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.

it is 4:00 here in new york. three and a half years since the attack on the u.s. capitol, 17 months after donald trump was criminally charged by the government he once led and will lead once more, special counsel jack smith's cases against donald trump, they're coming to a close. just this afternoon, the special counsel moving to dismiss the federal election case, also asked a court to dismiss his appeal of judge aileen cannon 's ruling. the move was expected with trump's election victory, since it is the justice department's policy that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted. smith writing in his filing to judge chutkan today, quote, the department and the country have never faced the circumstance here where a federal indictment against a private citizen has been returned by a grand jury, a criminal prosecution already is under way, when the defendant is elected president. in other words, criminal defendant donald trump got out of his legal troubles by getting elected president. the special counsel making it

clear his request to dismiss the election case has nothing do with the merits of the case or the evidence he's compiled. instead, it has to do with a constitutional contradiction, serious consequences for the rule of law in this country. special counsel saying, quote, the government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed. the circumstances have. as a result of the election held on november 5th, 2024, the defendant will be certified as president-elect on january 6th, 2025, and inaugurated on januay 20th, 2025. this sets at odds two fundamental and compelling national interests, titution's requirement that the president must not be undually encumbered in fulfilling his weighty responsibilities and on the other hand, the nation's commitment to the rule of law and the long-standing principle that no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. with me at the table, msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin,

plus host of the fast politics podcast and special correspondent for vanity fair, nbc contributor molly jong-fast. lisa, not unexpected. >> not i was reminded of the t.s. elliott poem today, i kept saying this is the way cases end, not with a bang, but with a whimper. this is not unexpected. jack smith is looking to dismiss the cases without prejudice, which, of course, leaves the possibility they could be reopened at another point in time. on one hand, it could be totally meaningless. one to dismiss the cases without prejudice means that you're taking a flyer on whether or not they can be told or paused while trump is in office. and, of course, there is the other possibility that could render them meaningless, that he could just pardon himself. but jack smith is saying today, i'm willing to take the possibility of a toll and you want to pardon yourself, that's on you, you have to do that. i'm not going to let you off the hook that easily, not going to absolve you as that. i'll go as far as dismissing

without prejudice, because policy requires me to, but no further. >> what did you read from the without prejudice? >> i thought there was going to be no question that jack smith, because he's a member of the department of justice, was going to have to follow department of justice policy and that, as you noted, is that two office of legal counsel opinions within the department of justice, one during the nixon years, one during the bill clinton years, said that a sitting president cannot be charged and at the time he is president. so, it was no question that this was going to be dismissed, but if you're going to dismiss it, why on god's green earth would jack smith seek to have this dismissed with prejudice, which means the case is definitively over and why not just take the -- as lisa said, a flyer, the possibility that it would be dismissed without prejudice and

could be revived later? i do think there is a big -- that's, like, not surprising. i do think there is an open issue as to whether jack smith should have simply waited and not -- i mean, what he gets out of this is he gets it much more likely that judge chutkan is going to agree that it should be dismissed without prejudice. that it is not gone for all time and all purposes. but at the same token, by jack smith doing this, and not requiring the new incoming president to do it himself, he's sort of doing in some ways the future administration's work fol hit, i'm not saying there is or isn't, but say, you know what, donald trump, if you're going to dismiss a righteous prosecution, you're going to have to do it, we're not going to do it. it is a trade-off because he's getting a more likely dismissal

without prejudice but sort of into molly's field, political repercussions, he is in some ways doing the work for the incoming administration. >> how do you think this plays politically? >> if people know about it, right? one of the things is we saw all these cases and they never broke through because the media is different, right? it is on podcasts, it is joe rogan. so, you know, if it ends up being talked about on joe rogan, people find out about it. if it doesn't, then it won't. that's the sort of siloed effect we're in right now. >> there was a piece from the smith filing that i thought maybe answered part of andrew's analysis and question. i'll read it to you. the special counsel's office therefore sought office of legal counsel's guidance on whether this case must be dismissed, whether the pending superseding indictment against the defendant could be held in obey ans until he's no longer immune from prosecution. olc concluded the 2000 opinion on the federal indictment of a sitting ting president applies

this situation, where a federal indictment was returned before the defendant takes office. i mean, does that mean he asked garland's doj to weigh in on this? what does it tell us? >> that's exactly what it means. they're in unprecedented constitutional situation, and that they need some guidance from olc, which many people understand is sort of an in house, like, in house counsel for the department of justice on weighty constitutional questions. i think the part of it that is interesting is jack smith is saying in this filing, olc not only told me i have to get rid of this, but it told me i have to get rid of this before he's inaugurated and not, jack smith is making the determination on his own, not on december 20th at 11:59 a.m., but now. so, then, that begs the question, why now? i have one thought as to why that might be. and it has to do with the special counsel regulations. noting, of course, that the trump folks think that the special counsel regulations are unconstitutional, and jack

smith's very of course ccupancy role is not proper. it should deliver a report to the attorney general at the conclusion of his or her work. what does it mean to be at the conclusion of your work? andrew knows better than anyone, one way you get to the conclusion of your work, you sort of transfer the cases that you're currently work on to other branches of doj, like the southern district of new york or main justice. but maybe jack smith's take on this is for me to get to the conclusion of my work, given that nobody else in the department is going to take up these cases, it means i have to dismiss them before i can deliver a report on my investigation to merrick garland that i intend to have see the light of day. >> weigh in on lisa's analysis. i want to know if you think we ever get to see that report, if it ever becomes public. >> yeah, i mean, i think that's really very much we're dancing on this head of a pin should it be dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice and will it make any difference and should he have waited to have the doj

do it under the trump administration versus doing it now, all of that is sort of, you know, like, this is the kind of thing lisa and i like talking about sort of off camera, and super nerdy. but i think in many ways the key issue is the one that you are raising, which is will there be a report and will it see the light of day? i think there definitely will be a report because the special counsel rules require jack smith to write a report. it doesn't have to be as lengthy as the ken starr report or the muller report, no requirement with respect to the length, it is also a report that initially it is given by the special counsel to the attorney general and in this case, merrick garland, in secret. that's required by the rules. the special counsel has no power himself to make it public, but merrick garland does. i do think that merrick garland has signaled in the way he's treated other special counsel reports, rob kerr to be precise, that he is certainly has a

penchant for wanting those things to be public. the problem here is that with respect to the mar-a-lago case, there are two co-defendants who are the case is proceeding as to them. there is no request by jack smith to dismiss as to those people. now, donald trump can pardon them, he can also just have direct his department of justice to dismiss the case. but because there are these two co-defendants in the mar-a-lago case, any report that is made public, with respect to that part of the case, under investigation, the florida case, will be severely redacted because they will not want to prejudice that criminal case against those two defendants, even if as everyone knows it is highly likely that donald trump will get rid of that part of the case. and so i think there will be a report, it will be highly

. as to florida, i think we'll see a report as to the d.c. case. >> and what do you think happens, lisa, to walt nauta and dale rivera? >> i think they're going to be pardoned, particularly walt nauta, whose loyalty is unquestionable. you know that i have been to all four of the cases against former future president trump, that have been tried, and at all of them walt nauta was a presence, walt nauta doesn't go anywhere that donald trump doesn't take him at this point. i think those are likely to end up pardoned. to andrew's point, the pardon would come after trump becomes president again and therefore there is a real dilemma with respect to the release of a report, even the delivery of a report, with respect to that mar-a-lago case, even though as it stands right now, that case has been dismissed. what is still pending is an appeal of the dismissal, which was premised on judge aileen cannon's finding that jack smith didn't have any constitutional authority to bring it because he never should have been a special

counsel in the first place. >> the way that jack smith plays this and those of us who have followed these legal cases, it feels like the period at the end of an sentence, at best an ellipse because it may continue on into the future, i think there is another way of looking at this question of presidential power, which is as more of a prelude or prologue for what is to come in this administration. >> yeah, i mean, that is the big question that all of us don't, you know, don't really know what this second trump emboldened presidency would lots of caveats and immunity looks like. but i just want to go back to the muller report for a minute. you'll remember the muller report came out and bill barr got ahead of it. and he was sure to write things and sort of spin it as hard as possible. and i just i really did in the end it worked. >> can i ask you, andrew, what

this means if anything for fani willis' case in georgia. >> the state cases cannot be dismissed by donald trump. as president, you do not have power to dismiss the georgia case or the new york case. but there is a high likelihood that those cases would be put on pause. that is something that is being sort of litigated right now, in the new york case, whether it should be dismissed or put on pause. and that argument for that is really put aside that we're talking about donald trump. do you really want with respect to any president 50 states with the possibility of charging a sitting president and making it impossible for that person to do their work?after they leave the presidency, but during that time, there is sort of a supremacy clause argument

