than 115,000 users deactivated their accounts, the most since elon musk took ownership according to research from the digital marketing intelligence company, similar web. at the same time, users on other platforms like blue sky have continued to grow. to the dismay of the far right trolls. smay of the far right elon musk had thought that by purchasing twitter, he could force liberals to have to consume the content and the abuse from his far right troll brigade which included conspiracy theorists and white nationalists. but now, as media critic parker malloy points out, without the reactionaries on x, face a crisis of relevance because the reality is that without the libs, they are all alone speaking to each other and even they don't want that. can you blame them? and with that, i think it is a great time to remind you that you can follow me on blue sky threads and instagram and on tiktok.

to follow our joe accounts on instagram, threads, tiktok and blue sky at the rebound. that is tonight's reidout. insight with jen psaki starts now. >> okay. today, special counsel jack smith asked judge to dismiss the election interference case against donald trump. here is what jack smith wrote in his filing. he wrote, "the government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed. but the circumstances have. the justice department's position is that the constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. shortly after that, smith moved to dismiss the classified documents case against trump on the same ground. now, we kind of knew this would be the inevitable outcome of a trump victory. if there was a trump victory.

because he effectively ran out the clock before winning the election. for those out there who have been following these cases very closely over the course of the last to years, as we all have been, it still might feel kind of jolting in this moment, especially to those of you who thought there would be accountability here, real accountability. we know there are aspects of this i could have played out differently. so i was thinking about this today and i really wanted to take a step back and walk through how we got here. and i was reminded by a lot of this myself. especially when it comes to the sobering dismissal of the case centered around january 6th. you might not remember this detail from the day and i don't even a member this detail until today but early in the afternoon of january six, 2021, news broke that then president- elect joe biden would nominate merrick garland to services attorney general. and abide in official told nbc news at the time that the justice department nominees affirmed biden's limit to restoring independence and integrity to the justice department, a very important

message at the time and any time. i happen to know that biden picked garland in part because he wanted somebody who was above the fray pick someone who would do things by the book. and all that sounded great. at least on paper. of course on the same day, a couple hours later, riders would breach the barriers leading to the u.s. capitol. the culmination of a month-long attempt by trump to steal the 2020 election and in the immediate aftermath of the day, there was definitely a demand for accountability which was a good sign. one week later, trump was formally impeached by the house for inciting an insurrection. but by the time the senate trial was underway, a month later, republicans got cold feet. and i think we all know how that ended. during the senate trial, just before trump was acquitted, trump's lawyer, bruce castor, said something that has stuck with me, especially in this moment. >> after he is out of office, you go and arrest him.

so there is no opportunity where the president of the united states of america can run rampant at the end of his term and go awayof justice does know what to do with such people. >> a version that was also macconnell's argument reportedly to republican senators to convince them to vote against impeachment. that was trump's attorney basically inviting prosecutors to indict his own client. it was a pretty stunning thing to hear. and it seemed a sure bet to everyone that the doj would in fact hold trump accountable. but as washington post later reported, more than a year would pass before prosecutors and fbi agents jointly embarked on a formal probe of trump's attempt to steal the election. instead, as we all know, the investigation started out by focusing almost entirely on the riders themselves. it is also not that unusual for prosecutors to start at the bottom and work their way up. but in this case, the clock was taking. in the meantime, the bipartisan house select committee january 6th was taking matters into their own hands.

