the justice department. both using it to protect your friends, maybe even to enhance your friend's business dealings, while at the same time using it to punish your enemies. and you know, alycia, we're seeing it here in the justice department. last night, themp finding ways to prosecute people involved in executing the afghanistan withdrawal. this isn't about legitimate prosecutions that will end in convictions. this is about intimidating

people and getting them to sign up for team trump and show loyalty and implement whatever trump wants to without regard for the law and the constitution. and we know it's true, because when the trump folks have talked about schedule "f," which is this plan to take an entire tranche of career civil servants and convert them into people who can be fired as will, what folks have said along the way is, you don't have to fire all of them. all you have to do is fire a few. and the rest will get onboard. they'll get the message and protect their jobs. we're seeing this mass efforts to transition to force people to obey an advance. this is incredibly dangerous. you know, it's a sunday morning, right? it's tough to get exercised. i haven't had enough coffee yet, but y'all, this is serious stuff. we need to be on high alert. >> joyce, i agree with you a thousand percent on the alert nature of all of this. and i find it interesting, in the conversation regarding the

weaponization of our departments like doj or the fbi or even our intelligence communities against the american people, one, i don't think people really appreciate that until they themselves or someone they know suddenly receives paperwork that says, you've been indicted for something, wait a minute, i'm being indicted for having done my job? i'm being indicted for disagreeing with the administration. you do have, though, an interesting thought raised up by dan goldman. and you may recall current member of congress from new york, he's a former sdny prosecutor, who overlapped there with blanche and bovie. he had this to ask in what's in store for trump's doj? donald trump has been clear that he intends to weaponize the doj for his partisan interests, goldman added. but i expect todd to adhere to those principles and the rule of

law in the face of any pressures to do otherwise. that to me seems a little bit optimistic. because i think you actually score here the point that there will be those who will be made examples of. and the rest will fall in line. because that seems to be how this playbook is setting itself up to go after and to really shock and awe submission. >> so let me tell you, i read dan's comments a little bit differently. and our friend mimi rocha who's also in that office and is now the d.a. in westchester county made similar comments to that. i think what dan is doing, he's level-setting expectations. he's talking to two of his former colleagues and he is saying, i know you. we were raised in the same justice department. we understand the rules. we get the importance of the rule of law. we don't let the political folks

direct criminal prosecutions. and my eyes are on you. i read his comments very clearly, as talking to two former colleagues and saying, you will not get a pass from me. so, i think that's frankly what a lot of former doj people are doing. look, there is no reason to have confidence in anyone who would agree to work for donald trump. but he will populate the justice department, nonetheless. there will not be any internal guardrails. there will not be -- you know, there's always been someone in the deputy attorney general's office. the senior career person, in the justice department, who sort of sets ethical sorts of rules, councils people, talks to people. i don't expect we'll see any of that in this administration. it will have to come from the outside, from former colleagues, from doj folks, from lawyers who will be relentless about pointing out flaws and insisting on proper conduct. i don't know any other way to re-set guardrails at the justice

department. >> i mean, do we think the guardrails can be reset? i just -- i'm really concerned about the fact that the supreme court weighed in in what can only now be read as an anticipation of a donald trump presidency, saying that the president has immunity in all official and even some unofficial acts. like, who was going to check the checkers here? i thought that, you know, the revolution was about not wanting to be beholden to a king that was on the other side of the pond, and didn't know what we had going on over here in the colonies. but it seems as though america has elected a king. >> yeah, or maybe worse, right? maybe a dictator. i think that's the existential crisis we're all going to have to live with. you know, i study and teach in the area of democratic institutions and something that i've turned to in the last months is this thought of comparative sorts of institutions.

