♪♪ 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 dismiss both the election interference case and the classified documents case. while the move isn't unexpected, the consequences could still be significant. namely, would donald trump feel he can now do as president more than ever. not just the way he wields executive power, but what and who he chooses to wield it against. , including in this case in particular jack smith himself and the team of prosecutors who helped investigate him. joining us former u.s. attorney, former senior fbi official and msnbc legal analyst chuck rosenberg, msnbc legal correspondent, there she is, lisa rubin, staff writer for the atlantic i can tom nichols and "new york times" opinion columnist david french. everybody, lisa, i am going to begin but. we assumed that this is what jack smith was going to do

because, obviously, donald trump wouldn't let the cases continue when he took office. is there a way that he is doing this that is significant? >> yes, there is a way that he is doing this that is significant in both cases. i will take them one by one of the federal election interference case, what he is asked to do is dismiss this case without prejudice. let me take you to law school for a second. a dismissal with prejudice, the case is over, full stop, there is nothing you can do to revive it. a dismissal without prejudice gives you the opportunity to bring that case back. you may ask, how could they bring it back if jack smith is going to resign before donald trump is inaugurated as presidents? one of the things that he is clearly con templating here and he lays it out in the motion to dismiss is the process of something calledtology. that's like putting a taus on a statute of limitations. all federal criminal statutes have a five-year statute of limit tanks, five years from the

time that alleged crime was committed you have to bring the cases. these were clearly brought within the statute of limitations and there are automatic can of years still running. the question is, if tolling applies while trump is president, and that's what jack smith is sort of counting on, saying that in the year 2000 when clinton -- for the second time in history, they left the door open are said it's not whether tolling would apply it to any criminal charges. clearly you can't prosecute a sitting president, can't indict a sitting president. could you indict somebody, for example, before they are president and have the charges toll? that's an open question. jack smith is leaving that open. >> it's like putting a pause on it. chuck, is that how you read it as well? >> i did. and look, i think in some ways it's a very interesting question. maybe for a law school exam, katy. in other ways, mr. trump can slam the door shut very easily.

he can pardon himself from these offenses. that open question hasn't happened before. it may happen here. but in the end i think the odds of these cases coming back to life one way or the other are relatively small. if they do come back to life, it's not going to be for, you know, until the end of mr. trump's term. >> i think that's a fair assessment. tom, if i were jack smith today i would be a little bit nervous. i was anybody on the prosecutorial team i would be nervous, if i was one of those career employees who was assigned to the job and was just doing, as i was assigned. i was investigating as i was told following the law and following the crumbs that donald trump left where they may. >> of course. donald trump has said that he

will use the mechanisms of government, the machinery of government to punish his enemies. by definition shall his enemies anyone in the government who tried to hold him to account or subject to the rule of law. he doesn't see this the way you described it. he doesn't a see it as people who did their jobs, followed the law, acted as, you know, servants. the constitution. he sees this as personal betrayal and when he gets his attorney general and i think pam bondi will, you know, probably sail through at this point, he will direct her to start going after people that are within his reach because these are people, you know, i was a federal employee when donald trump was president. so, you know, i know that feeling. he will go after people who are within his reach as federal employees to charge them, i assume, with some kind of misconduct. you know, just a complete breaking of norms. it will destroy a big part of

the rule of law in the united states. but, you know, here we are. >> how do you expect that to happen, him to be going after who he can? is it through another special counsel or is it -- is there another way to go through and start weeding out people, tom? >> i don't know. i am not a lawyer. i worked for the defense department in my time. i assume what he can do is find the superiors of these folks and open cases for some kind of misconduct for sfireable offens you know, some sort of charge that he can play against that in any other justice department no superior, no, you know, charge against a subordinate. but these will be different times. one question i have, i wonder how many people he will have to go through, how many people will resign rather than do that. but, you process for punishing federal employees is