that the federal government needs to be able to operate with its elected official. so, those cases i think will at the very least be on hold during this time period, so, you know, this is the very bad news for people who want to see legal accountability. one way or the other, which is with respect to three of the four cases there will not be trials, you know, during at least the next four years. >> let me ask you about that. i think you're landing exactly where most of our viewers will land, which was will there ever be accountability and was this all for not? >> so, on the all for not, i first want to commend new york state, not just because i'm a resident here, and, you know, went to the trial and saw, you know, what i would say is justice in action, and i'm not talking about the results. we saw a really wonderful judge,

a sober experienced judge, we saw a great lawyering on both sides of this case, we saw serious jury, and, you know, there is a result it pleased some, displeased others, but that's the way the legal system worked. and that is the one sort of shining light in terms of the -- just the criminal justice system, as i repeatedly said, the rest of our criminal justice system, especially compared to other countries that have managed to figure out how to hold political leaders to account in real trials, not show trials, you know, we get an f by judge merchan stands out from that as somebody who was able to get his case to trial, to a verdict. but, you know, i think for many people this is something where this sentiment in jack smith's filing today that you quoted

from about no man being above the law, it feels very hollow because you have one man who has managed to really escape justice in all of the various ways. that feels very unsatisfying in terms of the rule of law in this country. and it makes us more akin to regimes that we heretofore have denigrated. >> it drives a stake through my a student heard every time you give the united states an f here, as well deserved as it might be. there is both the lack of accountability and then there is the door open for retribution, reporting in "the washington post" about trump's plan pz for jack smith's team. this is what they have written, plans to fire the entire team that worked with special counsel jack smith to pursue two federal prosecutions against the former president including career attorneys typically protected from political retribution according to two individuals close to trump's transition.

what type of signal does that send? >> a really poor one. i mean, to continue andrew's metaphor, here is another place on the democracy report card where the united states looks to be earning an increasingly poor grade. i will say that spokesperson for the trump transition team and that same piece disavowed some of the reporting, saying nobody who is not part of the transition knows what the transition is planning to do. but do i think there is some grain of truth to that reporting at the very least? absolutely. and even if you don't fire people who are career staff at the department of justice, who are loaned out to jack smith's team, it doesn't mean you can't make their lives miserable in a host of other ways. you can reassign them to other positions in the department of justice, for which they are ill prepared and likely would not want to take, you can investigate them through a number of places in the department of justice itself, the office of professional management or misconduct is one place, the inspector general is another place. you can refer them to

disciplinary proceedings and the bars to which they are members. and, of course, we have seen all of this happen before to people who are affiliated with former future president trump with respect to january 6th. so, can we expect there to be some imitation of the same techniques used to penalize lawyers in the past? applied to those trying to obtain justice here, i think we can. >> andrew, lisa, thank you both so much for answering the call when i said i need you both at the top to talk me through this. thank you. k you. when we come back, new reporting on the secret money fueling donald trump's transition, the latest norm trump is trying to take a sledgehammer to. plus, surprise, surprise, a man who ran and won on a populist message, now tapping billionaires for his economic team. what this could mean for your money. and later in the show, after months of very public and very frequent denials about project 2025, donald trump is tapping several key voices from the hard right movement to join his administration. we're going to talk about that

and more when "deadline: white house" continues after this. ande house" continues after this. bounce can't do it all but for better laundry, ♪ put a sheet on it with bounce. ♪ a chewy order is en route for monkey, who loves to climb. so mom uses chewy to save 50% and get exclusive deals through black friday on toys that keep monkey good and grounded. for low prices... for holidays with pets, there's chewy. hi, my name is damian clark. if you have both medicare and medicaid, i have some really encouraging news that you'll definitely want to hear. depending on the plans available in your area, you may be eligible to get extra benefits with a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. most plans include the humana healthy options allowance. a monthly allowance to help pay for eligible groceries, utilities, rent, and over-the-counter items. the healthy options allowance is loaded onto a prepaid card each month. and whatever you don't spend, carries over from each month. plus, your

doctor, hospital and pharmacy may already be part of our large humana networks. so, call the number on your screen now, and ask about a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. and remember, annual enrollment ends on december 7th. humana. a more human way to healthcare.

even as he fills out his cabinet at a rapid pace, donald trump's return to the white house shrouded in secrecy. following little of the norms and conventions put in place for the transfer of power, raising lots of questions about the incoming administration wants to keep americans in the dark about everything from who is funding the transition to who exactly are the people who will lead the country, you know, for the next

four years. brand-new reporting from "the new york times" laying out the consequences of donald trump's refusing to sign an agreement with the government to kick start the transition process, from that reporting, quote, president-elect donald trump is keeping secret the names of the donors funding his transition efforts, a break from tradition that could make it impossible to see what interest groups, businesses or wealthy people are helping launch a second term. trump has so far declined to sign an agreement with the biden administration that imposes strict limits on that fund-raising in exchange for up to $7.2 million in federal funds earmarked for the transition. by dodging the agreement, trump can raise unlimited amounts of money from unknown donors to pay for the staff, travel and office space involved in preparing to take over the government. unlike with campaign contributions, foreign nationals are allowed to donate to the transition. joining our conversation, david farronholt, molly is back with us.

david, i'll start with you. every president raised money for the transition. how is this different? >> well, as you said, most presidents raise money from the public and take money from the government. doing so, they agree to some conditions. they agree to disclose who their donors are and how much they gave and to limit the amount of any donation from any one person to $5,000. trump is not doing any of that. he doesn't have to, no law says he has to. he's saying i'll raise all the money from the public and i'll keep secret how much they gave and not abide by the limit of $5,000 per donor. this whole transition will be funded in the dark. >> and how does that compare to what he did in 2016? >> in 2016 he agreed to take government money, agreed to the disclosure limits, he did the same that biden and obama and other recent presidents have. this is a break from the way trump did it in 2016. >> okay. molly/emily, i turned you into an american girl doll, i

apologize. like, this is what people have been afraid of, an utter lack of transparency and a refusal to follow what has been sort of basic norms. >> well, the last time he did fire his transition chair in the end, chris christie and put mike pence in the job. but, yes, again, this is a person who mused openly about ruling as an autocrat, and so really important that norms and institutions, you know, are able to stand and this kind of behavior is this slippery slope, right? it is a lack of accountability, we don't know where the money is coming from, so we don't know who, you know, how any of it is working. these ethics -- these ethics, you know, rules are in place for a reason. >> they're in place for a reason, so you have an understanding of who has weight in the u.s. government, also a reason that the fbi background check, that weaves into this

conversation. it is a consequence of his not having signed this memo of agreement. i want you to take a listen to what barbara mcquade had to say about that. i'm sorry, the process is designed to screen out candidates who are not suitable for high level decision-making positions because of problems such as addiction, psychological disorders, history of committing sexual abuse, a nominee with foreign business interests may skew decisions that favor overseas portfolio. more importantly, the process seeks to weed out potential targets for blackmail because of undisclosed personal secrets, conflicts of interest, foreign ties or financial distress. imagine a cabinet official hiding an extramarital affair, may be tempted to share government secrets in exchange for silence. think of a cabinet official so desperate for money, they're willing to sell their access to government information, a background investigation assures the public officials in sensitive positions can be trusted to act in the best interest of the american people. not having these screenings has huge consequences for high level decision-making in the u.s.

