♪ ♪ ♪ something has changed within me ♪ ♪ it's time to try defying gravity ♪

♪ ♪

president-elect donald trump. the choice is to let the january 6th election interference case go comes after a year of work and millions of dollars spent on this case alone. the opening of the motion noting the timing and the unprecedented moment the justice department was in. here is a quote. that prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the government stands fully behind. i want to bring in congressman zoe lofgren, a member of the january 6th committee. i appreciate you being here

right now. this is an historic moment. you have seen more than almost probably any other american on this case. you certainly have lived it in a very real way, including the people who are deeply affected by it. the fallout from january 6th. so, i have to ask the simple question, what is your reaction to hearing all of this seems to be done? >> well, i am not surprised. when mr. trump was elected president i think it became clear that this prosecution could not go forward. you know, it's ironic that the top republican in the senate pointed out in the impeachment that he should be prosecuted, that what he did was criminal and that the court should take care of it. of course, now there is no accountability either using the

constitutional method of impeachment or the courts as mitch mcconnell suggested should be the case. so, there is no accountability:the conduct was criminal, and we already knew that we had elected somebody who was a criminal because was convicted multiple times in another case. so that's where we are in america. >> do you worry that this means all the work all of you did on the committee, the work done by, obviously, jack smith and the many lawyers and others who worked on this case, essentially just mean, there is, obviously, a public record of what you folks did, and we watched the televised hearings. but the fact that it just dies here, does that worry you? does it worry you for the republic? >> well, certainly those who trump incited to violence have been convicted.

they assaulted police officers. you know, people were maimed and people died. of course, trump has said that he will pardon those people. so this is really a subversion of the rule of law from someone, unfortunately, mr. trump does not seem to have a lot of respect for the rule of law. we'll see what happens.administ made some rather extravagant claims what he intends to do. we will see whether the rule of law and the thin holds up to those threats. >> let me ask you directly, are you concerned for jack smith under a new justice department? are you concerned for the people who worked with him on this case? >> well, some of the -- trump supporters are suggesting there should be retaliatory measures taken against the lawyers in the department of justice for doing their job. that would be extraordinary and a real misuse of power. and a subversion of the rule of

law. so we'll see. whether president biden preemptively pardons people who would be wrongfully charged, who knows? but to use the levers of power in a revenge mode, which is what trump has suggested, is a misuse of presidential authority and a subversion of the rule of law. >> are there people in the u.s. congress and democrats and republicans alike who you believe are gearing up for that possibility? and what know would do if it happened? >> well, as you're aware, the house and senate have republican majorities. and because of that the democratic minority have no capacity legally to put anything on the agenda to force a vote on any measure. so it's really a question of what do republicans in the house

and senate intend to do with a president who is popular, who won the vote, if he starts to unravel our constitution and our rule of law. so far, the track record hasn't been too good. we'll see. >> you said last month you were disappointed doj hadn't started their investigation earlier. you are definitely not alone in that feeling. looking back, do you think that not charging trump until more than two years after january 6th was the ultimate mistake that doomed this? >> well, it was a huge mistake. certainly, the committee found, you know, a lot of evidence without the tools that the justice department has that made it clear that trump was at the center of this wide-ranging conspiracy. why the justice department delayed until basically our report was done is something i've never understood.

however, trump and his lawyers are the masters of delay. so, even had the efforts begun in advance, who knows whether they wouldn't have been able to drag them out, justice delayed is, of course, justice denied. >> you were, before you were elected, a practicing lawyer. so let me ask you this. what do you say to folks who, whatever their political beliefs may be, believe in the system and believe the system should have had a chance to play itself out, and do you think that they are right to worry that the system doesn't work, that there is a system of justice that isn't the same for everyone? >> well, certainly mr. trump has never been dealt with in these federal cases as any other american would have been treated. he is above the law.