pretty well laid out, and the misconduct has to be pretty clear. so it's going to be -- he is going to have to get people willing to kind of, you know, to violate the sense of all of those rules in order to get at those people. but i don't see anything stopping him and anything that could be a guardrail or prevent him from doing it. >> lisa? >> we were talking before the show started about being castastrophizers. i just listed for myself six ways you could go after somebody who was a participant. first the department of justice has an office of personnel management. that's for incidents of misconduct or not following justice department policy. that's how they get disciplined within the department t they can also refer people to state bars for discipline. there is a prologue here -- sorry, the past is prologue here. that's what happened to a number of people who participated in january 6th-related events. a number of them lost their law licenses, including rudy giuliani and others.

they can reassign people to different units at the department of justice other than the ones they came from. there is a big dierchs difference between, going back to the national security division, being relegated to somewhere you have no experience and no desire to be. that's effectively like firing people. and then the third thing you could do is you could actually try to fire them, tell people they are fired, and force them to litigate to get their jobs back. we have seen that again as well. we saw that with andy mccabe. >> i was going to bring him up and ask you, chuck, about him. he was fired a couple days before his planned retirement. it affects his pension. they used the inspector general to find instances that they could use against him. is that what you anticipate potentially happening here? >> well, some of the folks on jack smith's team will resign so they won't be around to be fired. others are career employees and as lisa mentioned, may want to

return to their, you know, their home office.of the fbi, he mana litigation to get reinstated and win back his pension. you know, when we talk about going after people, they are not going to be, in my view, you know, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated because in order to do that you need facts. you don't have the facts to do that. at least nothing that i have seen. but you make someone's lives quite miserable, psychologically and financially through those other means that lisa alluded to, including something beyond the control of the department of justice, a congressiobut if you convicting someone, that's nonsense because nobody on the smith team has done anything to warrant that. i would be shocked. i have been shocked before, katy, but i just don't see that here. >> donald trump is clearly being told through his -- through winning the election or taking

from winning the election, david t that he has got a mandate. we can argue whether he does, but that's the way he perceive it, and between that and the dismissal of these cases, the ruling from the supreme court, i think it's pretty clear to him that he has all of the authority here and he keeps on and in his mind winning. i wonder what you would read into that in terms of what donald trump might do when he gets into office, what he might feel more emboldened to do after not just what happened with jack smith, but what happened with the supreme court and then also winning the election. >> well, look, we have a recent history of very narrow wins with the winning side claiming a mandate. this has been happening for several years, several cycles. they overreach and then the voters come back in and clip them back. but here's we're already seeing what donald trump will do with what he thinks is a mandate. one of the things he will do is

he will nominate just people who no other administration would ever nominate not because they are bold outsiders, but because they are incompetent and corrupt. donald trump is flexing his mandates and nominating something like a pete hegseth or somebody like an rfk jr. but there is another thing that i also think that he could do, and it's not been mentioned yet. he could -- jack smith, jack smith. appoint a special counsel to investigate the special counsel or to investigate what on the right they call the weaponization or "lawfare" of the department of justice against trump during the biden years. this could financially bankrupt people when they are the target of these investigations. these are things that can derail people's lives for years. and we also see, look, there is a blueprint that exists for weaponizing the federal government against critics. >> this is the nixon blueprint, as he turned the irs against

critics during his administration. read the article of impeachment of richard nixon in the watergate era and you will see how much he tried to weaponize the government against his opponents. is so we have seen this before. but what's happening, what we're seeing right now is the fruit of when we argued before the election that the rule of law was on the ballot. this is exactly what we meant. this case is being dismissed not because it had legal deficiencies, not because it had factual deficiencies. one reason and one reason only. jack smith knows donald trump when he gets in avs will order it done. just order it over. and all of the high minded talk about the office of legal counsel in '73 and 2000 saying that presidents are immune from prosecution, look, the real deal is that presidents are immune federal prosecution because they run the department of justice. he is running it. this is the fruit of all of this, and this is why we said the rule of law was on the ballot. >> so i know it's im pos to get