and what has happened in other countries, where democracy has been under attack. and whether we want to call them guardrails or norms, you know, i think in terms of the rule of law, frequently, and when it's under attack, then we have to evolve to find new ways of protecting it. that's never an easy path. it's not a short path. but the one true fact that i know is that we have to begin to make that fight, to continue democracy. this is not a moment to give up. it's not a moment to sit on the sidelines. it's a moment to everyone reengage, as painful as that might be, and figure out, how we're going to force democratic norms back into a system where we now have elected a leader who doesn't want them to exist. because he's in favor of kleptocracy and government that allows him to engage in corruption. a government of mediocre people trying to run the system for his benefit. that's something that we can all stand up against and that we

have to. >> so, joyce, just to add here, i'm not sure if you saw this headline, about trump using military court-martials to look at some of the folks who were engageded in afghanistan withdrawal. i know that is your co-host, jill's, area of expertise, but i'm going to ask you, since you are the one that we have us, just how extraordinary that is, how long that could take. the type of protections that these folks are, in fact, offered. >> yeah, so, you know, the amazing thing about this is, there is no basis for these courts courts- courts-martials. donald trump was the one who set the timeline for the withdrawal from afghanistan. all of the people they're talking about were following lawful orders.

and they will go through the equivalent of a grand jury or a preliminary hearing in the criminal justice system, where the judicial officer has to be convinced there's sufficient evidence to proceed against them. those are public proceedings, by the way. and i would expect that they will all fail here. there is no reason to go forward. so we're back to what michael was talking about. this notion of intimidations people. the fact that it's costly and stressful to defend against these sorts of allegations. they can drag on for quite a long time, and put people in a real predicament. this is about donald trump against people who believe in democracy. and we need to read it that way. >> joyce, you are sticking with us. we want to talk with you about the future of trump's many legal cases, now that jack smith is resigning. you are watching "the weekend" on msnbc. resigning. you are watching "the weekend" on msnbc better breathing starting within 5 minutes. it also reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it.

don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. speaker: who's coming in the driveway? speaker: dad. dad, we missed you. daddy, hi. speaker: goodness. my daughter is being treated for leukemia. [music playing] i hope that she lives a long, great, happy life and that she will never forget how mom and daddy love her. saint jude-- maybe this is what's keeping my baby girl alive. [music playing] narrator: you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the life-saving research and treatment these kids need now and in the future. speaker: cancer makes me feel angry,

like not in the feel on the outside, just the inside. i'm angry at it. speaker: when your kid is hurting and there's nothing you can do about it, that's the worst feeling in the world. [music playing] narrator: 1 in 5 children diagnosed with cancer in the us will not survive. speaker: those that donate to st. jude, i hope that you will continue to give. they have done so much for me and my family. [music playing] narrator: join with your credit or debit card for only $19 a month, and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt, or, for a limited time only, join for $39 a month to receive this exclusive st. jude jacket you can proudly wear to show your support. speaker: are you ready to go have some fun? speaker: yeah. speaker: when we came here, we didn't know what tomorrow would hold. st. jude showed us that tomorrow, there's hope for our little girl to survive.

narrator: let's cure childhood cancer together. please donate now. [music playing] ♪ ♪ ♪ something has changed within me ♪ ♪ it's time to try defying gravity ♪ ♪ ♪

all aboard! come with me to meet the wizard. why couldn't possibly. this is your moment. i'm coming. if you think that's something to see, wait til you see this. ♪ ♪ you're good. -very good. special counsel jack smith and his team are planning to

resign before donald trump takes office, as he begins to wind down the cases against trump, the big question remains. what should he do with all of the evidence collected? with the classified documents case, yce vance says jack smith should release that evidence, writing for msnbc.com this week, joyce says, quote, there should be, at minimum, a permanent public record of the evidence, insofar as releasing it complies with other legal restrictions. that's a decision the justice department has the opportunity to make in the next two months. perhaps the most momentous one left to it in these cases. joyce vance back with us. >> raising my glass to joyce vance, okay? yes, joyce! thank you. >> joyce, i couldn't agree with you more. this has got to be made a part of the public record, but you do ask the question, and i think it's an important one, was it all for nothing? that we now find ourselves here, you know, i will reserve my

comments on the slowness, i'll put it that way, of this justice department, in the very beginning, on the heels of january 2021, to really focus the country's attention on the legal consequences of donald trump's actions that january 6th. but was it all for nothing? even if the documents are released? >> you know, i, too, was critical of the justice department's slow start. and for the first year, year and a half, i kept sort of looking at my watch, wondering when they were going to get in gear and talking about it on podcasts. i think we'll debate through the lens of history whether or not they were slow or whether they were working behind the scenes. but michael, i think i finally have a question, or actually, a better answer to the question, that i posed, about whether it was all for nothing. and my answer is that it was