they collected data, announced subpoenas, interviewed witnesses and held major primetime hearings, all focusing on trump, the top, and those in his orbit. the new york times put it at the time that the work effectively dialed up the pressure on merrick garland to move more aggressively. and it kind of seemed to work. the washington post reported at the time, grabbing news and accounts fueled public criticism that the justice department appeared to be liking. so, there was going pressure on the department and then trump announced his candidacy for president, prompting the appointment of jack smith as special counsel. smith notably vowed that the pace of the investigation would not pause under my watch. and then delivered on a. within a year, that he an indictment against donald trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. that was in august of 2023. more than a full calendar year before the calendar election. we now know that didn't leave a

smith time to complete his job. thanks in large part to, the supreme court. in october of 2023, trump's team filed a motion to motion to dismiss the case, which kicked off a month-long back- and-forth battle on the courts. totally unnecessary. could have decided faster. it delayed the delayed the trial and justice and culminated in the in the supreme court decision to graham -- grant from presidential immunity. this not only set a dangerous precedent for president exists above the law and around kind of like a king than a commander- in-chief but also almost guaranteed a trial would not be able to take place before the election. as we now know, it didn't. trump won election and is now the president-elect. he has shed serious criminal cases for the most part for four years and after the news today, in all likelihood, he will be more embolden, even more certain that he can avoid accountability. with a goal of appointing a number of people to leave the

justice department who are loyal to him. as we are digesting this, this is a long and winding road between generally 62021 and today. so many little things could have gone differently to come to a different outcome than the one that was reached today. and for those who followed the norms and respect of the traditions, honor the protocols, colored and set all the lines, a kind of begs the question, is that how things should happen moving forward? is that the best way to operate when you are dealing with president-elect and a political movement that does pretty much the exact opposite? i'm not quite sure how to answer those questions but i have the perfect person to ask who happens to be sitting here on the set for joining me is senator elect adam schiff of california who was a member of the house committee that investigated january 6th. this was big news. not unexpected but you were here just yesterday and asked what you thought should happen with these cases and you said that the cases shouldn't be dismissed. they should be deferred until after he leaves office.

does that mean you think there was an alternative to what jack smith did today? >> i think there was an alternative. the alternative would be to postpone further proceedings in the case until after he left office. what jack smith did is seek to dismiss the case without prejudice. that means they can bring charges against trump again when he leaves office but nonetheless, it is a very serious distinction because the status quo now is no charges against the president. you have to upset the status quo to later bring charges again as opposed to merely postponing the proceedings in which case the presumption is that they continue when he leaves office. jack smith relied on the opinion of lawyers within the department who said that they thought it was required by the constitution to dismiss the case. but it isn't required by the constitution. there is nothing that would interfere with the performance of the office, whether the case is dismissed without prejudice

or nearly postponed. i think this is a serious mistake by the department. it compounds the mistake that you alluded to which is that they waited a year before they even brought this case forward or begin the investigation. and you have the supreme court with this immunity decision and then you have a potential nominee in pam bondi who is saying that she will prosecute the prosecutors. all of that goes against what jack smith said in his brief motion which is that no one is above the law. we are hearing that phrase a lot but we are not giving validity to it by these actions. >> this is pretty significant that you think it is different. you have a different interpretation than what the justice department advised jack smith and his team to do. one of the arguments he has been making according to the department of justice reporters is that trump's team would have come in and fully dismissed it outright anyway and this allows

him to frame it and the facts of the case have not changed. do you agree with that or do you think it is no but the court would make the decision as to whether it should be dismissed or postponed. there is another principle of the law that says you don't get to be your own judge or jury. so donald trump can appoint a prosecutor to be his judge and jury and effectively order him to dismiss the case. that runs a foul the principal too. even if you were successful in a court were to grant the motion, then that is on donald trump. it is not on the department and i think that is significant too. i think this compounds the mistake that the department made by delaying so long before initiating the investigation of those who are higher up like donald trump. and it sets a terrible precedent that essentially the president of the united states has a get out of jail free card. that is not what the offices for. >> one of the things that could have happened, and i realize i was working in the

biden administration at the time, is that there could have been a special prosecutor appointed on the first day. would that have made a difference? >> with jack smith, it would have made a big difference. he moved with alacrity. i have to give him credit. he moved with expedition. the department that didn't move quickly except for the foot soldiers, it moved rapidly and those who broke into the capital beat police officers but waited a long time. and in fact, may have waited indefinitely if that january 6th committee had not brought all of the evidence before the american people. it should not take congress to do that. they should have done that on their own. >> you referenced a couple things that could have been done differently in the past. if you missed any, i do want you to share them. looking forward, we are not guaranteed there won't be -- that there won't be another an figure that tries to test the system in this way. are their things, senator elect, you don't know what