but, you know, you also understand mr. smith. you are not going to prosecute a sitting president. that is not something that is envisioned. and so the delay got us to this point, and you are not going to prosecute somebody that the american people just elected president. so i think the only choice was to dismiss the matter or to somehow take it off calendar until after his term. but that would be so attenuated in terms of time. sov i do understand that the process we are in is both in the courtroom, but also in the public arena. and the people of the united states, the voters decided to re-elect donald trump as president, and he is not going to be prosecuted since he was just re-elected as president. so, there you have it. it should have been dealt with many years ago, but ultimately it was the political process of

the election that held sway and made the decision really inevitable. >> congressman zo love ren, thank you for coming to our camera so quickly and let me wish you and yours a happy thanksgiving. appreciate it. >> you, too. we are getting additional lawmaker reaction on the hill. nbc's ryan nobles is live in washington. what are you hearing there, ryan? >> reporter: well, probably doesn't come as a prize that you are going to get very different views on the reaction to this announcement by the special counsel between republicans and democrats. you heard congresswoman lofgren's response to it. let me show you what the other side of the aisle is saying. this senator tom cotton of arkansas, a trump supporter, critical of jack smith, says that the jack smith cases will be remembered as a dark chapter of weaponization. they should -- they never should have been brought. our elections are decided by voters, not fanatical deranged

liberal lawyers like jack smith. this echoes what republicans in congress have been saying from the beginning that the special counsel was assigned and then pressed charges. they believed that this was an effort by merrick garland and the justice department through president biden, although there were never any direct connections president biden, to attack a political opponent of the republicans. and so this is something that may not end here. even though republicans have gotten a win here, even though donald trump is going to avoid prosecution when it comes to january 6th, that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be an effort by republicans to just let this go. there is the possibility, especially now that republicans have control of both the house and senate, that congressional investigations could be launched that could happen through the house judiciary committee and congressman jim jordan, the chairman of that committee, he has has not ruled out the possibility of investigating the investigators to find out and

look as to whether or not there was some sort of political motivated effort by the justice department to go after donald trump in a way to prevent him from winning the election. we should point out this has been tried before, right. the durham probe, the special counsel that was appointed specifically with the intent of investing the investigators ended up with hardly anything. they brought, i believe, one case that was not successful. so there isn't really the expectation there is a lot of there there, but it is an effort by republicans perhaps to keep this drum beat going that donald trump was the victim of unfair prosecution. so this is something that, chris, it's often on capitol hill you get very different views of something based on republicans and democrats. i think this may be no greater example of the stark difference of interpretation about a decision where you are going to see republicans applauding it and democrats upset that the former president about to become the next president was not held

accountable more for the actions and what happened on january 6th. chris. >> ryan nobles, thank you. i want to bring in "new york times" national reporter katy benner, very well sourced wnl doj, former federal judge jon jones, also here with me, msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos and msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin. judge, first, this motion that has been put in place by the special counsel, would it be highly unusual, judge, for the judge in this case to do anything but what the special counsel asks? is this a done deal? >> yeah. well, it's great to be with you. it would be extremely unusual because it's not opposed, chris, and i think it's going to be pretty automatic for the judge, judges, you also have the 11th circuit involved to grant the motion. you could contrast this with

what took place years ago, seven years ago, the beginning of trump one, where you had general flynn charged and he pled guilty, attempted to withdraw his plea, and then the justice department withdraw the charges. judge sullivan in d.c. attempted to kind of short circuit that. it didn't get anywhere. of course, he had a reason, because flynn had already pled guilty. obviously, that didn't happen in this case. so, it's a pretty automatic grant of dismissal without prejudice in my view. >> as a moment in history, judge, what does it tell us, and what does it potentially mean going forward not that we would think or hope to think that we would be in a situation again where a former president or future president would find himself indicted would be indicted in four different cases, convicted in one, but is

this unique to this situation? we all know this has been unprecedented every step of the way. but are there things in this that you think will last that will be part of our judicial system going forward? >> well, i'll tell you what i think about this. for those who believe that there was a weaponization of the justice department, i don't believe that to be the case. the justice department that i dealt with during my 20 years on the bench was highly ethical. this is emblematic of that. you know, an opinion from the legal counsel for the department and a straightforward and candid set of motions by jack smith. so, you know, the takeaway is, oddly, you know, as according to precedent and as according to law, the system is working as it should. you can decry, people can decry the fact that the election gave