government. i remember when my now husband was my boyfriend and he was working in the first obama administration, i got one of these background calls and they asked me all of these questions. i joked to the fbi agent, well, if i was wrong about any of this, will you call back and let me know and she said, ma'am, this is very serious and it is. there is a reason that this is proper protocol. >> and these are real jobs. pete hegseth will -- if he gets this appointment, he will lead, you know, 3 million plus people. this is a real, you know, cabinet position and i think some of these -- i think the worry they have is that some of these cabinet members, these appointees will not make it through. >> david, is that the concern? that they already have a sense that some of these candidates will not pass that? >> i don't think it is as much that as i think they don't have to do that. you remember, try to imagine the trump groups there, this new administration's view toward the fbi, the justice department, they see it, rightly or wrongly,

as enemies, people that investigated them, people that sort of hounded trump through his first term, so i think they're unwilling to sort of let those folks have a big role in this -- they want to minimize the role those folks are going to have. they have to play some role for people to get security clearances down the road, but for now, they seem to -- the trump transition seems to want to give their own vetting, whatever that is, rather than trust in the fbi. >> what is that, david? when you say whatever that is, what is their alternate theory of the case? >> well, at this point, one of the interesting contrasts is we have been told all along before the election, the trump people are spending all this time, they're not going to end up like last time where the people are chosen at random, they're going to spend all this time vetting, listing, compiling lists of qualified people. but in the end, it seems like trump watches fox news and picks the people on fox news or in the case of matt gaetz, picks the people on the plane with him. his methods don't have anything to do with that long process or frankly with background checks, people like hegseth and gaetz

have huge unresolved issues that anybody with google could have found out. i don't think -- even if they're doing their own background checks, it doesn't seem to affect what trump is doing, he's choosing some of the most compromised people anyway. >> on one hand, it feels as though he's doing casting for a reality show, which we know he's want to do and also feels to some extent he's thumbing his nose at these institutions in the selection of some of these picks. to illustrate that point, listen to what democratic senator tammy duckworth had to say about tulsi gabbard, she's been tapped to be the director of national intelligence. >> i think she's compromised. i think by going to syria and basically backing a brutal dictator there, i mean, russian-controlled media called her a russian asset. i do think we have a real deep concern whether or not she is a compromised person and frankly u.s. intelligence committee --

sorry, the u.s. intelligence community identified her as having troubling relationships with america's foes and my worry is she couldn't pass a background check. >> okay, so, david, we know that democrats in the u.s. senate are going to play a key role during these confirmation hearings, asking a series of difficult questions, in the case of all of these nominees. what does your reporting tell you about the role that senate republicans are likely to play in these confirmation hearings? >> well, i think there are a few candidates, most of these folks will get through, but there are a few candidates, that's hegseth, the defense secretary nominee, tulsi gabbard, the odni nominee and robert kennedy where if you can afford to lose four votes, and i think some of those cases there is still an open question about whether they would get those four republican votes and be able to get to the approval. so i do think we still shouldn't take it for granted that republican senate is going to approve trump's nominees in a

few of these cases and it will be reporting and hearings will bring out more detail and these folks have so much in their backgrounds that democratic senators are raring to get going, they want to hold hearings now because they feel like there is so much to expose. >> thank you for bringing us your reporting. molly, you're sticking with me. when we come back, donald trump may have talked a big game about the working class, but he is stacking his economic team with billionaires. what that tells us and why wall street is breathing a sigh of relief over one of trump's picks. stay with us. e of trump's picks. stay with us ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪

♪ i take once-daily jardiance... ♪ ♪ ...at each day's start. ♪ ♪ as time went on, it was easy to see. ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪ and for adults with type 2 diabetes... ...and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. serious side effects include increased ketones in blood or urine, which can be fatal. stop jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, trouble breathing, or increased ketones. jardiance may cause dehydration that can suddenly worsen kidney function and make you feel dizzy, lightheaded, or weak upon standing. genital yeast infections in men and women, urinary tract infections, low blood sugar, or a rare, life threatening bacterial infection between and around the anus and genitals can occur. call your doctor right away if you have fever or feel weak or tired and pain, tenderness, swelling or redness in the genital area. don't use if allergic to jardiance. stop use if you have a serious allergic reaction. call your doctor if you have rash, swelling, difficulty breathing, or swallowing. you may have increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have new pain

or tenderness, sores, ulcers or infection in your legs or feet. ♪ jardiance is really swell... ♪ ♪ ...the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ hey, grab more delectables. ♪ jardiance you know, that lickable cat treat? de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat.

she says “hola cómo estás” and then we go skateboarding! from babysitters, to nannies, to daycare centers. find all the care you need at care.com

for a candidate who fancied himself a champion for the common man, donald trump is surrounding himself with more than a few billionaires. the latest, scott bessent, a trump donor and hedge fund manager who invested money for george soros more than a decade, the pick for treasury secretary and billionaire investment bank ceo howard lutnick, the commerce secretary position. joining me at the table, correspondent for bloomberg news, david gurria. tell me about this treasury pick. >> wall street likes him because he's one of their own. he's a known quantity on wall street. he worked for george soros, which would give more republicans pause than it seems to be. >> there is some dark corners of the internet fired up about it. >> but made a lot of money for george soros, started his own hedge fund after that, was successful, not extraordinarily so. this last year has been great for me as he bet on this broader trump trade and things have come to fruition. but he's seen as moderating

figure and what is interesting about that, we have seen his evolution here over the course of the campaign, he was somebody who poured cold water on tariffs, punitive device. >> he understands -- >> as many on wall street do. yes. not a whole 180, but there is this very vicious fight among a lot of rich men to be the treasury secretary and he wrote this op-ed that doubled down support for the president-elect's tariff policies. there is a feeling among investors, they know him, and he's not going to do anything to screw up the market -- the economy, the market, which is something donald trump cares a lot about. >> somebody like me who is not a finance person, you say he could be a moderating force, beyond tariffs, what were the concerns about a more radical or nontraditional pick? >> well, you know, i heard molly in the last segment talking about how the defense department is a real thing to lead, the treasury department is the same thing. this is a hugely important institution that controls

government and affects so many parts of the government, here in the u.s. and around the world. if you're the treasury secretary, you're ing sanctions, all of this. you don't want somebody in the job who doesn't grasp the enormity of it and the entirety of it. moderating effect is here is a guy who went to a good school, has worked at the highest levels of finance, knows what he should and shouldn't do, that's the impression a lot of people have, and in so doing, he's going to make sure there is at least some level of guardrail there for whatever whims might push the treasury in the wrong direction. >> amazing how basic competence has become the floor and the ceiling. "the new york times" today reminding us of trump's closing message on this from the 2016 campaign. an ad. take a look. >> the establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. for those who control the levers of power in washington, and for

the global special interests, they partner with these people that don't have your good in mind. >> i just so appreciate what david -- you saw him catch himself and distinguish between the economy and the market, which is a distinction that i think we saw during this election, how important that distinction was when talking about the economy. but this is trump's thing. he wants to sort of heisman wall street when it comes to his populist persona, but in reality, he is surrounded by very, very wealthy people. >> yeah. i would say we have been talking about checks and balances, like, what is going to provide a check for donald trump. the one bit of optimism i have here is that trump is obsessed with the dow. he's obsessed with the public markets. so, that could in fact prevent him from raising tariffs to the point where they crush the american consumer, and that is all we have. >> there is a lot of magical

thinking in trump world, we're reacquainting ourselves with that. you look at somebody like scott bessent, hard to find an article about him that doesn't character him as a billionaire. he isn't. and bloomberg has billionaires index, he's not on it. >> i like you're now in the business of fact checking billionaires. >> you know, you look at these other appointees, howard lutnick, wealthy but has this story, a lot of hardship when he was a kid, made a lot of money pulling yourself up by your bootstraps at an investment bank is different than a lot of people pulling up the bootstraps but he has. if you look at the statements, there is this emphasis on the fact when he was 9, he had to take a job because his family had financial insecurity. there is this mirage or sense that the transition team is trying to present here you too could be like this, and these are guys who have been through it in a way. and they have been through it and they have come around and now they have millions at least and billions in the case of some of them. >> what does this mean, though, for someone who doesn't have

money in the market. like if someone is watching and they're thinking, what is this going to mean for me, and for my family, what do you tell them? >> look, if you are invested in the market, if you have a 401(k), great, things seem to be going well for now. but as we were saying a few moments ago, if some of these policies go into effect in the most draconian way, if they're that strict and this backfires, we're going to see a huge hit to the economy. not the markets, but the economy. an issue with what people are able to afford once again, could be highly inflationary, that's bad for a lot of people. the same is true of the immigration policies. there is this roundup of millions of people, many experts say majority of experts say this will have a huge negative impact on the u.s. economy, there won't be people to do these jobs and t on the u.s. economy, there won't be people to do these jobs and that's going to backfire. there is all kinds of push back from people like scott bessent about that, but really, if you talk to most experts, they caution this could be extremely

bad for the future of the u.s. economy. >> that's why you have reporters saying that ag leaders are saying, but not us, right, like everybody else, but not our industry because we're not going to survive without these workers. steve ratner, former counselor to the treasury secretary in the obama years made an interesting comparisen in "the new york times" writing, donald trump got lucky first term when he arrived inflation was low, unemployment was falling, and growth was steady. he applied a bit of juice with his tax cut and the country accelerated. in retrospect, his term was like a speeding car that got away with it. this time he may not be so fortunate. he highlights under the surface weaknesses in our economy. do you think that's fair? >> there was another great column by catherine rampell who cautioned the president-elect, don't do anything. the economy is doing so well relatively speaking, don't mess it up, that's the best thing you can do. i've been struck over the course of this campaign, into the transition, just about this

level of magical thinking that things are great, they're going well and the pandemic happened and a lot of people were able to forget how bad that was and all the knock on effects when it came to healthcare and the economy overall. i think if we move beyond that, we see there were issues, yes, it was the speeding car, but it wasn't going to go that way forever. anybody who follows or reports on the economy knows that things can't go in that direction for forever. you look at what the president-elect and his advisers are saying now, there is a hope and a dream that gdp is going to go up really high, they can get tax cuts through and it is going to be totally fine. it is requiring more than a small amount of good faith and people to believe that's going to be the case when they look at the basis of economic knowledge that we have of how this proceeded before. >> four years of magical thinking. buckle up. no one is going anywhere. when we come back, fox news contributors, former talk show hosts, antivaxxers, america meet donald trump's picks to lead the nation's top health agencies. could there be big changes coming to our public health system? that conversation next. ming to system that conversation next

for more than a decade farxiga has been trusted again and again, and again. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ask your doctor about farxiga. hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat treat? de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. hey, everybody. delectables lickable treat.