committees will be on yet but you wish the senate or congress would do, to better protect and prevent this type of activity from happening in the future? >> there are a number of things. in fact, we put a package together called protecting the democracy act which got through the house but we were not able to get to the senate last session. but it won't get through this republican house and senate. and we won't be able to reestablish the guardrails. what we are going to depend on is whether republican senators in particular will demonstrate the willingness to uphold the checks and balances in the system and we will give meaning to that advice and the consent track record is not particularly encouraging if you look at the first four years of donald trump but this does give us room for hope that the senate on both sides of the aisle may come to agreement that we need certain guardrails

or we are going to head too far in the direction of autocracy. >> pam bondi is who trump nominated to replace matt gaetz was a nominee for eight days. i believe that is correct. there are still questions, that should be asked about her. and i said this yesterday. i know you have said something similar. she is obviously an election denier. what more would you like to know about her background? >> i would begin with her participation in the big lie. she was out there peddling the fiction that donald trump won pennsylvania four years ago and they were essentially mailing ballots to dead people and there was ballot dumping and all the rest of this. is she going to maintain that fiction, that lie? and she will be willing to do that under oath? is she willing to dissemble under oath? that is not somebody want to look for an attorney general. also, her threats to prosecute the prosecutors.

let's remember that evidence was provided to a grand jury. the grand jurors found donald trump committed multiple crimes pick even the republicans who use this trump he and refrain on deep state and organizing the justice department, they don't really deny the facts. they don't deny that donald trump had boxes and boxes of documents at mar-a-lago and many were highly classified. they don't deny that he tried to obstruct the investigation. they don't deny that he incited a violent attack on the capital. they don't deny any of those things. they simply parrot his talking points. so is she going to deny those things? is she going to go after people in the justice department that legitimately brought these investigations? these are questions i'm certainly going to want to ask and they are questions you will have to answer. >> we are going to talk more about this. and the former chairman of the house and tell committee, want to talk about the national security nominees. we will sneak in a quick break and we will be right back with

senate elect adam schiff.

i don't know if any intelligence work she has done. in terms of the intelligence community, very unqualified. plus, she is potentially compromised and could be and there are questions about whether or not she is a russian asset. >> do you believe she could be a russian asset? >> i think she is someone who is holy backing and supportive of vladimir putin and i don't think she will have america's best interests at heart. >> potentially compromised. question about whether or not she is a russian asset. that was a sitting u.s. senator, tammy duckworth, talking about donald trump's choice to be the next director of national intelligence, tulsi gabbard. former chairman of the house until committee with me. i know you said you wouldn't use that same language or

describe her in the same way but you said you had profound concerns one of the arguments i have heard made is the intelligence community is a big world. full of career servants. they can protect from someone like her at the top. what do you think about that argument? >> i don't think that is the case. first of all, i think she combines inexperience with bad judgment, which is not particularly the kind of combination you are looking for in the head of the intelligence agencies. and looking at inexperience, she has not even served on the intelligence committee in the house. she has no experience in the military with intelligence mattering. she is completely inexperienced in an area where the programs are deeply complicated. learning about them takes years. when you are a new member of the intelligence committee, it takes a couple years just to familiarize yourself with the

different systems and how the intelligence committee operates. very steep learning curve. she starts with no experience. but also, when you look at her judgment, defending russia's invasion of ukraine, echoing kremlin talking points, taking meetings and going all the way to syria to take a meeting with bashar al-assad, a murderous dictator who gases his own people, claiming that this is not someone who is an enemy of the united states, at a minimum, shows terrible judgment . and the problem is, our allies are not going to share intelligence with us if they don't trust the person running the intelligence agencies. i think back to the meeting which was well photographed of donald trump in the oval office with a russian ambassador and maybe the foreign minister. i cannot remember. both participants. and there was public reporting that he had shared with them