into people's minds. i think back to the second impeachment trial. ten more republican votes were needed to convict him and stop donald trump from ever being able to hold the office of presidency again. i wonder if there is in your mind ten republicans who are maybe thinking, gosh, i should have voted differently now given the way that donald trump is telegraphing he is going to wield executive power, who he has chosen, or if all look back and think, gosh, so happy i did it because we are winning again. are. >> well, that's what i was going to say, katy. the human mind can rationalize mistakes with an extreme efficiency. and so, look, before the election i think if you put a lot of these republican senators under truth serum they would say i wish i had voted to impeach and convict this man. now that he has won and he didn't just win the electoral vote, he won the popular vote, although very narrowly, that's where the appeal of power comes

in. now they are in a position of real power in a way maybe even in a way they feel more confident than they did in 2016. so i don't know, katy. they might be thinking the ends justified the means overall here. but before the election i believe there was a lot of regret. after the election now that they have power and have all -- they have both houses of congress and the presidency, i am not so suse that people are regretting that vote anymore. >> chuck, you wanted to jump in? >> i do. i want to follow up on something that david french said. i am a fan of his. i read everything he rights. i agree with about half of it. i want to say something about the rule of law. the rule of law is a construct, katy. it's not immutable. it's not like the law of gravity which applies everywhere all the time. the rule of law is only sustained by the goodwill of men and women who care for it and nurture it. to david's point, it's always under threat. it's not newly under threat. it's always under threat.

but at least historically and most of the time it's been saved, resuscitated, revived, nurtured by people who care deeply about it. if we are in a time where the rule of law no longer matters to most of the people at the department of justice, then i think we are in grave danger. i still think there are sufficient guardrails. i remain an optimist. but i have always recognized how fragile the rule of law is, and that it is something we can lose easily and quickly if we take it for granted, particularly over the next four years. >> chuck rosenberg thank you very much. everybody else, you are sticking around. next, a little bit more from the january 6th select committee's lead investigator who joins us on what he believes might happen next, especially to the people that you are seeing in this video right now. t now.

["the glory of love" plays] giving. ♪ giving that's possible through the power of dell ai with intel. so those who receive can find the joy of giving back.

questions what donald trump might do to the january 6th convicts, whether he might pardon them. he has flirted with that on the campaign trail. does he go through with it? join us now january 6th select committee former lead investigator, tim heaphy. all right. so i will begin with you. what do you expect donald trump might do with all of those who

stormed the capitol, have been arrested and convicted for their crimes? >> all i can say is he will do what he said he is going to do, which is wholesale pardons. i don't know this there will be a principled line drawn between some of these defendants. there are varying shades of gray here in terms of culpability. seditious conspiracy is very different from trespassing. i am hopeful there will be distinctions between them as opposed to a blanket pardon of every january 6th defendant being pardoned. these were serious, horrific crimes. crimes against the very seat of government. and the lawful process of the certification of the election. so my hope is that as many of those convictions pleas and findings by juries stand, but, again, the president-elect has said repeatedly that these are patriots or political prisoners, that they deserve our thanks, not our critical conviction and

condemnation. so i don't know what exactly he will do. >> tim, you are so intimate with the evidence that the january 6th committee compiled for the hearings, including all of those videos, so of video of what happened on the capitol on that day, what the rioters were doing, what they were saying, who they were attributing their movements to. just when you are thinking about what donald trump might do come january with these folks right here, what stands out to you in terms of who these people are and what their intention was? >> well, the first of all, there was a false narrative that the committee completely rebutted that this was some kind of either government operation or antifa or is sort of far-left operation. there is no evidence of that. this is a group of people who falsely believed, incited by the