w. kamau bell here. they say that america is the land of the free. but right now, people in the u.s. are seeing their freedoms taken away at an alarming rate. freedoms some of us take for granted. the right to vote. equal access to health care. book banning and other forms of censorship that threaten our right to learn. and here's something truly shocking, right now in our country hundreds of thousands of people are incarcerated simply because they couldn't afford bail. that's not free and it's not fair. but there is hope for change. it lives in people like you and in a great organization called the american civil liberties union.

so please join me and other concerned americans in defending our civil liberties by joining the aclu as a guardian of liberty today. all it takes is just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. when you're surrounded by oppressive laws you can't just sit back and be oppressed. you get up and fight and all of us at the aclu are fighting for you. whether it's criminal justice reform or protecting the lgbtq plus rights, abortion rights or voting rights. the aclu is in the courts fighting for your rights, and mine and i, for one, sleep better at night knowing they're working every day in all 50 states to protect our freedoms. but these freedoms are at risk. we have to fight for them tirelessly and with your help, we will continue to do so. so please go to myaclu.org and join the fight for just $19 a month. use your credit card and get this special we the people t-shirt, aclu magazine and more to show you're helping ensure justice for all.

as an individual, donating to the aclu is one of the most powerful things you can do to fight for justice. but the aclu can't do it alone. they need your support now to continue defending our democracy and the freedoms we hold dear. so please join us. call or go online to myaclu.org today. thank you. donald trump continuing to fill out his picks for the top health spots in the second term. on friday, naming fox news contributor dr. jeannet nishua. trump has already announced

dr. mehmet oz who has a long record of showing unverified cures and supplements to run medicare and medicaid. robert f. kennedy jr. to oversee all of these agencies. reportedly already staffing his make america healthy again team with antivaccine advocates. joining us dr. libby roy, david and molly are here as well. hi. great to see you. what do you think of the choices? >> so, let's start with cms. this is typically an agency that is led by people with significant experience in health insurance and health policy. dr. oz, a cardiothoracic surgeon, television doctor, not a bad thing, but he's -- he's kind of gone back and forth in terms of where he stands with several issues. back in 2010, he was -- he urged californians to sign up for the affordable care act and by the

way, in full disclosure appeared on his show, the dr. oz show, years ago, to talk about fentanyl and in his defense and his team, you know, they allowed me to provide evidence-based information. but we also know that bmj, he's a nice person, a very smart guy, but my personal opinion should not matter. the bmj, the british medical journal, published an article in 2014 randomly looking at 40 of his episodes and showing almost half of his health claims were not rooted or based on medical data or scientific literature. as a physician, that's what matters to me. doctors that are being selected as long as they're creating health policies that are rooted in data in medical -- the best available scientific data, that's what's going to matter to me. >> what do you think this means, like, for most americans? most americans you're throwing around some of the acronyms that we use to discuss these

agencies, and it is critically important and yet i think people wonder, like, when i send my kids to school, when i go to the doctor, what are the implications for me? >> so other implications that really matter to me and other fellow medical professionals, so, like dr. marty mccarrie for the fda chief, a surgical oncologist by training at hopkins but also alined himself with a lot of rfk's policies, especially during covid, which were not -- against vaccine mandates, promoted herd immunity and these are not policies that -- policies that were rooted in science and data. so let's use this vaccine as an example, right? we want to make sure we have people that are in these leadership positions that are promoting policies or making decisions that will keep children and elderly family members like in my own family

safe and healthy. we know that vaccines as one example is something that -- it is probably the most effective health intervention, public health intervention to keep people safe and unfortunately some of the picks so far have not -- they have promoted vaccine skepticism. those are the things that are really concerning for people like me. >> they're all confirmed, they're in there making policy and decision what is the hardest thing then to undo? >> anything -- right now -- >> because if they try to remind us there is the reality of what we live with, for the first few months, and then there are the realities once you begin dismandeling certain policies or putting certain policies in place, it can very often take months, years, to undo those changes. >> i'll tell you one thing, what me and some of my colleagues, we were discussing this, one thing that looks like a positive thread seems like their policy on food. they're saying that they want to

really go after chronic diseases, which is great for a former primary care doctor like me, right, so the leading cause that are preventable really mostly by food. will they make policies that will really keep people safe? are they going after the food industry, processed foods, chemicals, which are addictive, i'm an addiction medical doctor, that matters. they have to do it the right way, got to make sure it is -- they're going to make sure that they address food eserts, get fruits and vegetables accessible to schoolchildren. those are the things. but to your question about what is going to be hard to undo, should they make poor decisions that are truly harmful, really ones that we have already seen happening in several states all over regarding women's health, that's going to be really, really hard. and i'm already seeing this in patients, female patients who receive contraception who have been traumatized, assaulted, we're already seeing these ramifications. look at what happened to amber thurman.

we'll see far more cases if that really expands and rolls out. abortion care is healthcare. it should not be politicized. >> abortion care is healthcare, it also became an economic message during this campaign, i think, if the pandemic taught us anything, there is a direct interplay between healthcare in this country and the economy in this country. >> absolutely. i hear you talking about this and a lot of my work is focused on the treasury department, the federal reserve and to a tee, every time i talk to somebody, they're so differential to the work of the staff. and that's something that might worry a lot of people as they watch this unfold. if you look at the healthcare system in our country, if rfk is spearheading this, one would hope he would listen to the font of research and data driven work that people in that department have been doing. i think there is a reasonable fear if somebody comes into that job, lacking the requisite managerial experience, lacking more than interest in pursuing agendas that he cares passionately about, that could

be really dell eterious. i think that's something that just probably would incite a lot of -- you hear rfk talk about data and vaccines. i remember covering the business of firearms and guns and there is this cry that public health experts aren't allowed to collect and analyze data on gun violence in this country because of restrictions put in place in these agencies. i think that proliferation is something that would give a lot of people pause if they knew that was happening from the top down. >> what take treat to see you. thank you so much for being here. molly, thank you. coming straight from clinic, thank you so much. a quick break for us. we'll be right back. you so much. a quick break for us we'll be right back. ♪♪ over 600,000 usps employees working in sync to ensure everything sent on its holiday ride ends with a moment of joy. ♪♪ the united states postal service.

what if kids in america didn't have to go to bed hungry tonight? what if our moms, dads, and grandparents could puthy foodon the tably to help us grow strong? what if all of our friends and neighbors had fresh food too, and there was no hunger at all in america? and what if there was a way today for you to help? call now or go online to helpfeedingamerica.org and give $19 a month, just $0.63 a day. so many of us don't have enough food to eat, but your monthly gift means families across the country and in your community can fill plates with food. kids can get healthy meals year round, even when school's out and our neighbors can have fresh food. food that moms, dads,

entire families need to thrive. but right now, more people are facing hunger. feeding america® works from coast to coast with partner food banks, food pantries, and meal programs. it takes all of us to make that happen. will you help too? please call the number on your screen or go online to helpfeedingamerica.org and give just $19 a month and we'll send you this free canvas grocery bag. it's our way of saying thank you for helping to end hunger for our neighbors. because no kid, no mom or dad, nobody should go hungry in america, nobody. so what if today was the day you could help nourish futures for our friends, our families, for all of us. ending hunger is possible. what if we end it together? call or give online today at helpfeedingamerica.org and your gift can be doubled. thank you.

i've been worn by celebrities, athletes, and world leaders. but i've always felt most comfortable up here, with the folks that made me who i am. i'm right at home, out here on the land. and i'm in my lane on the shoulder of the interstate. because this is where i come from. i've been showing up here for nearly 200 years. and i can't wait to see what's next. hats off to the future. nothing runs like a deere™

a story at the top of the hour, judge chutkan granted space exploration special counsel's request to dismiss the federal election case. she dismissed the case in a short two page order without prejudice saying it is consistent with the government's understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting president is temporary, expiring when they leave office. that means the federal election case is dead for now. there is an update on the other case, the classified documents case, we will let you know as soon as we can. next for us, donald trump brings the architects of project 2025 into the fold of his new administration after this quick break. administration after this break. conflict is raging across the world, and millions of children's lives are being devastated

by war, hunger, disease and poverty. we urgently need your help to reach children in crisis. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we need 1000 new monthly donors this month to help children in crisis around the world and right here at home. you can help us provide food, essentials, and lifesaving medical care to children in the most need. in the darkest times children suffer the most. you can help by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10.

thanks to generous government grants, every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children tote bag as a thank you for your support. your small monthly donation of just $10. could be the reason a child in crisis survives. show them they're not alone. please call or go online to givetosave.org to help save lives.