for intelligence that came from a foreign source. without saying whether that was accurate or inaccurate. that is the kind of thing that causes foreign intelligence agencies to dry up their intelligence and not share with us. they will share some things. but the fact that they won't share other things with us makes the american people less safe. and so, if our allies don't trust her or there are reasons they shouldn't, that is a real problem. >> this is such an important piece for people to understand about our allies and partners around the world not sharing intelligence. obviously won't get into any specifics. but broadly speaking, for protecting the american people, this could include things like threats against the united states, threats against foreign bases. what are the other types of things that our allies have that they share with us that we might not have access to? >> they can share information for example, that may come from a very well-placed human source or that comes from a technical

source. that intelligence may be really important to protecting us against a terrorist threat for example. more than that, if the intelligence is shared, either intentionally or unintentionally your negligence by the head of our agencies are the president of the united states, then they will cut us off. it will jeopardize that source and anything else that may have come from it. so that is a real problem. we just can't have someone that has poor judgment advising the president. this is the other job of the director of national intelligence. they oversee all the intelligence agencies. you have to manage competition between the agencies and priorities for the agencies but they also advise the president. you want that person giving the president advice, to have good judgment. the president-elect already has this very unhealthy, dangerous way. we don't need someone whispering in his ear that

vladimir putin is his friend or bashar al-assad is his friend. that too is a real concern. >> i know you said there are nominees like marco rubio you set are qualified for the role. i'm sure you will question them. is tulsi gabbard a person that you are clear you would vote no on or have you made that decision yet? >> the only person i was clear i was a no on if i had the chance to vote on was matt gaetz. i have had too much exposure to him in the house of representatives to think that he would be qualified for anything. the others, i will hear them out. i would hear tulsi gabbard -- tulsi gabbard out. i have outlined concerns about her and pam bondi. and there are great many other nominees that seem far less problematic that clearly have the experience and the other thing i would want to wait for with all of these nominees is trump is not vetting them. if he is, he is not vetting them and a traditional way. he is not having the professionals do the vetting.

is probably having people that them who tell him what he wants to hear. and so the senate is going to have to do the heavy lifting with the vetting and i want to make sure that is done before i make the final decision. >> do you think the senate committee should hold these nominees until there is an fbi background check? >> i think they need to either do the investigations themselves or get the bureau to do the investigations. this is for the benefit of the american people. it is also for the benefit of the president. we want someone serving the president who is not compromised by some illegal activity that they are engaged in or some other compromising behavior. and it is not something people tend to volunteer so you don't have the thorough process to bring that out. >> no question. there is a thorough process and place that democrats and republicans have used for decades. adam schiff, thank you so much. i cannot wait to see what committees you will be on and see who you will be questioning. coming up, there is some

dissent in the republican ranks on whether background checks for key cabinet picks are a good idea of. such is live in 2024. my panel of political experts are standing by to join the panel next. phew maybe now my friends will believe me. if this is what we did for one delivery, see what we can do for your business. fedex. your loved ones are getting older, and they need your support. care.com is here to help. it's an easy way to find background-checked senior caregivers in your area. and some piece of mind. see why millions of families have trusted care. go to care.com now i told myself i was ok with my moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis symptoms... ...with my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. but just ok isn't ok. and i was done settling. if you still have symptoms after trying a

tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq works differently. rinvoq is a once-daily pill that can rapidly relieve joint pain, stiffness, and swelling as fast as 2 weeks for some. and even at the 3-year mark, many people felt this relief. rinvoq can stop joint damage. and in psa, can leave skin clear or almost clear. rinvoq can lower ability to fight infections. before treatment, test for tb and do bloodwork. serious infections, blood clots, some fatal; ...cancers, including lymphoma and skin; serious allergic reactions; gi tears; death; heart attack; and stroke occurred. cv event risk increases in age 50 plus with a heart disease risk factor. tell your doctor if you've had these events, infection, hep b or c, smoked, are pregnant or planning. don't take if allergic or have an infection. done settling? ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq. and take back what's yours. (♪♪)