the president-elect a get out of jail industry card. but, you know, at the end of the day i really hope as some of your guests have said that we don't get into a world where we are going to investigate the prosecutors. i think this was a righteous prosecution from what i can see, but, you know, they can -- they understand where they are at this point. so the takeaway is, in a strange way, i guess, this is the special counsel acting according to law, and that's appropriate. >> so, katy benner, obviously, when you talk about the weaponization of the justice department, which is something donald trump and his allies have talked about for a long time, taking direct aim at jack smith, but also taking direct aim at many of the people of the doj who worked on this case very long hours, tirelessly, the latest posting from the doj as of march 2024, $6.63 million had

been spent investigating, following up on the leads, putting together a case against the future president of the united states, donald trump. i'm wondering if you have heard from folks within the doj and what this must mean for them. >> i think that there are two sentiments happening right now. inside of the justice department, first, people inside of the department have been anticipating these filings for a while given that the office of legal counsel, which is kind of like the justice department's in-house legal counsel advising on constitutional matters, given the fact that the office of legal counsel has twice before said that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, you can't have an indictment hanging over the head of a sitting president, nobel was surprised that they would have the decision similar to we saw nixon and clinton, in this case with trump. inside the department they have been anticipating the end of these cases. but there are fears as people

have mentioned before of retaliation. trump has vowed to retaliate against people who worked on the prosecutions against him. he has brought in or he has tapped to be the next attorney general pam bondi, a woman who has vowed to take action against people who worked on these cases. and people are also worried about the bigger picture rule of law. so trump now is not going to face legal consequences for what the justice department saw as crimes in two matters. one in with holding of classified information, two in his interference in the election in 2020. this is going to embolden his supporters if trump were to pardon his supporters, who raided the capitol on january 6th or even, as some legal scholars wondered, pardon himself. that is enbolding forces in the united states who feel that they don't have to comply with the rule of law either. we saw this january 6th prosecutions do a lot to keep extremist activity at bay over

the four years of joe biden's presidency. we could see reversal. inside the department people are worried of course about personal consequences of the trump set of revenge acts, but also very worried what happens to the rule of law now that the signals are being sent to trump's base. >> i want to ask you about both those things. let's start with the rule of law and what might mean for that and what are some of the specific concerns that they have if there is an emboldened donald trump and his supporters are emboldened included in that who may finally get through confirmation as the attorney general of the united states. >> well, i think let's talk about the -- his picks for his cabinet positions. whether or not a pam bondi we saw matt gaetz withdraw, whether or not any of these individuals get through, he is telling us in the people he has chosen already his template for what he wants in an attorney general. he wants somebody who is going

to use the department as he sees fit, including to go after his enemies who he perceives to be both political on the outside of the department and internal inside of the department. this isn't new. he has done this before. what he didn't have before was the set of attorneys general who are willing to comply with every single thing he wanted. there was a limit to what bill barr would do, what jeff sessions would do. it's not clear there is a limit to what his future attorney general will do and he is definitely looking for somebody who will not have those same limitations. to your point, that's a big question for the rule of law. >> the second point that katy made is about the individual people in the justice department who feel that they may be threatened. katy is among those who have reported on folks here at nbc have spoken to people who say we feel confident about our case. jack smith said that, right. he said this is not about the

strength of our case. this is something else all together. and in fact they believe that if they were to be the target of retribution, if they were to be charged, that they feel very confident that they have not done anything wrong. having said that, and we have talked about this in other circumstances, other cases that have involved january 6th and elsewhere, the amount of pressure on an individual, the cost, just the monetary cost of having to defend yourself if there were to be a prosecution, the impact on your family in some cases the threats against not just you, but your family, the implications while they may say, you know, the most important thing here is the rule of law, if they become targets, the implications for them as people who have dedicated their lives to justice in the united states are massive. >> lisa talked about this last hour. she right. there are protections especially

for federal prosecutors, both for liability for what they do in the course of their employment and also job security. so even those protections aside, it's commonly said there is absolutely nothing to stop someone from, say, filing a lawsuit or even filing criminal charges against someone even if they are ultimately dismissed. if those individuals have to defend themselves, hire counsel, again this gets a little bit speculative because as lisa correctly pointed out, there are so many protections for prosecutors. even as a criminal defense attorney, i think of a federal prosecutor, has done the most wrong headed, completely unjust prosecution, my client gets the case dismissed, i can't start going and filing suit against those prosecutors for the most part. that is something that is not allowed. so to the extent they do have some protections, those protections may not mean as much if you have an attorney general who is willing to test the rule of law and possibly go after