♪♪ i expect to hear ten more times from president distancing himself from the left's boogeyman in project 2025. >> you do you know why? >> i am not worried. he is running against the brand. he is not running against any people. he is not running against any institutions am. it's interesting. he is in fact not even opposing himself to a particular policy. he has raised money for our organization, blessed it from the, you know, walking into our last office and told him what i was going to do. he is very supportive of what we do. >> hi, again, everyone. 5:00 in new york. in august of this year, one of the architects of project 2025, russ vought, as you heard,

wasn't nervous if about donald trump's repeated distancing of himself from that plan. donald trump has said it at rallies, said it on fox news, even during the debate. he had no idea that was written in project 2025, that it had nothing to do with him. but vought wasn't nervous because he knew trump's claims were just for show. if trump won he would embrace the policies and those involved in the 900 page radical agenda. surprise rkz surprise, that's what happened. trump tapped him to run the office of management and budget, cementing trump's second term with project 2025. senator elizabeth warren posted, donald trump lied through his teeth to pretend he had nothing to do with project 2025. trump named eleekt architect of project 2025 to overski the budget office. a voice familiar to our viewers said bluntly, the bottom line of the pieces of project 2025 we

discussed the last year are in play, rooting out the so-called deep tate, panning abortion medication, infringing on the rights of lgbtq+ individuals, the list goes on. expanding the role of the president. project 2025 section on the executive branch, quote, the president today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences, or worse yet the policy plans and preferences of a radical supposed by woke faction of the country. it's to limit, control and direct the executive branch on behalf of the american people. listen to what vought told tucker carlson last week. >> the president has to move executively as fast and as aggressively as possible with a radical constitutional perspective to be able to dismantle that bureaucracy and their power centers. there are a couple of ways to do

it. number one, going after the notion of independence. there are no independent agencies. >> okay. keep in mind vought is not the only one who worked on project 2025 that received trump's blessing. brendan carr for the federal communications commission, thomas homan, john ratcliffe, and trump's pick for ambassador to canada pete hoekstra all contributors to project 2025. that's where we start with the president of media matters for america angela, and with me at the table from our deputy national security advisor under president obama ben rhodes, plus "new york times" editorial board member and msnbc political analyst mara gay. angela, knock me over with a feather. i am so surprised to see that project 2025 despite being disavowed by trump is now center stage in his administration. >> yeah, i mean, they -- they were saying it all along. not that he was going to run against the brand, ultimately

needed project 2025 if he were elected. this is what they were preparing for. i want to start there. the vought thing is significant in terms of the realization of project 2025. here's why. when we think about that term a lot of it gets discussed in terms of the 900 page policy book that got attention, they laid out aspirations in one place. but project 2025 was something much more than that. it was a massive personnel database which outside of the names that everybody is talking about in the media already being reported that the incoming administering is relying on that database to fill lower level positions already and then the other part of project 2025 was the thing that russ vought was working on in secret, the 180 day playbook. a suite of documents, 350, executive orders, action has were given to agencies, memos supporting legal substantiation for all kinds of instructions and ties that that clip you heard him say with tucker carlson we says he would have to

act fast. the idea behind that is to implement these things. they are on the shelf. the implementation for smashing a away the norms and things we reviewed on for rule of law like the independence of the doj so it's not politicized, that's out the window. they are ready to go. and russ vought was a key part of that project 2025 component and now he going to income a place in the administration to take those documents that he spent all this time working on and put them into action and that i think is the part that's the most concerning is not just that he is pulling in people, but putting in the people that had the plan for implementation of project 2025. >> i that i that's a reason and i think it's worrisome they are talking about none of these agencies acting independently. >> yeah. first of all, we should be clear. the office of management and budget maybe not a house eld name, it's more important than most cabinet agencies. this is the entire federal budget, who gets money, you know, this is the white house, you know, controlling house spending.

in terms of the independence of agencies, agencies like the department of justice, we talked about, don't act on behalf of the president, federal reserve, sets monetary policy. it's supposed to act the public good of the economy and not political interests of the president. i have been in the federal government. people are frustrated with bureaucracies but noaa, hurricanes, i am not an expert on that. the s.e.c. that's meant to regulate how the financial system works. you can see them wanting to, you know, takes an axe to that and whose interest does that help. elon musk, for instance, the kind of people that don't want regulation in their financial transactions. if you eliminate these people, not only is that going to allow them implement a pretty radical agenda that they didn't run on, didn't get a mandate to do these things, it's also going to thousands of years of experience are going to walk out the door,

either be fired or leave because life is so miserable for them in these agencies. we are not going to get that back. so even if trump is gone in four years, the person coming in is going to inherit a government full of maga ideologues and emptied of expertise that allows for the u.s. government to function. >> you layer on to the brain drain that you just described the fact that one of the things that vought wants to do, encouraging president trump so do is to use executive action. i remember during the first obama administration when immigration advocates desperately wanted the president to utilize executive action in order to protect dreamers and there was so much consternation about what was legal, right. what could you actually do? what was beyond the power of the president? and to see them sort of blatant day just use it, sign your name on the peace of paper, i mean -- i'm going to say this a lot. it's not how it works, and yet they are prepared to weaponize

executive authority to all ends. >> that's right. i mean, hypocrisy knows no bounds. obama would issue a standard executive order, right. they would call him a dictator if he did that. they are suggest about something much different than a standard issue executive order. they spent four years preparing to remake these agencies idealogical extensions of donald trump's interests and the maga movement. that a deeper, like, transformation of the federal government than anything we have seen in my lifetime. and i think people don't dwight have their minds around it. not only the fact i worry about the cia, right, where they have one of these project 2025 appointees, they operate in the shadows. if it's filled with maga ideolouges and they do things in the quiet, what will they be up to? public health agencies that are responsible for the health of our children.

if they are in a radical anti-vaccine agenda, they are not just trying to say here is an executive order to try to implement a policy, like, you know, president obama trying to protect dreamer kids. they are using executive orders to turn the government into something it has never been before, a deeply idealogical institution. we are talking about experts. we are not talking about left/right here. i don't know the politics -- had i was in government, i didn't know the politics of anybody sitting in the white house situation room. those people were moderate people. just people that are experts. but those are the kind of people they will clear out. >> you said something, articulated something on friday ruminating about all weekend, that was that there were people who didn't vote for this, voted for donald trump, but didn't vote for project project, who are now going to have to live with the implications of project 2025. i recognize that if you are not a federal employee perhaps some of this conversation doesn't feel like it immediately impacts you.