when life spells heartburn... how do you spell relief? r-o-l-a-i-d-s rolaids' dual-active formula begins to neutralize acid on contact. r-o-l-a-i-d-s spells relief. —i have to find a babysitter. —i have a lot of questions. —when can they start? —today? now? —how about saturday? —are they background-checked? my wife and i haven't been out in a year. we need a date night! no offense. find all the care you need at care.com

as of now, donald trump's picks could be considered for confirmation without going through fbi background checks, may be. something that has been a standard since the eisenhower administration. that is raising concerns even among republican senators. senator susan collins who sits on the intelligence committee said the fbi should do the

background checks. in my judgment, kevin kramer of north dakota, a member of the armed services committee said if you want to supplement it with a private firm, i would say okay but the fbi does have access to information that probably a private firm would not have or even a good savvy one. very true. senator lisa murkowski of alaska said it is imis importan do background checks and the fbi has done

risk? >> i would say two names come up the most. that would be tulsi gabbard who was nominated for director of national intelligence and pete hegseth for the pentagon department. with tulsi gabbard, what i heard a lot from republicans is had she been nominated for cia director, that would have been a red blind. and morbid consideration that is a lesser role but there are a lot of concerns about the fact that she at one time visited secretly with the president of syria on this secret trip. she has parroted these talking points that have been russian propaganda. the list goes on. she was on tsa watch list at

one point. so there are a lot of concerns behind the scenes from republicans and then pete hegseth of course, sexual assault allegations as well as concerns about his qualification. what i will say is the natural sort of position, the default position of republicans his deference to trump. they do think he has a mandate. they don't want to get in his way or put targets on their back and open themselves up to primary threats. but they don't want to come out of the gate and say they are publicly against him but the strategy is behind-the-scenes and the concerns. and the background check is important because they want to know everything before they make these critical decisions. >> i'm a little concerned people you are talking to don't understand the flow of the chain of command and the intelligence committee but that is a separate issue for another day. background checks. let me ask you this. one of the things i heard from people on the hill is fbi background checks, one thing that can happen in committee hearings is democrats could say, we are going to hold these nominees if we get a republican

or two, until there is an fbi background check. do you think that could happen with some of these nominees melanie mentioned? >> i don't doubt there are a lot of them that want to give deference to the president. all you need is one or two and a committee to stop the entire process. i think it is important to appreciate that it is very early. donald trump filled up his cabinet very early and we will still learn a lot about these people. it doesn't take but -- susan collins and mitch mcconnell and all you need is one more to stop these people. and mitch mcconnell could be counted in these circumstances. it might be a situation of, you don't want to ask questions you don't want the answer to. some people might have a background check that you don't want to confront. that is why some people like haggerty who will probably vote for anyone under any circumstance and doesn't want to know what he is voting for. but these people take themselves very seriously in the senate and i think they will want to go through the process. >> one thing that has been interesting to me is that yes, what happens is they fill out these extensive questionnaires and they go to the committee. the committee leaks information from the background checks.

it is not happening now. but reporters and the media, free press right now, are doing the reporting and all the stuff is putting senators in an awkward spot. it feels to me like it is putting the free press in a positive light in terms of their role. but what else you think could happen here? >> here's the thing. when you are up against someone like bill haggerty who clearly knows better and is high up in the romney campaign of 2012, this is someone who, like many republicans, contorted himself to be a made man within the maga -- world and has reaped great political benefit. to blow all of this off and say he had a mandate and why are we talking about this, you can debate the mandate piece of this which many people have and should. but that is not how this works. to what brennan said, it is just a few senators. and the bullet points, whether there is an fbi check or new

reporting on this, the bullet points of pete hegseth and rfk jr. and tulsi gabbard and matt gaetz and then pam bondi, you basically know a lot and i think at some point, you do have an opening for some kind of collective action of senators locking arms and saying, this is unacceptable. but again, that is predicated on senators, republican senators acting in a way they never have before. >> to your point, they are willing to do that but not for every nominee. i think they will use the capital wisely. they did take matt gaetz nomination. how many more are they willing to stand up for? >> who else is on the list beyond the two you mentioned? >> interestingly, rfk does come up. he has said some very true things when it comes to vaccines. their questions about abortion rights for republicans.