absolutely essential that jack smith engaged in these prosecutions. because in an era where we now have questions about the stability of the rule of law, he stood for the rule of law. he did something that people questioned whether it could even be done, indicting a former president. he did it based on the evidence, without any indication of politics, and he proceeded in court, in a professional way, that upheld the best traditions of the justice department. now, look, there's no doubt that it was too slow, likely not because of smith's fault. in florida, he faced judge aileen canon, a judge who was confirmed to the federal bench after donald trump lost in 2020, and did nothing to move her case along. you know, that case, the classified documents case, was what prosecutors call a straight-line case. the evidence was straightforward, it was simple. it could have been to trial, nine months, ten months after being indicted, she kept that from happening and ultimately dismissed it on a basis that i

don't believe is legally supported. the january 6th case is a little bit more complicated. and again, the supreme court intervened. in that case and the issue of whether or not the court has been captured by donald trump is something i know we'll be discussing intensively over the next months and years. but even if that situation, the american people understand the contours of those cases and of what donald trump did with far more detail and significance than we would have ever understood without those prosecutions. now the question is whether smith will leave behind a permanent physical record of all of his evidence, cases that will never be tried in court, but that will continue to have historical significance. >> why wouldn't he leave behind a record? why wouldn't he make a report? because it's the act of prosecution and it didn't actually get finished? what would be the reason that we would not see something? >> yeah, i think the question,

and maybe i've not stated it precisely is whether he'll leave a public record or not. because under records retention policies in the justice department, those materials must all be maintained in storage for a period of years. you know, the fate of those materials under a donald trump administration is, i think, something that has many people concerned. the issue with making them public is twofold. typically, doj does not release a report. does not talk about a case once it's dismissed. but this is a little bit different. we've got a special counsel here. there are reporting obligations. we will, i think, see some form of public report that will be released. the question is, how much detail will we get? and my eyes are particularly on the classified documents case, where smith had said in a pleading in october that he would be discussing in court why donald trump held on to those classified documents and refused to turn them back over to the government. i don't think we've ever had

that question answered before. my hope is that smith will give us more information than we have right now. >> i want you to take a listen, because there's something baked into symone's answer about the potential fear of retribution on the part of jack smith in exchange on news max. this is from november 7th, between mike davis, a republican lawyer, and about jack smith. take a listen. >> where does jack smith go after all of this? >> he should go to prison for engaging in a criminal conspiracy against president trump. >> so can you give us a sense if you're jack smith, what you're already putting in place to protect yourself? >> first, i'll say the obvious. that's utterly false. utterly unacceptable. a prosecutor who proceeds through a grand jury and into a court in front of an independent

federal judge is not part of a conspiracy. the evidence is the evidence. the facts are the facts. we've seen many of them in public. whether or not the supreme court decides that donald trump has presidential immunity is an entirely different matter as to whether there's a basis for this indictment or proceeding, and there clearly was. so the idea that jack smith has to take protective steps tells us just how much danger our democracy is in. smith, i think, is in a dangerous position, i'm sure, and i hope he's taking steps to protect himself and his family. but the reality is that the protection he deserves is protection from the american people, from elected members of congress, of both parties, who should absolutely insist that there be no retribution taken against him for lawful conduct, and from officials, trump officials, in the justice department. the folks that we were talking about earlier, you must absolutely adhere to law and

constitution and reject any idea that revenge prosecutions are appropriate ever because they are not. >> before jack smith took this job, he was the chief prosecutor at the hague and was investigating war crimes, like during the kosovo war and i bet he did not have on his bingo card that he would need -- that the defense that he needs to build for himself and protection for himself is for the crimes that he was investigating that happened within the united states of america by a former president. it's absolutely ridiculous that this is where we are. joyce vance, you are a patriot. we love you. thank you. -- taking shape for polls for donald trump for the next four years and to do their jobs in congress, california congressman robert garcia joins us at the table in just a few minutes to discuss it all. this is "the weekend." ss it all. this is "the weekend." tools that help protect. alerts that help check. one bank that puts you in control.

chase. make more of what's yours.