former president, that the election was stolen without evidence. they decided to take matters into their own hands and prevent certification of the election. that is a crime against democracy, and that's consistent across. there are degrees within the crowd of the steps that people took. seditious conspiracy is the most serious, the intentional use of force to overthrow a lawful function of government. that's a very, very serious charge in our history, and there are a lot of people, members of the proud boys and oath keepers convicted by jurors of seditious conspiracy. it would be a huge threat to the rule of law to pardon that kind of serious criminal activity. that goes all the way down to people that trespassed. again, that's a very different level of culpability. still criminal but very different. some of them i wouldn't be surprised if they are pardoned. >> lisa, you have been talking to sources surrounding what might happen. what have they told you? >> i want to be careful because

a number of sources spoke to msnbc off the record about what might happen. but i think we should take the former president and the future president at his word with respect to the january 6th defendants and convicts. to tim's point about seditious conspiracy, i am not sure that in fact that is the line. when i think about the proud boys and oath keepers who are convicted of those crimes, there was planning for violence, but there wasn't an actual engagement in violence by most of those folks. the line that might be drawn here is one about what did you do on the capitol grounds that day. if you are a person who, for example, was a trespasser or even if you dressed up in costume, for example, like jacob chansley and terrorized people by your presence, but went on the senate die as or propelled down the senate gallery, that may not be much for a violent

act for the future people of the department of justice. >> the january 6th rioters were ex military, the oath keepers a few as well. what message does it send to those folks out there who might be thinking that their oath is more to a person and not the constitution? >> that is the message. be loyal to me rather than to the constitution. if you get in trouble, i'll cover you. you know, i'll have your back. and this whole conversation, i mean, it's almost other-worldly that we're having this conversation about pardoning people who have done these dreadful things against our democracy, against the seat of government. you know, i used to work in that building. i stood where a lot of those people were. i think for a lot of americans who just put it out of their mind that this was just, you know, a bad day that got out of hand, i mean, it really is shocking that we memory hold it.

i think in particular for trump to talk about pardoning people, he is talking about saying, you are, you know, my folks, my loyal -- my loyal, you know, troops out there. and i think that's especially dangerous to tell people who were in law enforcement and the military. some in federal service as well who violated their oath t that, you know, those oaths don't matter, that the not you showed loyalty to the boss, and i hope as lisa just said, you have to take him at his word he is going to do this. i hope that somewhere in the white house more sane and cooler heads prevail. but i don't have much hope for that. >> tom, couple that with a potential pete hegseth as defense secretary. how do you expect this to influence military rank and file? >> i think the appointment of hegseth actually, you know, is not going to be as welcome in

the military as people think it might be because, first of all, our enlisted and officer corps, these are people understand their duty. they understand their constitutional oath. they care about the people standing next to them, you know, in line or sitting next to them in an office. so, you know, this kind of trolling of taking somebody -- and i think this is what trump is doing, trolling the public, of taking someone with no qualifications, can't really look after the 3 million people in the d.o.d., leave aside the other problems of could you possibly imagine pete hegseth talking to his opposite number in beijing or moscow. you know, one of the things that

folks in the military care about is that their people are looked after by the dhan of command going all the way to the top. pete hegseth, whatever his intentions, even if they are good intentions and not all of them i think are, but even if he wanted to, he doesn't have the experience or the ability to do that kind of a job, and i think there would be some concern about that. but, you know, again the message would be that what matters most in every government department, includinis that loyalty matters more than competence, loyalty to donald trump matters more than competence, and it matters more than loyalty to the constitution. and that's been trying to send. >> we are waiting, by the way, for somebody that might head the fbi if donald trump chooses. all right. stick around. next, what donald trump is doing to consolidate power ahead of inauguration day. don't go anywhere. they're just so delicious. with better nutrition, too. for us, it's eggs any style.

as long as they're the best. eggland's best.

consolidating power ahead of his january inauguration. what could he do to amass more authority in the executive branch? he already traditional fbi background check for his cabinet wish list and the team is suggesting by passing the senate if lawmakers refuse to confirm too many of his picks. there is also now talk of using called impoundment to bypass congress' power of the purse.