and then a former congresswoman who just lost reelection who was appointed to lead the labor department. she has been very prounion and supported a bill that republicans don't like that would strengthen collective bargaining. that has been something that haea -- >> did she get democratic votes? >> absolutely. there is a wing within the party, a growing wing that has been more populist and more prolabor and i think it is a nod to that. and when it comes to policies, trump is all over the place. this is clearly a nod to that and she had the teamsters backing as well. >> that was an interesting choice if nothing else. what you think in terms of the people who are still on the senators, may be a hot behind- the-scenes demanding background checks or whatever? >> i look at it to the national security lines. those of the obvious picks that will get a lot of scrutiny. i go back to mitch mcconnell. he chairs the subcommittee on appropriations for defense. he has the purse strings over the dod. he cares a lot about these

issues. i think you will have a very serious problem. yes, because of the personal issues. >> more than tulsi gabbard? >> probably both but equally. but i know the dod is important to him and he will be focused on that and it may come down to that he doesn't think the person is qualified. forget all the other personal stuff in the substantive issues on national security will be supreme for mitch mcconnell. >> you have written extensively about republicans being quite quiet when they could be louder to summarize your reporting. do you think that matt gaetz no longer being the nominee or whatever mitch mcconnell may or may not be doing behind the scenes, i have heard that point, do you think that is a sign of anything or to serve their interest or how should we read into it? >> i think matt gaetz made it easy for senators, quietly, off the record, to have reservations and it got back to trump that he didn't have the votes. i more skeptical on mitch mcconnell being against maga abuse here. i think you talked about this. the two names you hear about

are murkowski, collins, mcconnell may be. thom tillis and cassidy may be. there are other senators that we could potentially get here. we are not talking a lot. the default is that they won't do anything. and it is unfortunate. it is also pivotal because republicans in the senate are the real check and balance we are talking about here. it is conceivably the least checked balanced presidency, especially right out of the gate, as we have seen in a long time. >> i do think there should be a high bar for rejecting a president's nominee. there should be some deference to the president getting his team. nominating people that meet the high bar. so they will have some of those. john curtis from utah is another person to keep an eye on. >> it depends today nominate. we have to wrap this up. thank you so much. we appreciate you joining us. donald trump's transition is running on secret money.

so you could fork over cash. what could go wrong? i will tell you about that brand-new reporting coming up next. o ents for practical parents. cute and cuddly creations for kids and other fetching finds made to make the holidays for any hard to shop for person on your list. when you want up to 60% off gifts that say i get you, etsy has it. [clears throat] sounds like you need to vaporize that sore throat. vapocool drops? it's sore throat relief with a rush of vicks vapors. ♪ vapocooooool ♪ whoa.

vaporize sore throat pain with vicks vapocool drops. for more than a decade farxiga has been trusted again and again, and again. ♪far-xi-ga♪ ♪far-xi-ga♪ ask your doctor about farxiga. no matter what kind of teeth you gotta brush, oral-b electric cleans better with one simple touch. oral-b's dentist inspired round brush head hugs em, cleans em, and gets in between em, for 100% cleaner teeth.

your perfect clean starts with oral-b. when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... ...being me. keep being you... ...and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people—whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. don't take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding or have kidney or liver problems. if you have hepatitis b, don't stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today.

we all need fiber for our digestive health, but less than 10% of us get enough each day. good thing metamucil gummies are an easy way to get prebiotic, plant-based fiber. with the same amount of fiber as 2 cups of broccoli. metamucil gummies. the easy way to get your daily fiber.