so i've got a question for you. y'all seen j.d. vance? where is j.d. vance? i have not seen j.d. vance. >> is elon musk the vp? >> my feeling is that elon musk is the surrogate vp. he's standing in. so let me get this straight. elon musk is on the phone talking to leaders around the world, in iran, and getting on the phone call with putin and j.d. vance is out there trying to find some votes for matt gaetz? is that what -- is that what it's come to? >> the only reporting i have seen on j.d. vance in the last few days is about those calls he was making for matt gaetz. >> you know, it's really crazy. just so people understand out there at home pb this is , this transition, right? during the transition, it is when the president-elect is putting together, you know, the 100-day plan for the government, where the president-elect is picking the cabinet members and when joe biden was the president-elect and kamala harris was the vice

president-elect, she was in all of those meetings. she was going back and forth to delaware. up the road every day to wilmington, because that's where the president was, the president-elect. she was in the room and was involved in those conversations. she interviewed potential cabinet secretaries. the president-elect cared about what she had to say. i wonder, does donald trump care what vice president-elect has to say? >> no, he cares more about what elon musk has to say. that's very clear, very obvious. and so elon, the first buddy, has put himself -- sandwiched himself in between j.d. vance and the president. that's the relationship that's going to play out here in washington, to watch, in my view, because you're now having power i mass in a private citizen who is the buddy to the president, not an elected official, who's in on critical phone calls with world leaders, at the president's request. now, you know, j.d., you need probably to check it, because i think you've been checked. >> you have to work your way in

there. you can't let elon musk box you out, boo-boo. >> that's it. boxed out boo-boo. >> talk about triple b. >> do you think there comes a point, though, where there is a fissure between musk and trump? he doesn't do -- he's spending a lot of time with the man. >> well, you know, this whole, we're going to create an agency to get rid of agencies is just bs. i mean, it's just crazy, number one. >> i hadn't thought of it that way, create an agency to get rid of agencies. >> i went to write it down, actually. >> creating an agency to get rid of agencies. >> and to put people in charge, just to layer bureaucracy. >> talk about it -- >> two people were polar opposites in their agendas. put two people in charge of undoing the work of the government. so, folks, all of this is smoke and mirrors crap.

it's crazy. if the congress has any self-respect left -- okay, let me -- i'll look for it. i'll look for it. >> well, if they don't do the recess appointments, maybe -- maybe they have some, you know -- >> well, that's up to john thune and whether or not he will capitulate or control the situation. you are an independent -- you are a third -- one of the branches of government. and so you have sovereignty in that regard. but i think in the total -- in totality of all of this, you know, there's a lot of noise. are we going to get rid of this agency and that agency? because, press, could you ask them the question, when you create that whole in this government service space, what are you replacing it with? how you going to provide for those citizens that rely on those services of government to help them deal with some really profoundly issues in their lives. so, yeah, create an agency to get rid of an agency. that's -- >> don't make no sense.

>> government at work. >> it's you. >> it is me. i'm sorry. i was just -- >> the prompter is michael! that's what i'm trying to tell -- >> i don't get to talk much. next, congressman robert garcia is here to discuss the fight the administration. you're watching "the weekend." e administration you're watching "the weekend." e, breathe, ahhhh! what is — wow! sinex. breathe. ahhhhhh!

so in just over 60 days, donald trump will occupy the oval office. occupy is the world. and two governors are creatinga new group of governors safeguarding democracy to protect their states from trump administration policies. according to axios, the effort will counter threats on state executive actions s like electl systems largely through legal action. here to tell us a little bit more about all of that, democratic member of congress's plan to take on trump's second term, is congressman robert garcia of california. welcome to the table, congressman. >> happy. >> congressman, good morning to you. i am curious, especially given your role on house oversight, how you are thinking about the next six months. >> i mean, look, i think what's really important is we recognize that, obviously, we lost the election. we lost -- we didn't win the

white house, we obviously lost the presidency, we lost the senate. and we have to accept that. we have to listen to people. i don't think this is a moment where we automatically know what to do in every situation. but what's really important, i think, is that we also -- donald trump won the presidency with 49% of the vote, 48% of the vote. we lost with 47% of the vote. this is not somehow some sort of mandate where he absolutely destroyed our outcome in the presidency. it's still a closely divided country. now, they won, we should recognize that. but we have to ensure that we double down on what we believe in. this is not also a moment to retreat on basic human values and decency, it's not a moment to retreat on standing up to the pleas. so from an oversight perspective, we need to keep them accountable for all the harm that they're going to try to cause our democracy and our institutions. >> so you have tom homan, who's going to be heading up the deportation of people saying,