still us, lisa rubin, tom nichols and david french. david, this is your wheelhouse. explain. >> impoundment is the idea that a president can refuse to spend money appropriated by congress. an extra double the constitution, but for years and years there was an occasional practice of impoundment. but again here is another name that comes up from earlier, richard nixon. he started to take this practice to the neck level. congress steps in, says, no, wait, there are limited circumstances under which a president can refuse to spend money that congress has told the president to spend. and so what the trump administration is trying to do is revive this impoundment idea that if congress says you have to spend x billion dollars on something, the president can just say, no, which places the president leapfrogs and vaults the president over congress in

the constitutional pecking order and that's not the way the constitution is it's written. this is one of several areas where he is trying to walk in and say, i have more power than congress. i have more authority than congress when the reality is the constitution spells out who has the power, and congress has more power in very specific areas than the president does, and one of those areas is appropriations. and the president should be subordinate to congress in that regard. >> i wonder, tom, if that is the area where the doge, you know, the government efficiency group might be targeting. they are talking about eliminating $2 trillion from the federal budget. you wouldn't even get to half of that if you fired the entire work force of the federal government. so you are going to have to cut somewhere. when you look at the pie graph where the money is spemt, the majority of that money is spent on social security, medicare and medicaid entitlements. so if this is donald trump

trying to get around the power of the purse of congress, which is going to fund these programs, likely even with the republican congress given the blow back they might get from voters, could they be deciding just not to pay out some of these things to limit the amount of money going out to federal programs that help people who are underprivileged? >> well, two things. first of all, this department of government efficiency can't do -- can't cut or hold -- >> make suggestions. >> they can make suggestions. that's all they can do. they are, now, a peanut gallery of two. it they can say anything they want, send memos to the white house, but the fact of the matter is when they talk about, well we, with going to cut, they are not going to cut anything. they don't exist in the federal budget tear process other than as an advisory group. the second thing is i suppose, you know, i think it was chuck earlier said, you know, i have been shocked and i am used to getting shocked.

i suppose it could be a move to say, we are not going to release the money that congress has appropriated for, you know, medicare or something. i think that would be insane not least because, i mean, it would be sort of fascinating to watch it happen because a lot of the people who voted for donald trump rely on a lot of those programs. you can't hold back that money and say, only give it to the people who voted for me, you know, once you hold it back, you have held it back. of course trump ran on not touching any of this. i think what we are really ran on was not going to jail. and he has accomplished that mission. the rest of it is, you know, a lot of smoke and mirrors at this point. especially if he has pledged not to cut entitlements and he has a couple of guys sitting down the hall in a, quote, unquote, department who can't really recommend anything. so i think it would set up a massive legislative and legal fight which i don't think, you

know, even donald trump wants. >> yeah, i guess donald trump ran on being everything to everyone, including, you know, tax breaks for the very wealthy, but also tax breaks for everybody else, not cutting into medicare and medicaid, but also making the government more efficient. at some point something has to give there. i mean, if he is going to make decisions based on one group over the other, to who would you put your money on? >> well, something has to give unless you don't care. unless your goal was simply to get into the oval office and kind of declare yourself safe, and then, you know, what happens next? well, i imagine that the donors -- i mean, it will be like 2017 again, that the donors and the people with an interest, you know, in lowering their own taxes will win the day, and will end up with deficits and, you know, a big huge mess that just like we did the last time. >> david, i mean, the reason i ask, when you look back at the