it seems donald trump has found a new way to use the presidency to group some cash, as one does. use the incoming presidents are allowed to solicit funds for transition to office. normally for an coming and penetrations of either party, we are talking about a lot of small dollar donations from supporters with a cap on how much people can give.

crucially, the names of the donors are made public. in exchange for following those basic rules, the president- elect gets millions of dollars in federal funds toward the transition efforts. donald trump is ignoring those rules and apparently rejecting those funds which may sound strange on the surface. who rejects free money for the presidential transition? but the near times explained it all in more detail writing, "by money from unknown donors to pay for the staff, travel and office space involved in preparing to take over the government. here's the kicker. those seeking to create favor with an incoming administration now have the opportunity to donate directly to the winning candidate without their names or potential conflicts ever entering the public space. and unlike with campaign contributions, foreign nationals are allowed to donate to the transition. so yes, for the first time in history, foreign nationals can pay tribute directly to the president-elect and his team without anyone ever knowing about it. and there are a lot of potential takers.

after all, we already know how cozy he is with governments and how transactional he thinks those relationships are. take russia for example, trump's close relationship with vladimir putin has been well documented over the last decade dating back to 2013 when trump, then a reality show host, wrote a personal letter to vladimir putin practically begging the russian leader to attend is ms. universe pageant in moscow. vladimir putin did not show but reported he sent trump a gift and earned a glowing endorsement from the future president. >> do you have a relationship with vladimir putin, a conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government? >> i do have a relationship. and i can tell you that he is very interested in what we're doing doing here today. is probably very interested in what you and i are saying today and will be seeing it in some form. i do have a relationship with him. and i think it is very interesting to see what has

happened. look, he has done a brilliant job in terms of what he represents and who he is representing. >> of course, we all saw how trump's flattery of putin paid massive dividends later on. and not just russia. democrats in the house oversight committee have been demanding answers over allegations that, as they put it, the trump doj covered up a 10 million-dollar cash bribe to donald trump from the egyptian president in 2017. we do know for a fact that trump's son-in-law, jared kushner, got a 2 billion-dollar investment from a fund run by the saudi prince just six months after leaving office. according to the senate finance committee, jared kushner's from offered no return on the investment. it is almost as if the saudi and government is anticipating a return of something financial in nature. all of this is happening in plain sight. drawing from actual receipts and records. and using the most conservative

accounting possible. earlier this year, the house oversight committee assessed that while he was president, trump received at least seven deck $8 million in payments from foreign countries. china, india, kosovo. this is from hotels and properties around the world. actual dollar value could be much higher. and now, the floodgates are open again. so donald trump is still a private citizen but the graft has already begun. we will be right back! with liberty mutual. customize and sa— (balloon doug pops & deflates) and then i wake up. and you have this dream every night? yeah, every night! hmm... i see. (limu squawks) only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ if you're living with hiv, imagine being good to go without daily hiv pills. ♪if you're living with hiv, good to go binge-watch. ♪♪ good to go out even later.

♪♪ with cabenuva, there's no pausing for daily hiv pills. for adults who are undetectable, cabenuva is the only complete, long-acting hiv treatment you can get every other month. it's two injections from a healthcare provider, as few as 6 times a year. don't take cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients, or taking certain medicines, that may interact. serious side effects include allergic reactions or rash, post-injection reactions, liver problems, and depression. if these occur, get medical away. tell your doctor about your medicines or supplements, medical conditions, liver or kidney problems, mental health, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. the most common side effect is injection site reaction ♪♪ with cabenuva, you're good to go. without daily hiv pills. talk to your doctor about switching. your best defense against erosion and cavities is strong enamel. nothing beats it. i recommend pronamel active shield because it actively shields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a game changer for my patients.

it really works. sometimes jonah wrestles with falling asleep... ...so he takes zzzquil. the world's #1 sleep aid brand. and wakes up feeling like himself. get the rest to be your best with non-habit forming zzzquil. ♪ ♪ 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.