we to some of these macro or existential changes to the u.s. government perhaps it doesn't feel like it hits your day-to-day life. when you think about 900 pages boiled down to a single policy that americans begin to feel their day-to-day life, when do you think it becomes real to an average american voter, this is the government. >> it depends who you are and where you live. it could be a hurricane when the ex mer expertise needed to protect you and your community has left the building. isn't there. you could need access to the abortion pill that that is no longer there.the national defense side. i mean, broadly speaking, this is a group of people who are christian nationalists and the agenda that they have in project 2025 does not represent the interests of american people at large. it represents what i believe to be a very radical agenda that is not in line with what most

americans want, and that is -- i don't believe that is what they vote for. yet they kinda did. so this is ultimately one of those elections do have consequences moments. you know, the thing that is scary donald trump himself, his agenda is donald trump. >> mm-hmm. >> so, you know, what you have is a group of people who help him get elected who authored project 2025, comes right out of the heritage foundation and they are ready to insert policy where donald trump has none.e other t is the office of management and budget, there is a politician's views and priorities than a budget. if you really want to know what an administration is going to look like, you can look at its budget priorities. so this is a very large signal that they have the keys to the kingdom in donald trump world, and, you know, i think we are going to really find out very quickly that despite the anti-expertise or anti-expert mood or anti-incumbent or

anti-government mood in the united states right now, there is a reason that you go to an expert if you have cancer, god forbid, you want an expert. if you are putting your child in the classroom, you want a teacher who is qualified. and i think similarly, we don't think of government that way. there is this mood in the country all government is bad. but i think a lot of times americans don't really necessarily think about all of the ways that government impacts their lives and often it's local government. where you get a real test of what happens when the government is -- and this is another fear i have with project 2025, which is ultimately it's an attack on the bureaucracy that at the moment love it or hate it, the federal bureaucracy serves americans. this is meant to remake the government so that it serves this movement and donald trump. and i think that is a transformation that is not in the interests of we start to see that unfold, its impact

on american lives, is going to be clear. you know, this is going to factor into the midterms. there is no doubt about it if this continues on this trajectory and we continue to see the heritage foundation, you know, in the oval office in this way. >> i want to drill down a little bit on vought and some reporting that media matters did. while at the helm of the center for renewing, he has been outspoken in scheme to reclassify civil servants. trump attempted to implement but the affects were blunted by the loss in 2020. if the administration moves forward with the plan, as many as 50,000 career staffers could be replaced with maga loyalists. other estimates put the number closer to 20,000. what are you doing right now? if you are a federal employee just bracing for impact? >> yeah, i mean, i think that's probably -- and ben was getting to before, right.

one of the things that vought is talking about is that you want to inflict trauma on the personnel in the agencies as well. that was his words. inflict trauma. one of the objectives is to sort of create conditions where a bunch of people lead themselves. don't have to deal with the rescheduling under schedule f. to that point if you are one these employees, you are assuming you are going to get -- lose your job to some extent or you are already beginning to anticipate that are you are saying, well, i attended a dei training or seminar at some point in my career and that's one of the identifiers for termination. if you had done anything, including participating in an employee training for it, you are automatically mark today get the boot. if you are an employee, you are on the job market most likely. i think that is either because of directly because you think you will be affected by dead f or you believe that they are going to infliekt trauma an to you to push you out.

so it makes it easy, sort of clearing, you know, understandably. the runway is being cleared for them to move in their individuals, their people and put actions in place. the part that makes that so concerning it is an all-out assault not just on norms and government that's hard because defending the status quo in an environment people don't like the status quo is not the best turf to be in, right. so ostensibly many people, wow, they are doing something good b but underneath the hood they are doing something insiddious. vought laid it out. implement schedule f to have all the power you want, direct the military inward to impose your will something he has been instrumental in and his end result one of the things he repeatedly said is that the goal is to, quote, end multiculturism in america. that's the part that's their guiding light. it's not just about bureaucracies and implementing and pushing government power, it's reshaping what the united states looks like from the government to the day-to-day way

that society operates. and they are doing it and this personnel piece is the first domino to fall in that ifrp mentation of the agenda. >> so many names we have to talk about. one that sort of slipped under the radar and piece i want to get to you about and thinks choice to be a.g. secretary, brooke rollins. news that it's the one who will renegotiate the u.s./mexico/canada strayed deal. could you talk about what that means for most americans? >> mexico is our largest trading partner, which is often misunderstood. and so tremendous amount of american jobs depend upon either selling goods into mexico or having an import export relationship with mexico. trump negotiated the u.s. mca, mexico canada trade agreement. it was standard issue bipartisan. now he's tearing that up again. he's talked about putting huge tariffs on mexico, putting huge tariffs on, you know, chinese

good that are manufactured in mexico. this has a potential to kind of wreak havoc in terms of the trade that goes across that border and one of the things that i think is missed here is that again we talk about what americans voted for, they were most concerned about inflation. there is nothing more inflationary than driving up prices with tariffs. tariffs are by definition price increases. the only thing i can think of that is more inflationary than tariffs is mass deportations of people that are picking our food, you know, people that are, you know, low wage workers in the country, construction, food. so when you talk about an a.g. secretary there to do his will, defend tariffs, to make it more difficult to do things across that border at the same time that he is creating huge pressures on the mexin government through mass deportations, that may seem like again what people want we, want to get rid of undocumented immigrants, get tough on tradup prices, sow more chaos at the border and i think that's what

we are looking at in the next few months. >> what a treat. thank you for being with us. when we return texas congressman jasmine crockett. also ahead, troubling new reporting from texas where a third woman has died because of that state's strict ban on abortion and what did republicans do in a key battleground state? passed a law that strips pow frer the state's incoming democratic governor and that is only the beginning. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. stay with us. ouse" continues after a quick break. stay with us the promise of our constitution and the hope that liberty and justice is for all people. but here's the truth. attacks on our constitutional rights, yours and mine are greater than they've ever been. the right for all to vote. reproductive rights. the rights of immigrant families. the right to

equal justice for black, brown and lgbtq+ folks. the time to act to protect our rights is now. that's why i'm hoping you'll join me today in supporting the american civil liberties union. it's easy to make a difference. just call or go online now and become an aclu guardian of liberty. all it takes is just $19 a month. only $0.63 a day. your monthly support will make you part of the movement to protect the rights of all people, including the fundamental right to vote. states are passing laws that would suppress the right to vote. we are going backwards. but the aclu can't do this important work without the support of people like you. you can help ensure liberty and justice for all and make sure that every vote is counted. so please call the aclu now or go to my aclu.org and join us. when you use your credit card, you'll receive this special we the people t-shirt and much more. to show you're a part of the movement

to protect the rights guaranteed to all of us by the us constitution. we protect everyone's rights, the freedom of religion, the freedom of expression, racial justice, lgbtq rights, the rights of the disabled. we are here for everyone. it is more important than ever to take a stand. so please join us today. because we the people means all the people, including you. so call now or go online to my aclu.org to become a guardian of liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ something has changed within me ♪ ♪ it's time to try defying gravity ♪

♪ ♪ are people born wicked? or do they have wickedness thrust upon them? oh! -ah! [ laughter ] no need to respond. that was rhetorical. hm, hmm.

know about their own made up positions in the next administration or the realities of federal law or how government works how how much of their plans to slash regulations, jobs and spending will cost or be funded. they are launching a podcast, for example. marjorie taylor greene to share an oversight subcommittee in congress and building a team for their war with washington. "the washington post" reports this. quote, the billionaire doge leaders spent the last week in washington and at mar-a-lago seeking staff and interviewing seasoned washington operators. legal specialists and tech leaders according to five people familiar with the matter. more from that reporting, quote, the effort remains clouded by lack of clarity about its

ambitions. some people who met with the doge team returned from mar-a-lago unsure of the targets, according to two people briefed on the conversation. joining us now democratic congressman jasmine crockett of texas. congresswoman, your reaction to this and to trump's cabinet picks thus far? >> listen, this really would be funny if it wasn't reality. i mean, when we look at the people that are actually being put over our federal government not only is it full of unqualified loyalists, but it's literally a lot of people that are a danger to our country because, number one, most of them don't understand how our federal government works, and/or, number two, they seem to maybe have some misguided loyalties as it relates to do we pledge our loyalty to the constitution or pledge our loyalty to the orange one. and it's really disappointing. i am praying for the best, but i am buckling up for worst.