i've seen some of these democratic governors say they're going to stand in their way. let's kind of listen to what he has to say about these democratic governors. >> some of these democratic governors say they're going to stand in the way, they're going to make it hard for us. so if they're not going to help us, get the hell out of the way. if we can't get assistance from new york city, we may have to double the number of agents we send to new york city. because we're going to do the job. we're going to do the job without you or with you. >> so the sovereignty of states is not a bar. the independence of governors to protect their citizens or those persons within their charge is irrelevant. we're going to do it regardless. >> we're not going to get the hell out of the way. i think it's really important that governors, including my own governor, gavin newsom of california, fight and fight hard

against folks that are trying to destroy our democracy, destroy our government. and harm people that are in our states and across the country. it's really important that governors stand up. that state legislatures stand up and congress fights back. i know that a lot of us feel dejected, and down about the work that didn't get us the presidency, and what we wanted to accomplish and stop donald trump. but that doesn't mean that we can just retreat. this is really important for us to lean in. governors will lead the way and congress is going to, as well. >> you know, i -- i have appreciated what i have heard from house democrats, specifically. y'all just seem to be very realistic. you know, some people in the senate, like senator fetterman i don't think have been realistic. no, this is real. this is real. so i think house democrats have been realistic for the most part, but then you had rep wiley nickle propose that democrats form a shadow cabinet.

and i think there have been some wild, crazy conspiracy theories out there. shadow cabinet, the resistance. do this, do that. i think that the american people do want -- i mean, you want a government that works for you. democrats cannot just be against, against, against, but it's really hard to -- the legislative realities are that y'all aren't in charge at this point now. maybe one of the house races go a different way and democrats end up in charge of the house. but it looks as though not in charge of anything, in the minority and all of it. so what really can you all do, because midterms are around the corner. >> what i would say is, first, look at what we did and stopped these last two years, not being in the majority. we've been in the minority, and yet we stopped a lot of horrific things from happening in the house and pushed back on real hard. we have got to double down. i believe hakeem jeffries is the right person to lead this caucus and fight like head against every single bad policy that the republicans put out there. we've got to bring the facts, the evidence, and call out even

things that are happening in the senate. these nominations are insane and crazy. you're going to nominate rfk jr., a vaccine denier, who doesn't believe in vaccines, who's caused measleses outbreaks in parts of the country, who thinks that fluoride in water is making people gay and trance.s. this is insane. we have got to push really hard. and i'm encouraging my democratic colleagues to not retreat at this moment. i know it's hard and we need to pick up our boots here, but we have to fight back every single day and not allow them to get away with damaging our institutions permanently. >> you talk about the leadership of hakim and i think he will be an important anchor for what the democrats do next. but more importantly, how they organize around principles as the -- you know, the loyal opposition in the house. you, sir, have sent around a

dear colleague letter, noting that you, too, would like to put in place a bid for leadership. we are the party of working families, but all too often, we're not connecting with these communities. we can't just rely on the traditional media to carry our message. we must engage in every media and mass media market to adapt to how people consume information today. we must ensure we are reaching people where they are, pushing back on misinformation and spreading the truth. those aspects of leadership are going to be necessary, as you look for a bid as a caucus leader. >> no, that's right. and fortunately, i'm running for caucus leadership rep. i've been freshman class president. this is my first term. i'm unopposed right now, which is really great. >> but he's running like he's behind. >> i've got ten people coming after me. >> people have been very supportive. one of the things i've told the caucus is that absolutely, it's a message. message is important.