them. >> everything about this has been a test. >> yes. to danny's point about testing the rule of law, i want to remind our viewers we have seen this movie in way before. andy mccabe, the deputy director of the fbi,was fired and engaged in protracted litigation about being reinstated to his job. so there is some press dent here for break something first and then deciding whether you need to buy it. and some litigators refer to this as damages rule. usually in the department of justice if there is a rule that says you don't do this, nobody passes go, nobody crosses that line. but with the trump administration past and likely future, we are seeing people willing to transgress that line and maybe pay the consequences later. but then again, the dismissal of these cases show you that there may not even be any consequences. on one hand, yes, it's possible that these people never face

prosecution. on the other hand, you could make somebody's life extraordinarily difficult without a criminal case. you can subject them to attorney discipline. we have seen that with people associated with january 6th, for example. you can subject them to civil cases. again some of those civil cases are still going on with respect to january 6th. we see rudy giuliani, you know, on the brink of bankruptcy fighting for every last watch that a grandfather gave him because of this $146 million outstanding defamation judgment that he has. and there can be congressional investigations. and we know from the january 6th investigation itself that the costs of just having someone at your side to stand up for your rights in a congressional investigation can be extraordinary. that's why cassidy with trump w of counsel to her because as a person 26 years old, spent her life in government, she didn't have the familial or personal resources to pay for that counsel. so, yes, maybe these people

never get criminally prosecuted. i hope not. but will there still be real costs for these people both emotional and literal? likely, yes. >> it is not hyperbolic to say, having spoken to people who have been on the inside of these kinds of things, that it takes over your life. plain and simple. and your family's as well. katy, such great reporter, thank you. judge jon jones, who is also the president of dickinson college, thank you to our guests here, danny, lisa, always great having you here on set. coming up next, more on the massive legal developments surrounding the federal charges against president-elect donald trump. what could this mean for the power of the department of justice and around 1,500 january 6th defendants?

♪ limu emu & doug ♪ woah, limu! we're in a parade. everyone customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. customize and sa— (balloon doug pops & deflates) and then i wake up. and you have this dream every night? yeah, every night! hmm... i see. (limu squawks) only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

at betmgm, everyone gets a welcome offer. only pay for what you need. so whether you're courtside trying to hit the over... or up here trying to hit the under. whew! or, hitting that win with your crew. ohhh! yes, see defense! or way up here with a same game parlay. yaw! betmgm's got your back. get your welcome offer. and play with the sportsbook born in vegas. all these seats. really? get up to a $1500 new customer offer in bonus bets when you sign up now. betmgm. download and bet today.

your loved ones are getting older, and they need your support. care.com is here to help. it's an easy way to find background-checked senior caregivers in your area. and some piece of mind. see why millions of families have trusted care. go to care.com now

the chilling effect jack smith's decision could have on the department of justice, particularly given that donald trump's new pick for attorney general pam bondi has vowed to prosecute the prosecutors who indicted trump. >> the department of justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted. the bad once. the investigators will be investigated because the deep state, last term for president trump they were hiding in the shadows. now they have a spotlight on them, and they can all be investigated and the house needs to be cleaned out because now we know who most of them are. there is a record of it, and we

can clean house next term. that is what has to happen. >> chuck rosenberg, a former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official, a former senior advisor to attorney general merrick garland, both chuck and anthony are msnbc legal analysts. how seriously should jack smith and others at doj take those words of pam bondi? >> well, i don't think they have a choice but to take them seriously. it may be bluster, and it she gets a grown-up job like being the attorney general of the united states and comes to her senses, maybe none of these things happen. but if you are on the short end of this, you have to take it seriously and have to be prepared for it, which is deeply sad and not to be hyperbolic here, chris, but tragic. you spoke earlier about the rule of law. the rule of law is not self-sustaining. it depends on the goodwill of men and women in the department

of justice to care for it, nurture it. and so if someone comes in and they have -- or they are acting in bad faith, you know, all of this is at risk. it's just a construct and it's at risk. should they be taking is seriously? absolutely. am am i hoping for a better outcome? of course i am, but time will tell. >> anthony, you know merrick garland, who appointed jack smith. obviously, he is the attorney general of the united states. what do you imagine is going through his mind right now? >> yeah, well, good afternoon, chris. i was at the justice department when the attorney general appointed jack smith to this position, and he did so because, number one, the extraordinary -- the extraordinary circumstances of the moment, but he also wanted to reassure the american people that whatever investigative or prosecutorial step was taken in this case with trump that, it was indisputably determined by the facts and law. that's how we got jack smith, who was this aggressive, this