>> buckling up. "the washington post" also says despite the flurries of activity the effort is regarded as farfetched by many budget and legal experts. budget experts say the effort could prove disruptive to workers and business it is that rely on certainty and federal regulation and in spending. i wonder what it is that your republican colleagues are saying. is this what they want itted? do they see the chaos that is forthcoming is? >> yeah, so i will be honest with you and tell you an auto lot of my republican colleagues are not talking about doge. you talked about the fact that this is going to be a subcommittee chaired by marjorie taylor greene out of oversight, the point of oversight is to make sure that we can get rid of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. that's our overarching kind of theme of the oversight committee in general. so that's what we consistently work on. but we know that part of project 2025 was absolutely about getting rid of federal

employees. you guys were just talking about that. and honestly i think that that is who is going to come under fire under this newly created subcommittee by marjorie taylor greene with this newly created government agency. don't let it be lost that they are talking about getting rid of wasting money while creating a new agency to somehow get rid of wasting money, right? like, it's a joke. and honestly, i think this is really more so about self-dealing. you know, when you look at the amount of contracts that someone like elon musk has had with the federal government, when you look at vivek, these are guys who have benefitted from federal contracting and i think they are looking for additional ways to enhance themselves and probably minimizing oversight and those that would actually say there is a conflict, this is a problem, and no, this should not happen. i think this subcommittee is going to try to stopped work of those democrats like my ranking member jamie raskin from making

sure that we are keeping oversight over donald trump and his business dealings when it comes to dealing with folks like china and other countries that right now are not necessarily on the top of our friends list. >> one would argue there is a pattern here, there is, like, a seedling of thing that does have popular agreement, right, that that there needs to be a reckoning with bureaucracy generally. even as the congresswoman said, there is a committee that is supposed to be rooting out waste and abuse. and that to see that done in a proper, holistic, thoughtful way might actually have the support of the american people. to simply take a wrecking ball to the federal government is not the same thing. >> well, it's not the same thing. i think the congresswoman brought up an interesting point in terms of how this doge or doge, i don't know what we've gone with, might function separately. not only just loyal to donald

trump burke it's creating government bureaucracy for the purpose of punishing political enemies potentially and also rewarding political friends. so what kind of contract authority will it have? what kind of transition is it going to have? i mean yes, people are frustrated with government. but there are strict reporting rules, especially in congress, you know, these congressional panels have to actually report to the public what they are doing, what they are doing with public money, what agencies are doing. so what kind of reporting requirements are ramaswamy -- excuse me, is elon musk and this this doge going to have? we don't actually know. i think part of the concern is that when you create an entity, you can create your own rules. that's ultimately what's happening here, is that donald trump is kind of allowing some cronies to use government to their own ends, and i think the

american people deserve to know what that's going to look like. by the way, how much is this going to cost? is there any -- >> so you know, it was not in fact lost on me that they are trying to shrink bureaucracy while creating bureaucracy in the process. since i have you, i don't want to let you go without something, you special counsel jack smith filing to drop the felony charges against donald trump. what do you say to those who still seek accountability for the ex-president? >> yeah, the reality is that this case will go nowhere because donald trump is going to be the president of the united states. as it relates to what potential opportunities exist past this, i don't know. there may be an opportunity to toll the statute in some way. i haven't read through his dismissal, but i am sure it was probably not a dismissal with prejudice. this is probably the cleanest

way to get out tv and still be able to have a shot at donald trump should he not serve out the entire four years of his term, or should he serve out the full four years but potentially still have some options for holding him accountable. i think it's a travesty because he should have been held accountable way before we were able to go through another election. granted, considering the fact that he was held accountable for 34 felony convictions and that still didn't change some people's minds, it may not have changed some people's minds. i don't know. but i do think if we are going to say that we have equality or that we have some semblance of equity in this country, then i think that it bears mentioning that he had so many co-defendants in all these other cases that have somehow had to be held accountable and instead of him going to jail, he actually has ascended to the white house yet again. and i honestly think again, as you said over and over, that he is a walking constitutional crisis.

>> it was in fact a dismissal without prejudice. so that door is left ever ajar. congresswoman jasmine crockett, thank you for spending time with us. when we return something that congresswoman crockett fought against, strict abortion laws her home state of texas. now new reporting reveals another one has died because of that ban of the reporter behind that story after a very short break.

ka said a woman died due to texas' abortion laws. her medical team terrified to provide her care. writing, quote, wrapping his wife in a blanket as she mourned the loss of her pregnancy at 11 weeks, he wondered why in obstetrician was coming to see her over course of six hours, june 11, 2023. she bled so much in the emergency department at houston methodist sugar land she needed two transfusions. he called his mother, a former physician. you need a d and c, she told them, a common procedure for first trimester miscarriages and abortions f a doctor could remove the tissue from her uterus, the bleeding would end. when the doctor arrived, he said it was the hospital's routine to give a drug to help the body pass the tissue. hope trusted the doctor.

she took the pills according to records and the bleeding continued.three hours later her stopped. the more than one dozen doctors reviewed a summary of the case. her depth was preventible. they say they are death highlights how texas' abortion bans pressured doctors to deviate from medical best practices for fear of prosecution. doctors more afraid to perform d and cs answer when patients are in medical crisis. for their part her husband and their sons are coming to terms with her death. pro publy ka writes, hope's youngest son didn't understand his mom was gone. her long hair was braided and when he saw a woman with braids he would take off after her shouting, that's mommy. let's bring in pro publy ka reporter from that piece of reporting. mara is back. lizzy, thank you for this piece.

talk what your reporting required. >> this is a story of portia, as you say, came to the hospital with bleeding. the bleeding got a lot heavier while she was in a hospital in sugar land. nurses were noting she was bleeding large clots, the clots were the size of grapefruit. a doctor ordered blood transfusions. as doctors reviewed this case, they said that's when you know this woman is in trouble, she is hemorrhaging. the standard of care would be to provide a d and c to remove the remaining tissue, the uterus clamps down, bleeding stops. instead they suggested mifepristone which is not the standard of care in this situation. >> go on. sorry. >> they took the pills and that was a few hours later. portia's heart stopped. you see how quickly a woman like this, their condition

deteriorates. with law you can only intervene in the event of a medical emergency, you can't help her. her vitals were fine until the moment her heart stopped. >> you wrote this, around 8:30 p.m. she passed out. by this point clear she needed a d and c and doctors reviewed her case. performing it attracts more attention from colleagues, creating a higher barrier where abortion is legal. they need an operating room, anesthesiologist and operating team. many people may be afraid and misinformed and refuse to participate even if it's for a miscarriage. how do texas' law make routine care decisions more fraught? >> this was a deeply disturbing finding of this piece. portia did not need an abortion. an ultrasound didn't find a fetus or fetal heartbeat. she needed standard miscarriage

care. the problem is that there is a difference between what you can see a patient needs as a doctor and document in the record. her record ultrasound showed pregnancy of unknow location, which might mean she is four weeks along in a normally developing pregnancy. you could be charged with providing an abortion. so you can see in that moment that physicians have every reason to be afraid based op how the law is written they could be charged and face up to 99 years in prison. >> this is what i heard. in the aftermath of roe, wherever i would speak to a physician, they would say, i don't want when i am in a moment, a life or death moment decision, to have to be on phone with the legal team sussing out whether or not this falls in a gray area. i know you have done a bunch of reporting on the fact that the states where they are exceptions, those exceptions rarely hold. >> right, they are not

functional. >> right. >> and there is certainly not designed to protect the lives of women or the lively had of a these dls doctors and their freedom. you know, one of the questions i had in wake of the election is thinking about the different ways in which we as journalists can start reporting these stories. this story is essential and heartbreaking to read and we will continue to read stories like this. it's very important, hard as it is to look at them, we don't look away. one of the questions i have though is whether it may also be time to start going, you know, as journalists and citizens to state capitals in states that have these bans on the books and asking individual lawmakers, is this what you voted for? is the death of this woman the ruin of this family, the devastation of these children who no longer have a mother, is this pro-life?

and i o still believe in reproductive freedom, but also just want to see women's lives be valued. really have to start to ask ourselves. what else can we do? i don't have an easy answer. i used to cover albany in new york, you know, it's not a fancy job. you get to get newspaper the face of lawmakers and ask them to be held accountable for the decisions that they make. and i think just from the perspective of just what's appropriate civil society, citizens, reporters have the right to politely and respectfully ask, is this what you want? what do are you have to say to these families, to these women, to these doctors? how is this pro-life? how is that consistent with what you said was about saving lives, because i don't sea it and i don't think a lot of americans do either. >> lizzy, mara makes the argument for transparency. georgia women dying as a result

of delayed abortion care you have georgia abolishing the maternal mortality review committee, a move in absolutely the wrong direction where it now becomes even harder to understand what is happening in a state lake georgia, a state like texas. >> yeah. that is what we saw in georgia. i mean, they will rehire that committee, but in the meantime a number of cases be sitting on desks and not looked at and a lot of learning will not be had in those moments, rights. we have lots of questions about cases in georgia we won't be able to get the answer to. >> lizzy, thank you for bringing us your reporting. in north carolina, how republican state lawmakers are stripping power from the incoming governor because he is a democrat. that story is next. a democrat that story is next has been trusd again and again, and again. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪

ask your doctor about farxiga. hi. i'm damian clark. i'm here to help you understand how to get the most from medicare. if you're eligible for medicare, it's a good idea to have original medicare. it gives you coverage for doctor office visits and hospital stays. but if you want even more benefits, you can choose a medicare advantage plan like the ones offered at humana. our plans combine original medicare with extra benefits in a single, convenient plan with $0, or low monthly plan premiums. these plans could even include prescription drug coverage with $0 copays on hundreds of prescriptions. plus, there's a cap on your out-of-pocket costs. most plans include dental, vision, even hearing coverage. there are $0 copays for in-network preventive services, and much more. get the most from medicare with a humana medicare advantage plan. call today to learn more. remember, annual enrollment for medicare advantage plans ends december 7th. humana. a

more human way to health care. if you're watching this, i didn't make it. thanks to people like you and the american heart association, my family never had to see this video. i was a healthy 47 year old, no symptoms. but then my doctor discovered i had a bad heart valve that was beyond repair. the scariest day of my life was when i was sitting on a gurney as i looked at my wife was at my side and my kids had me surrounded. deep down you know, this could be it, this could be all there is. not having him around for riley to grow up with and have that papa figure in his life, that would have been hard. this little heart valve did something really big. it saved my life. i wouldn't be here today without it.