last administration, the stuff that really not much got done. there was infrastructure week every other week. remember? >> right. >> the projects that would actually help people didn't really get moving. there was a tax break and some middle class folks enjoyed a tax break as well. what donald trump really cared about, besides the tax break for the wealthy, was the way the markets looked. took credit for the markets whenever he could. >> right. >> if you make a bet on somethingel something, i would bet is that he would be looking to the markets to see what his report card was every day. >> yeah, i think of it likepers self-interested. so what that means is often that works very much against the united states of america because if his self-interest is not matching the interests of the country, he will pursue his own interests. there are times his self-interests dovetails with the interest of the country and that's when you are dealing with things like inflation rate or the stock market. the guy was always -- he always

has his eyes on his things as you said very well, a report card. so the report card starts to turn really bad, then you might start to see trump react in some ways. the problem with that, of course, is if things have to get bad we have to experience the consequences of some of his terrible policies. and we are in this very weird position right now where one set of voters voted for him because they totally believed everything that he said and they wanted him to do all of it. a whole 'nother group of people voted for him and didn't believe what he said. he is all bark, no bite, and don't want him to do a bunch of that stuff, they just want lower inflation and lower interest rates, a high stock market and think he can do this. these are incompatible desires, they are incompatible, and it's going to be fascinating -- and i am sorry to say probably at the expense of many vulnerable people in this country to watch

these incompatible demands work their way through our system, and it's going to be painful and it's going to be chaotic. >> the other thing we were discussing was the recess appointments, lisa. the supreme court justice scalia was not former, was not a fan of recess appointments. donald trump has professed love for him as a justice. any reason to believe that because scalia didn't like recess appointments that might have some bearing on what donald trump tries to do with congress? >> doubtful. scalia has a number of beliefs that trump could affiliate himself with. probably not his distaste for recess appointments. there is recent supreme court precedent that would cast some doubt on president-elect trump's ability to make recess appointments either with respect to executive branch appointments or with respect to the courts. but again i think we are

increasingly have the mantra of break first and pay later, which means they may try something and then determine afterwards whether or not it's lawful. >> all right. thank you, guys. appreciate it. we are going to come back and talk a little bit more about the pick for treasury secretary and why the markets, as we were talking about a moment ago, are reacting positively to it. first, what we're learning about a possible ceasefire deal that would pause fighting between israel and hep. don't go anywhere. israel and hep don't go anywhere.

impressive. impoundment ♪♪ wlap- ♪ wlap ♪♪ ♪ why use 10 buckets of water when you can use 1 fire extinguisher. and to fight heartburn, why take 10 antacids throughout the day when you can take 1 prilosec. for easier heartburn relief, one beats ten. prilosec otc. one pill. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

what do people want more of? prilosec otc. more “oh yeah!” more laughs. more hang outs. more “mmmmm, so good!” yeah, give us more of all of that little stuff that makes life so great. but if you're older or or have certain health conditions, you also have more risk from flu, covid-19 and rsv. but vaccines help keep you from getting really sick. and that, is huge.

this afternoon national security communications advisor john kirby confirmed a ceasefire deal between israel and hezbollah is close and negotiations are still ongoing. his comments came after senior officials told nbc news, quote, a few issues are left to be resolved and that that it could take a couple more days. the israeli security cabinet is set to meet tomorrow to discuss what's next. joining us carney endowment for international peace senior fellow and former department of state arab and israeli negotiator, david million early. explain why this hezbollah peace deal is closer at hand than the one between israel and hamas. >> katy, we talked so many times over the course of the last year about negotiations, why they succeed and don't.

why the ones in gaza haven't succeeded and why we may be on the cusp of a success in lebanon, because of urgency. people reach deals in a hurry. they make a judgment that the advantages of reaching the deal is an advantage. what the israelis have accomplished against hezbollah, most of their objectives have been -- hezbollah is weak, decimated. it still exists and probably will for some time, the most powerful domestic act, but they want a chance to re-up, rearm. they need a breather. for netanyahu, no hostages, no palestinian state, there is no palestinian authority. the deal in lebanon is so much easier to get through his cabinet. that's why i think we are on the cusp. i don't want to jinx it, of an actual argument. >> what what about this reporting from "the washington post" that somebody close to prime minister benjamin netanyahu told donald trump and