career prosecutor. and to be clear here, jack smith does not report to anyone in the justice department in terms of the day-to-day oversight of his case. so it is particularly -- it is a particularly pernicious lie for the trump team to repeatedly insist that this case is weaponized. it is not weaponized. and chris, if we just zoom out for a second, this is a justice department that has prosecuted the mayor of america's largest city, new york city, the democratic mayor. this is a doj that's prosecuted the sitting chair of the foreign relations committee, a democrat. this is a justice department that has allowed the prosecution of the president's own son. the sense here that doj has been weaponized doesn't pass muster. if i say one thing about pam bondi, i agree with everything that chuck just said, but to me

it is disqualifying for her to be attorney general of the united states. she certainly has a more detailed resume than congressman matt gaetz, but what is disqualifying is this embrace of a false -- of trump's election lies. this is something she has done -- in november and december of 2020, she was going out echoing donald trump's lies that the election was stolen when it clearly wasn't. and chris, last thing i will say, about 24 years ago this month, we were both down in florida during -- ♪♪ >> but the courts ruled. and when the courts trul if in this country, that should be the end of it.

some 60 times in courts in november and december. instead, he continued to ignore the facts, work around the law, and the supreme court is responsible for him aborting criminal accountability. >> let me ask you this because, yeah, you're right about the reassurances that merrick garland gave just in appointing jack smith, but the reassurances that he has given the american people, this is not a system that has been weaponized for the few examples that you give, but for many other reasons, right. but can he assure those career employees of doj who worked on this case that they are, given what we just heard from pam bondi, for lack of a better word, safe from prosecution themselves or safe from being pursued? >> talking to a bunch of my former colleagues there over last seven to ten days, chris, i think a number of them are just planning to leave. and quite frankly, they should

leave. who knows what this president, this attorney general will do? but if i were them, i would get on with their career understanding that history will treat them well. my hope here is that at the end of the day -- i know you talked about this with my former colleague ken dilanian -- yes, they should absolutely release this special counsel report, number one for the sake of history, and also need to do to correct this narrative that doj was not aggressively trying to hold doj -- the former president accountability from the start of this administration, and they also need to correct this narrative that doj has been -- has been weapse it hasn't. >> so, chuck, nbc news is reporting that doj lawyers are hoping that trump's pick for number two, that critical number two position at the department, his former defense lawyer, as you know, todd blanche, who

served as the federal prosecutor, would help protect career civil sevenents from any attempts by donald trump or his attorney general to have some sort of retribution or revenge. do you think that they can count on that? >> one would hope, chris. here's the problem. the deputy attorney general, essentially the chief operating officer of the department of justice, can't stop congress, for instance, if it wants to launch some bogus investigation of the so-called weaponization of the department of justice. there is only so much a well intentioned deputy attorney general can do. if i may, i disagree with anthony at my own risk and rarely, and almost never on television, but my advice to friends at the department of justice is to stay. here's why. the strength of the department of justice is in its career people. it has by design a very, very thin political layer.

and, you know, the waters are going to get choppy, very choppy, chris, but i think now more than ever the folks who know and love the department, and i spent my career there as a federal prosecutor, the folks who know and love the department are more important than ever. so, this is a personal decision. people will make it in their their own way based on what's boast for them and their families. i would hate to see these good people leave just because it's getting choppy. >> choppy is one thing, chuck. i'm not disagreeing with you. i have no opinion on this. i never worked inside the doj. i don't have the knowledge that you two have. but choppy is one thing. feeling like you and your family are under threat is a different thing all together, and so i guess we will have to see how this plays out, right? i want to bring in nbc's ryan reilly because, ryan, beyond president-elect trump, the doj has still been prosecuting new january 6th cases. you more than 1,500 defendants