the research for this heart valve was funded by the american heart association. and that's why i'm asking you to become a monthly donor for just $19 a month. when you do, you'll help fund the next medical breakthrough that could save your life or the life of someone you love. you'll also provide lifesaving cpr training and help certify hospitals to give the best care to those who have had a heart attack or stroke. when you give $19 a month, we'll send you a t-shirt just like this one. from the moment you put it on, you'll help raise awareness for heart disease and stroke. since my surgery, i had a son get married. i had a daughter graduate high school. i had another daughter give birth to a precious boy. i would have missed all that, and that's why it's personal for me. we're very thankful for everyone who is a donor because it gives us more time. every 40 seconds, someone has a heart attack. the next person you help save could be someone you love or even you. become a monthly donor today by calling or going to

helpheart.org because it's personal. so. the state elections have consequences. that is happening in north carolina. in the wake of republicans losing super majority in the state legislature, republicans are using remaining time having a super majority stripping away nowers of incoming democrats who won this month. it includes taking away the incoming governor josh stein's ability to appoint members to the state election board giving that power to the auditor who happens to be a republican. additionally the legislation requires the attorney general to defend the laws passed by hard

right wing state legislature. one state republican lawmaker said, quote, the changes made were in response to some elections. joining us now chair of the north carolina democratic party anderson clayton. good to see you. a.g. elect jeff jackson, who has to deal with the fallout, joined us on the weekend to talk about his reaction. here is what he said. >> to be clear, the voters who know that this is happening whether they are republican, democrat or independent are strongly strongly opposed. some people saying i didn't vote for you but this shouldn't happen, especially the way that it's happening. >> and as you know, those changes were stuffed into what was supposed to be a hurricane relief -- what are they doing here? >> senate bill 382 republicans passed and rammed through, i should say, our general assembly this last week without the support of three western north carolina republicans in the general assembly right now because even they knew this bill, this 131 page bill guised

as hurricane relief was really just an opportunity for republicans to take away power from incoming democrats. but also restrict the power of folks of our council of state that are already elected to positions as well. really it's a power grab from republicans that we are seeing and trying to really threaten the democracy that we are seeing happen in north carolina. voters recognize they voted for people to have the positions and should trust the checks and balances that our constitution is set up with and republicans are not doing that right now. >> so anderson, there is a tell here, right. that is that it was critically forn that the supermajority was broken. it was a huge win in a state like yours, a huge win for you. what are we seeing in action and do you think there is the possibility, given that loss of supermajority there might be room to compromise on some

issues? >> that's why they are trying to jam it through, because january they will not be able to. republicans we fended off a republican supermajority by keeping lindsey prather's district out in western north carolina in an r plus two region that there gerrymandered for themselves last year. what we were able to do in north carolina through strong constituency services and folks like lindsey's campaign that led the effort for devising a new way of approaching the ground game we need to in places like western north carolina we are seeing republicans trying to attack in in any way they can what is left of a functioning democracy in north carolina. that's something we are seeing from restricting the a.g.'s powers from attacking the governors already weak powers. north carolina already is set up to have one of the weakest governors in our country because of our state legislature as it is. and i think that people need to start paying attention and that is what north carolina democrats going into 2025 and throughout

2026 are going to do is making sure we are prioritizing what's happening in our state legislature and educating the voters about it because we have had a far too nationalized approach to politics and it caused people to forget about the races that are in their own backyard most times. >> absolutely. a lot of the action i think will come out of these statehouses in terms of things that the democrats are able to proactively do and in terms of things that republicans are going to try to codify. it would be naive of me to act as though these moves began with trumpism, right. there is a long history of leveraging state legislatures and changing the rules, gerrymandering. but there is definitely an empowerment that has happened on the part of republicans in the wake of donald trump and the wake of a lack of accountability around january 6th that is notable. a maneuver like this, the fact

that they are saying it was because of -- they are not trying to even be cute by half. they are just telling you why they are doing what they are doing. >> yeah, there is also an even longer tradition of this particularly in southern states. >> sure. >> and this state, you know, predates -- this really goes fook to the end of reconstruction. so without kind of dragging up that ancient history, i what say what's happening in north carolina is something we have seen elsewhere. for example, in florida the republicans in that state legislature with their supermajority actually raised the bar that it took to get a ballot initiative protecting abortion rights. so even though that ballot initiative got a majority support from floridians, it didn't actually get enough support to reach that higher bar that the republicans in that legislature kind of raised it to. we have also seen that take place in georgia where you have kind of a shifting away from even though it's a republican who is governor inthe

state's elections. so the republicans who were more to the right in the state legislature tried to kind of shift away those election responsibilities from the governor's office and secretary of state's office and kind of diffuse them to local governments that might be more trump friendly. of course, that didn't come into play because donald trump won. all of that infrastructure is in place. it's anti-democratic infrastructure. and i think something that anderson has been doing very well is really explaining to individual americans how their own vote is being impacted by this. >> that threshold in florida was in 2006. comes in play 2024. there is a long tale to these efforts. anderson clayton, thank you so much for being with us, bringing that view from north carolina. mara, thank you for spending the hour with us. a quick break. we'll be right back. we'll be right back.

(♪♪) (♪♪) (♪♪) start your day with nature made. and try new zero sugar gummies. ["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. (sneeze) (hooves approaching) not again. your cold is coming! your cold is coming! thanks...revere. we really need cam in the house. only if you want to shorten your cold! when you feel a cold coming, shorten it with zicam (children speaking) (revere: hyah)

millions of children are fighting to survive

due to inequality, conflict, poverty and the climate crisis. save the children® is working alongside communities to provide a better life for children. and there's a way you can help. please call or go online to give just $10 a month. only $0.33 a day. we urgently need 1000 new monthly donors in the next 30 days to help the children we support around the world. you can help provide food, medicine, care and protection, plus so much more that a child needs by calling right now and giving just $10 a month. all we need are 1000 monthly donors in the next 30 days. please call or go online now with your monthly gift of just $10. thanks to generous government grants, every dollar you give can have up to ten times the impact. and when you call with your credit card, we will send you this save the children® tote bag as a thank you for your support.

your small monthly donation of just $10 could be the reason a child in crisis survives. please call or go online to givetosave.org to help save lives. well, fellas, your prayer is going to be answered today. based on your temperament and commitment to being productive members of society, i hereby pardon peach and blossom. [ applause ] >> president biden there pardoning the last thanksgiving turkeys of his presidency. minnesota owes own peach and blossom named for the state flower of delaware. he noted it's the official start of the holiday season in d.c. telling the crowd, quote, also my last time to speak as your

president during the season and give thanks and gratitude. let me say to you, it's been the honor of my life and i'm forever grateful. another quick break for us. we'll be right back. m advil, advil targeted relief, the only topical with 4 powerful pain fighting ingredients that start working on contact and lasts up to 8 hours.

liberty mutual customized my car insurance so i saved hundreds. with the money i saved i thought i'd get a wax figure of myself. cool right? look at this craftmanship. i mean they even got my nostrils right. it's just nice to know that years after i'm gone this guy will be standing the test of ti... he's melting! oh jeez... nooo... oh gaa... only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪♪ vicks vapostick provides soothing non-medicated vicks vapors. easy to apply for the whole family.

vicks vapostick. and try new vaposhower max for steamy vicks vapors. drop everything and get some magic of your own during the xfinity black friday sale. xfinity internet customers, our best deals of the year are back! switch to xfinity mobile and get your choice of a free 5g phone, plus your next unlimited line free for a year. get amazing savings and connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go with xfinity mobile. fly don't walk to get our best deals of the year. connect to the world of wicked this holiday, in theaters now.

thank you for spending a part of your monday with us. fear not, nicole will be back tomorrow. "the beat with ari melber starts now. i am ari melber, tonight, we have an interview with "hamilton" star lin-manuel miranda. there