what we're saying, what our values are, are important. but where we message and the mediums is as important. we are not in every space. we're not on every podcast. we need to go in all the places that are uncomfortable, particularly places where young men are getting their information now. i want -- i talked to a group of 30 undecided young men in nevada a month before the election. i asked them where they get their information from. it's none of the places that are traditional. not newspapers, not cable tv, not broadcast tv. we have to go into these spaces and communicate and communicate aggressively. and that's where democrats can do a better job. i think hakeem jeffries understands this, the caucus understands this, and that's one of the reasons i want to be involved in helping us lead that direction. >> there's a leadership that's coming from there, congressman. also some reporting in punchbowl about what is happening over at the congressional hispanic caucus. the caucus seeking new messaging strategy after trump gained. sources have also complained that democrats have completed hispanics as too much of a

monolith. trump who has made significant gains made inroads in puerto rican heavy areas in pennsylvania and with mexican americans in south texas. i've got to be honest, congressman. i'll assume you agree. i think the problem is bigger than being treated as a monolith, the problem is not being treated as a group that has agency and power and is important and should be at the center of campaign strategy, not at the margins. >> i could not agree more. and i think that we just can't talk to latino communities when elections roll around. i think we're a growing block in this country. obviously, i'm an immigrant myself. i understand the immigrant experience. and when i talk to folks, the amount of disinformation that latinos are getting from all sorts of other sources, because we are not in the space about communicating, is very concerning. yes, donald trump improved with latinos, especially latino men. very disappointing. but if you look at all the states, latinos in the swing

states actually voted marginally better for vice president harris, if you compare ose to other places like new york and california. when you're communicating to latinos, we are marginally doing better than other places where we're not communicating to the latino community during these big national elections. so we've got to campaign everywhere. and we've got to campaign in the spaces where latinos are getting their information. and right now, young men, latino men, they're not reading "the new york times", "the washington post," or watching msnbc or other networks. >> they're watching the clips, though! >> can i level up something real quick? i think the other side of it -- of all of this, that can get lost in translation, is the numbers. in the sense that you talk about the inroads republicans have made with these various groups who traditionally are not their constituency. but some of that is driven by the fact that democrats lost a significant portion of across the country, basewide voters.

so it wasn't just all the gains that were made here -- >> you mean, they didn't come out to vote? >> they didn't come out to vote. sometimes gains can be misinterpreted or misunderstood as this big thing when you don't put it up against an even bigger thing. and the bigger thing was, when you lose up to 10 million voters who don't show up on election day for you, your problem is not just the young men who shifted to donald trump. there's a bigger issue that democrats have to face here, which when put together, lay out what the stark contrast is for you relative to what trump has been able to do, going forward. >> yeah, some introspection. where is the introspection? i know, as house democrats and the elected leaders, y'all have to still press forward, right welcome now that the dnc and others and folks from the campaign that are now, you know, not in leadership positions, they have a little more space to do some soul searching, if you will. but i think house democrats also

still have to do some soul searching. i mean -- >> i mean, absolutely. i think that's the most important thing to do right now. what's not helpful is come out and say, i know exactly how to fix the democratic party or how to win elections. we don't. we have to sit down in this period, listen, talk folks, hear them out, and make adjustments. in some cases, we'll have to make some pretty big adjustments. we have to ensure that we turn out the base, but we have to deliver on the policies we're are trying to sell to the american people. there hasn't been immigration reform in this country for 30-plus years. so when you're telling atinos, we're going to get this done for your families year after year after year, and there is no actual action or no result, you'll have some erosion. you'll have -- i've been talking to latinos across the country. they're like, you've been saying we're going to get immigration reform for 30 years. granted, we haven't had many opportunities to do so, but we have had some. >> but here's the messaging, as we get ready to go here. here's the messaging on that.

you had a bill. you had an issue -- >> and donald trump is the one who tanked it. and those very voters you're talking about, those young men think that he didn't do that. >> this is why we have to communicate in every single space. >> and why we need to continue this conversation, because i completely disagree. we'll have the congressman back on and talk about it then. >> appreciate you, congressman. much more ahead on "the weekend," folks. we'll be right back. more ahead weekend," folks. we'll be right back. this land is your land. this land is my land.

this land we love belongs to all of us. yet not everyone is treated equally. right now, millions of americans are fighting for the things promised to all by the constitution. freedom. justice. equality. you can help by joining the american civil liberties union today. so please call now or go online to myaclu.org to become a guardian of liberty. your gift of just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day helps protect our democracy. this land is your land. this land is my land. from california to the new york island. with support from people just like you. the aclu is leading the fight to protect our civil liberties. will you join us?

call or go to myaclu.org today. use your credit card and you'll receive this special we the people t shirt and more to show you're part of the movement to protect the rights of all people. nobody living can ever stop me as i go walking that freedom highway. this land was made for you and me. together we can ensure that this land continues to belong to everyone. because we the people means all of us. so please join us. call or go online to myaclu.org today.