arrested in connection with the 2021 attack. prosecutors have gotten convictions in more than 1,100. 600 sentenced to prison terms. so, what impact could dismissing charges against trump have on other january 6th-related cases? what are you already maybe seeing and hearing? >> i don't think we quite know where donald trump is going to draw that line. to dial it back a second, one of the reasons i really love truly covering courts and the justice department is because the truth actually matters, right. and for all the flaws that the court system has, for all of the flaws that the justice department has and certainly there are many of them, the truth is fundamentally what is about. covering all of these cases the past almost four years now, there is just continuously this huge gap between the facts as they were laid out in court and whatever was going on outside, what congress was talking about, right. and you actually sit down -- this is something that i heard from a lot of folks, you know,

within the justice department and just outside of the justice department, is, you know, when you sit down and have a jury actually look at the facts and look at the law, they usually come up with the right decision at the end of it and they usually figure out, you know, where maybe doj went a little bit too far or they usually figure out, you know, what the truth actually is. there are plenty of defendants before judges and juries who were not convicted on all of the charges that they face. and juries usually figured out where that is. judges figured out where the line was. there was disagreement among junction. fundamentally we are operating in a place of facts and reality. that's what i think is important about the courts and the justice department overall. it's just a lot more reassuring if you are talking about facts and reality as opposed to some of these sort of ludicrous claims that you see coming from capitol hill because i was in court on thursday, right, and this was a january 6th defendant, a young guy, his -- and his wife actually had a baby, the baby is crying in the

courtroom, the judge let the -- let that go ahead, accommodated to his wife and young child. another young child on the way. that man assaulted officers on january 6th. what he told the court was that he apologized to the nation for what he had done and apologized for getting sucked into a bad youtube algorithm and for listening to people talking about the 2020 election and he deeply believed these obvious lies, you know, put them up against a little bit of facts and logic fall apart completely. they are not serious on any level if you put this before a debate class. they were laughed out of court because they were ridiculous. but a lot of people really believed those lies that donald trump was spreading and they had to suffer the consequences and did really awful, terrible things to capitol police officers and members of the metropolitan police department because they believed these ludicrous lies that they read on the internet. so that's what i -- you know, sort of stick with here and what i'm hearing from within the department and outside is that,

you know, it's really jarring to see this just huge disconnect, this disinformation disconnect between what the actual truth is and what a lot of people are believing because they got sucked into a bad algorithm. >> yeah. and this is a test. there is no doubt about that, right, anthony? i mean, does -- does the system work? and there was a law enforcement official who told nbc news earlier this month that the doj was expected to focus on arresting what they called the most egregious rioters before trump is sworn in on january 20th. what do you think this decision or if this decision on trump's case means for that approach? will they continue with that approach? what do you any. >> my hope is that they continue to try to hold everyone accountable who ransack the capitol and assaulted police officers and members of the news media that they do all of those things. up until january 20th, if not

beyond. my hope here, too, is that we get a full accounting of this entire investigation as it -- as it -- as it deals with donald trump in particular. i know there is some sense that we may not know anything more than what has been filed in court. but my hope here is that my formercal leagues at the justice department are indeed talking to the members of -- for the members of the intelligence community to declassify even more information and that as this investigation winds down and the court of public -- the court of law that we can have even more facts that can emerge into the court of public opinion. >> chuck, you know, trump has vowed to pardon january 6th rioters. something that the transition team has said, and they told nbc news this just last week, it

would be done on a case-by-case basis. one person's egregious case may be seen very differently by the folks involved. and if donald trump wants to pardon someone, there are really no limits on that, are there? >> that's right. chris, there really are no limits cons pardon for federal offenses is plenary. but let's just talk for a moment about what a pardon should be, right. it is an act of mercy. it's an act of compassion. typically by a president to someone who over many years has reformed themselves, has redeemed themselves, has asked for forgiveness and has earned that forgiveness. so the notion to me of simply coming in and sweeping away all of these convictions is odious. and let's also be clear. every person who has been convicted in relation to the january 6th riot had an attorney, had an individual

hearing, either admitted their guilt in court under oath or was convicted by a jury. i agree with ryan riley. juries get this stuff right over and over again. and so can the president pardon? absolutely. should he do it here? absolutely not. >> chuck rosenberg, anthony coly, ryan reilly, thank you all so much. coming up on "chris jansing reports," the new video showing the escalating violence between israel and hezbollah as missiles fly from both sides of the border. that's next. ctaid is 100% real , just without the lactose. delicious too. just ask my old friend, kevin. nothing like enjoying a cold one while watching the game. who's winning? we are, my friend. we are. when you smell the amazing scent of gain flings... time stops. (♪♪) and you realize you're in love... steve? with a laundry detergent. (♪♪) gain flings. seriously good scent.