jared curb center that getting a deal done between hezbollah and israel would be a gift to him ahead of his inauguration? >> i am not sure that donald trump cares much about lebanon when it comes to his middle east strategy. i think what he really is focused on is an israeli saudi normalization agreement. what matters there is some resolution of a gaza problem. because the saudis won't budge unless gaza is calm. of course the israeli government moves some way towards some concession toss the palestinians. so paradoxically, and i think trump going to be very lucky here. he is inheriting three conflicts. israel, hamas, israel hezbollah, israel verse the iran at a time when de-escalation, not escalation, seems to be the trend line. so again i think if these -- if the final elements can be worked out which have to do with french

participation on the monitoring committee and with later assurances which guarantees that the israelis will be able to preempt and prevent any violations of the -- by hezbollah, those things are worked out and we could be moving towards an agreement. whether mr. trump wants it, whether it's a gift or not. >> does he inflame the situation or help to slow it down? you talked about the trend line. what does donald trump's election mean for the region? >> he is going to -- he will be a transactional figure looking for deals. but i think his main priorities, katy, will be china and russia and ukraine. he is going to be a transactional figure abroad. and a trans -- a potentially transformational one at home. that's where i think the fight to preserve the american republic is going to rest because i think the three agencies which reflect clear dimensions of american life that

'believes have crossed him, angered him, went out against him. the justice department, the intelligence community and defense department, and you see that in his appointments. i think there is where he wants to do big changes which, prank frankly, in my judgment are not at all in line with the institutions and what that republic needs in order to have functional governments. that and mass deportations as well as schedule f. trying to purge the civil service of what he considers to be disloyal deep staters. i think the real fight, katy, frankly, spent most of my life on foreign policy, i think the real fight over the next four years is here at home. >> well said. thank you very much for joining us. all right. let's talk about stuff here at home. there is a new treasury pick. how the markets are reacting. don't go anywhere.

if i had to start college again from scratch, i probably wouldn't have made it. university of phoenix made the process of transferring my credits seamless and simple. life's too short to repeat the work you've already done. it's payback time. all these years, you've worked hard.

you fixed it. you looked after it. maybe it's time for your home to start taking care of you. we've invested in our home, we've worked on it, we had a whole lot of equity just sitting there, you paid down the mortgage, invested in your home. i guess, you could say, your home owes you. if you're 62 or older and own your home, learn how you could access a portion of your home equity to give you cash. a reverse mortgage can put more money in your pocket by eliminating your monthly mortgage payments, paying off higher-interest credit cards, and covering medical costs. look, finance of america can show you how a reverse mortgage loan uses your built-up home equity to give you tax-free cash for almost anything you might need just eliminating the mortgage payment freed up a lot of cash for us i get to do what i want when i want finance of america customers talked about the counseling they got

along the way so they know how a reverse mortgage works, and how their home could help pay them back when they need it the most. i have no more worries anymore the fact that we're still in this home, means so much. it's done everything for us that we hope it would do for us. call now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. the kit shows you how to get you the cash you need using your home's equity with a reverse mortgage. find out how your home can start taking care of you. call this number. the worry every single month to make that payment was gone our customers' homes are taking care of them. maybe, your home could do the same for you. call finance of america, the country's #1 reverse mortgage lender and get your free info kit. call this number. 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. have you ever considered getting a walk-in tub? well, look no further. proudly made in tennessee, a safe step walk-in tub is the best in it's class. the ultra-low easy step helps keep you safe from having to climb over those high walled tubs,ully in the home you love. and now, back by popular demand, for a limited time, when you purchase your brand-new safe step walk-in tub, you'll receive a free shower package! yes! a free shower package, and if you call today, you'll also receive $1600 off. now you can enjoy the best of both worlds.