whoa! how'd you get your teeth so white? you gotta use the right toothpaste! dr. c?! ♪♪ not all toothpastes whiten the same. crest 3d white removes 100% more stains for a noticeably whiter smile. new personal best. crest. [ screeching ] [ chuckling ] [ vocalizing ] that's a choice. [ vocalizing ]

think of what we could do together. i was just scrolling through social media in the break. >> i keep telling her to not do that. >> but i think that privately, you know, and i speak to a number of elected officials, they are very clear-eyed about what donald trump's threat -- like the threat that donald trump's next administration has laid before them. the threatening to jail people, asking the military to do things that are unconstitutional.

they're clear-eyed about that. the issue that i am having, when they speak publicly, not all of the elected officials, but many of them, they are not being as clear, i think, with the american people. and i know people don't want to sound like they're fearmongering or just trying to scare people, but i think the elected officials need to be clear and honest. adam schiff was just on one of the sunday shows and asked if he's concerned about what donald trump has said about having the military arrest him and tribunals, and he's like, well, i would hope the military would maintain their independence, and i would hope donald trump wouldn't ask them to do something unconstitutional. he is going to do that! and like, i don't know! many other institutions haven't stood. so we've got to be clear-eyed and honest with people. >> yeah, we do. but i won't -- i'm not going to hold my breath that any of these people are going to do it. and that's -- that's one thing that i think trump counts on the

most. that he's figured out the folks that, you know, are in this building behind me. he knows them! they're all cautious, nervous nellies. they are pearl clutchers, in my respects. and, you know, to fetterman's point, if you're going to say, stop clutching your pearls, okay, put your voice in that space to say, this is what he's going to do, because he's told he's going to do it. if he says he's going to do it, folks, my response to that is this. and i'm not fearmongering. i'm not trying to scare you. he's scary enough! he's scary enough! by telling you he's going to weaponize the government against private citizens. he's going to go after those like jack smith and members of our armed services for doing their jobs, because he -- because he was the one criming.

he was the one caught. everybody else has to pay a price. i just think you call it out. >> and i was going to say, soon you're going to see this impacting americans and we'll be talking about showing and not just telling. okay, we have much more to talk about. we'll be right back. have much about. we'll be right back. one beats ten. prilosec otc. one pill. 24 hours. zero heartburn. dexcom g7 is one of the easiest ways to take better control of your diabetes. this small wearable replaces fingersticks, lowers a1c, and it's covered by medicare. not managing your diabetes really affects your health for the future. the older you get, the more complications you're gonna see. i knew i couldn't ignore my diabetes anymore because it was causing my eyesight to go bad. for my patients, getting on dexcom g7 is the biggest eye opener they've ever had. i couldn't believe how easy it was. this small wearable sends my glucose numbers right to my phone or my receiver. with just a glance i can see if i'm going high,

low, or steady. so, i can make quick decisions in the moment. now, i'm a superstar. my a1c is 5.7. my a1c has never been lower. no other cgm system is more affordable for medicare patients than dexcom g7. don't wait! call now, and talk to a real person. that grimy film on your teeth? dr. g? ♪♪ it's actually the buildup of plaque bacteria which can cause cavities. most toothpastes quit working in minutes. but crest pro-health's antibacterial fluoride protects all day. so it stops cavities before they start... crest.

the future of cool, comfortable sleep is here. introducing the new sleep number climate cool smart bed. the only smart bed in the world that actively cools and effortlessly adjusts to both of you. sleep up to 15 degrees cooler on each side. it actively cools by drawing warm air away from your body, to keep you cool and comfortable throughout the night. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. and now, save 50% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed.

plus, up to $500 off adjustable bases. shop now at a sleep number store near you. (♪♪) behind every splenda product is a mission. helping millions of people reduce sugar from their diets. now try a sweetener grown by u.s. farmers. introducing zero-calorie splenda stevia. at splenda stevia farms, our plants are sweetened by sunshine. experience how great splenda stevia can be. grown on our farm, enjoyed at your table. (♪♪) well, that does it for us this weekend. we'll see you back here next saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. be sure to follow