for more than a decade farxiga has been trusted again and again, and again. ♪far-xi-ga♪ ♪far-xi-ga♪ ask your doctor about farxiga. ♪ like a relentless weed, moderate to severe ulcerative colitis symptoms can keep coming back. start to break away from uc with tremfya... with rapid relief at 4 weeks. tremfya blocks a key source of inflammation. at one year, many people experienced remission... and some saw 100% visible healing of their intestinal lining. serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections may occur. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms or if you need a vaccine. healing is possible with tremfya. ask your doctor about tremfya today. ♪

terrifying video out of

lebanon capturing an israeli strike in beirut on the heels of a strike on saturday that killed at least 29 people. hezbollah retaliated a barrage of hundreds of rockets sent into israel setting fire to homes near tel aviv. nbc's matt bradley is following this story for us. what more can you tell us about this new wave of violence? >> reporter: yeah, chris, no exaggeration to say this really is some of the worst, the fiercest cross border fighting between hezbollah and lebanon and israelst since the latest round much conflict began last year. even though we have been seeing israel expanding its attacks on hezbollah the past few weeks, the events of the last few days mark a notable uptick in the violence. increased bloodshed kind of defies what we're hearing from diplomats and the israeli government that a peace deal between hezbollah and israel is closer than ever in this past year, more than a year of conflict. that's why many middle east observers are saying, explaining away what we are seeing on the ground this sudden rise in

tit-for-tat attacks as a last-ditch effort by hezbollah and the israelis to get advantageous position on the battlefield as possible before a ceasefire silences the guns and puts a stop to the fighting. so israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu is supposed to meet with the security cabinet to discuss the deal. that's going to be within the coming day or two. and this is according to israel's ambassador to the united nations. so western diplomats have been laying a lot of pressure on both sides to try to come to a deal in the coming days. we have been seeing this the past couple of weeks but there really are still quite a few issues, chris. in addition to all of the ramped up fighting and violence over the past couple of days, one thing, hezbollah isn't officially part of the negotiations because the u.s. and israel both list hezbollah as a terrorist organization. effectively, it's the leigh government that had to negotiate as an intermediary for hezbollah. and netanyahu's far-right wing

israeli cabinet are very against a deal, which they see that as letting hezbollah off the hook. the deal as proposed would see israeli forces withdraw from lebanon in 60 days, hezbollah would withdraw, go further north away from the israeli border. the lebanese army would keep peace in lebanon. it's unclear whether they will come to a deal considering this spike in fating over the past couple of days. >> matt bradley, thank you for that. coming up on "chris jansing reports," the investigation into the mystery missile that russia fired into ukraine. we have nbc's richard engel standing by on the ground in kyiv only on msnbc. on the grounn kyiv only on msnbc know how it works. and most importantly, it works for them. i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. i don't have to worry about a mortgage payment every month. it allowed me to live in my home and not have to make payments.

if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access a portion of your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan can eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and put tax-free cash in your pocket. it was the best thing i've ever done. really? yes without a doubt. these folks know, finance of america can show you how a reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you tax-free cash. it's a good thing! so look, why don't you get the facts like these folks did and see if a reverse mortgage could work for you. call finance of america and get your free, info kit. call this number. when i hear cancer,

i hear death sentence. every 15 seconds someone will hear the words, “you have cancer.” at the american cancer society, this is why we're here... to help people through their entire journey. i was ready to battle... to be there for my family. and today, we're asking for your support. call, go online or scan the qr code now. your gift helps fund research that saves lives... and provides support, like free rides to treatment, and lodging in our hope lodge communities, where patients stay for free. i want to thank you guys... for your donations that make my stay here possible. your donation will help support our efforts for everyone. i owe it all to the american cancer society. call now or go to give.cancer.org to donate today. you've got a pepto predicament, ace.

you overdid it on the loaded fries. undo it with pepto fast melts. ♪ when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, ♪ ♪ upset stomach, diarrhea. ♪ when you overdo it... ...undo it with pepto bismol. missile that vladimir putin launched last week. officials confirm it flew 11 times the speed of sound, too fast for ukraine to shoot down. and that it's capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. that is scary, that escalation after ukraine forces cling to a sliver of russian territory seized over the summer. a potential bargaining chip in peace talks. richard engel is reporting from kyiv. so, russia has launched a major counteroffensive to reclaim land in kursk. tell us about that, but also what we're learning about this new missile.