the therapeutic benefits of a warm, soothing bath, that can help increase mobility, relieve pain, boost energy, and even improve sleep. or, if you prefer, you can take a refreshing shower all in one product! call now! we have a pick for treasury, folks. hedge fund manager scott bessent scott bessent which the markets are applauding. up 400 points tonight. msnbc news senior business correspondent christine romans. who is scott bessent? a. really rich guy, working on wall street a long time, hedge fund manager, seen as a grown-up and not a flamethrower, and

someone who can talk to president-elect donald trump and has his ear and had implement his agenda, but in a measured way. i mean, what i'm hearing from sources is that they think he will go quickly with tax cuts and tax reform in the first 100 days. he will be sort of the voice of that, try to get that done. they have also promised to cut taxes on overtime, taxes on social security, cut -- end taxes on tips. there is a lot of stuff there that has to be paid for. he has a hard job ahead. a lot of people think he is going to be methodical about tariffs. president trump wants these big, hard, fast tariffs. he would prefer to phase those in and wall street likes to hear that. >> a lot of these blue states swung more for donald trump this time around and there of a lot of anger, even among republicans in these blue states about the salt tax, the state and local tax. donald trump repealed that, or did he -- he took it away. >> right. >> he took the deduction away.

might that be bakken the table? >> they took that away from the blue states to pay for their other tax cuts and he has said on the campaign trail he would like to allow people to be able to get more of that deduction t that will be a part of the discussion. remember if you have an eye to debt and deficits, you can't give everybody everything without finding pay forces. what scott bessent will find -- and he does believe in fiscal discipline. he is not a fan of big debt and deficits. so the question is, what is he going to do to get that tax -- >> why do you think donald trump chose somebody so calm and reassuring for this cabinet? >> this is america's state man on the global stage. donald trump cares about the bond market and stock market. and i will tell you this. elon musk said this guy was business as usual and said he wasn't behind him. wall street says business usual has been good five or six years. they wanted that. the president in the end did not

throw an unconventional flamethrower into this very, very important job, and that is why wall street is up today. >> markets up 400 points. thank you very much. the dow, that is. that does it tore me today. "deadline: white house" starts after a very quick break. dline:s after a very quick break eltzer d or flu fizzy chews. chew. fizz. feel better fast. no water needed. new alka-seltzer plus fizzychews. the best moments deserve the best eggs. especially when they're eggland's best. taste so deliciously fresh. with better nutrition, too. as long as they're the best. eggland's best.

so you're 45. that's the perfect age to start screening for colon cancer. i'm cologuard®, a noninvasive way to screen at home on your schedule. i'm for people 45+ at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for me, cologuard. bogart has lost so much weight. and he has so much more energy. he's like a puppy again. ♪ (banjo playing) ♪ c,mon bo! this is a before picture of bogart. such a big boy. pre-portioned packs makes it really easy to keep him lean and healthy. and look at him now.

he's like a show dog. [silence] bogue, can you give daddy a break here? he's having a hard enough time. hi. i use febreze fade defy plug. and i use this. febreze has a microchip to control scent release so it smells first-day fresh for 50 days. 50 days!? and its refill reminder light means i'll never miss a day of freshness. ♪ after careful review of medical guidance and research on pain relief, my recommendation is simple: every home should have salonpas. powerful yet non-addictive. targeted and long-lasting. i recommend salonpas. it's good medicine. ♪ hisamitsu ♪ dry eyes still feel gritty, rough, or tired? with miebo, eyes can feel ♪ miebo ♪ ♪ ohh yeah ♪ miebo is the only prescription dry eye drop that forms a protective layer for the number one cause of dry eye: too much tear evaporation. for relief that's ♪ miebo ♪ ♪ ohh yeah ♪ remove contact lenses before using miebo. wait at least 30 minutes before putting them back in.

eye redness and blurred vision may occur. ♪ miebo ♪ ♪ ohh yeah ♪ ask your eye doctor about prescription miebo.

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.

hello, everyone.