>> reporter: so, i'll start with the situation here in kyiv. it's actually, or across ukraine, and it's actually somewhat similar to the situation you just described with mat bradley. there is an anticipation here that president-elect trump is going to try to bring some sort of ceasefire. he, obviously, has relations with putin. may or may not have already spoken to him. and he has made this a firm promise. and people in in russia and ukraine, and it seems the biden administration, are planning for a change, a change that could come quite dramatically and soon. we are seeing an escalation here as well as the ukrainian forces are getting new support and weapons from the united states and other allies, and the russians are stepping up their offensive. just a short while ago while you were talking to matt about

lebanon, the air raid sirens were going off here in kyiv and that usually happens when most often drones are fired at the city. they are fired frequently. the last 24 hours now, there were about 1 45 drones launched at ukraine in addition to the missiles, in addition to all of the artillery that's flying over the front lines 24 hours a day. so we are definitely seeing an escalation here with this anticipation that something could change dramatically once trump arrives in office. in terms of kursk, this was a gambit that ukraine launched several months ago with the hope of changing the dynamics here. the ukrainians launched a surprise cushion into russia. they seized about 1,000-square kilometers of russian territory. vladimir putin was caught flatfooted in a part of the front line that wasn't particularly well defended.

but russia has been responding, has been responding by sending north korean troops. some if that area. some still to arrive in that area. also, just sending regular troops, more reinforcements. according to a ukrainian security official, russia has managed to reclaim about 40% of that territory and those north korean troops that there working for putin, about 11,000 of them, they still haven't come into their full combat power, and that is expected to take place before the end of the month. so, the ukrainians are already losing quite significantly in that's even before this extra, these extra troops from north korea come online. >> richard engel, thank you. that's it for us this hour. make sure to join us for "chris jansing reports" every weekday right here on msnbc. our coverage continues with "katy tur reports" next.

everyone customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. customize and sa— (balloon doug pops & deflates) and then i wake up. and you have this dream every night? yeah, every night! hmm... i see. (limu squawks) only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ (♪♪) if you're on medicare, remember, the annual enrollment period is here. the time to choose your coverage... begins october 15th... and ends december 7th. so call unitedhealthcare and get... coverage you can count on for your whole life ahead, with our broad range of plans... including an aarp medicare advantage plan from unitedhealthcare. it can combine your hospital and doctor coverage... with part d prescription drug coverage, and more, all in one simple plan... for a low or $0 monthly premium.

unitedhealthcare offers reliable plans with benefits built to be used, including... $0 annual physical exams, $0 lab tests and... $0 preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies. and you'll get more for your medicare dollar... with $0 copays on covered routine dental services... a $0 eye exam and an allowance for eyewear... plus $0 copays on hundreds of prescriptions, at the pharmacy or by mail. now's the time to look at unitedhealthcare's variety of plans. so give us a call to learn more about coverage options in your area... all designed to fit your needs and budget. and to help make your medicare experience simpler, you'll get the all-in-one ucard. only from unitedhealthcare, the ucard is your member id and much more. show your ucard when... you visit your primary care provider, dentist or eye doctor, or fill a prescription at the pharmacy. and use it to access medicare advantage's largest national network of providers.

now, if you have any of these chronic conditions, be sure to ask about unitedhealthcare's chronic special needs plan. enrollment ends december 7th. now's the time to learn more about america's most chosen medicare advantage brand. call or click to connect with unitedhealthcare today about the only medicare advantage plans... with the aarp name... for coverage you can count on for your whole life ahead. (♪♪)

♪♪ good to be with you. i'm katy tur. jack smith's investigation of donald trump is coming to an end, not in the way the special counsel had intended. with donald trump taking office january, smith's cases are likely to die anyway, so now he is taking the steps he can to wrap things up while he has the authority to do so. filing a motion to