(♪♪) when life spells heartburn... how do you spell relief? r-o-l-a-i-d-s rolaids' dual-active formula begins to neutralize acid on contact. r-o-l-a-i-d-s spells relief.

of all the trump cabinet picks, pete hegseth might have the most explaining to do. there are of course growing concerns for good reason woman according to a police report alleged that he assaulted her in a hotel room in 2017. beyond those allegations which pete hegseth denies, there are real concerns and there should be real questions about what kind of ideology would bring to

overseeing the big massive department of defense. pete hegseth has said in his 2020 book, american crusade, that he lays out the strategy that we must employ in order to defeat america's internal enemies. he said american leftists insist on pursuing the very same policies that led to the cultural invasion in europe. that is a direct quote. he said, hole "our american crusade is not about literal swords and our fight is not with guns yet." the emphasis by the way is his and his own book. he also has attacked the united nations, nato and argued the u.s. should ignore the geneva conventions and laws governing our conduct in war. pete hegseth said, what if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? would not not be insensitive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? al-qaida, if you consider, we might spare life. if you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs. all that i read is a sample from his book and his worldview for joining me now is

congressman pat ryan who is a veteran that served two combat tours in iraq and is the ranking member of the house armed services committee. it is great to see you. thank you for your service. i wanted to highlight some of the pieces of his worldview there because for good reason, we talked about this on the show yesterday. there is a lot of focus on the nda and the alleged rape allegations. but he will oversee the department of defense. tell me. you are on armed services committee and have served yourself, what concerns do you have? >> he should pull himself out of consideration right now. i have been saying that from the beginning. you talked about the allegations in terms of sexual assault. you talked about some of the and credibly disturbing things he has said in public. people need to understand one of the few actual places of experience he has had is a coke brothers that nonprofit that tried to privatize and essentially blow up the va which takes care of myself and my fellow veterans.

he is just not a serious pick at a very serious time for our country and i'm hopeful, now that we saw a little bit of backbone from some republican senators, now let's hope that that is a precedent. >> there are so many questions to ask. there has not been an fbi background check i should note. you reference to this but you said if he had any integrity for the good of our troops, he would withdraw. you served and he served. you referenced, the good of our troops." what concerns do you have specifically for the servicemen and women out there that he would oversee? there are, around the world, tens of thousands representing our country. >> the secretary of defense holds the lives of our most precious resource, our young men and women, in their hands, quite literally almost. someone who is so potentially harmful and dangerous clearly does not understand the oath we

take to support and defend the constitution. not a person, individual or anything else. and and particularly, his total blatant insult to women. whether that is senator tammy duckworth who has so powerfully said, if i did lose my legs in combat, where did i lose my legs? many i served with including women who gave their lives because they love this country, we deserve, our troops deserve so much better than that. >> you have been an incredibly thoughtful as people can see from what you just said come on to speak and connect with your constituents come which i think the democratic party has lost to the way on. not everybody but i think that is one of the fair outtakes from the election. when you touch your constituents and i don't know if you do, but if they ask you about it, the concerns you have about a nominee like pete hegseth, what do you tell them? >> first to start with listening. i think we have to get back

into the listening business. when you look at folks who did well and outperformed the national trends, there are many common patterns. one of which, centering the idea of service and certain leadership with starting with listening. i'm talking with veterans and i want to hear from them first. we have to push back strategically from a place that i would argue, patriotism. reminding them that it is not about an individual or t out it ideology. but this is about a serious secretary of defense for troops in a seriously dangerous world and that is not home. there are plenty of other candidates who a might not agree with ideologically or politically but at least would be up to the qualifications and the expertise to lead the department. >> we have about a minute left. everyone is preparing for thanksgiving. you won the district twice talking to people you disagree with. do you have any advice for people out there. we are going to thanksgiving tables with people who might have voted for donald trump.

>> that is a great question. i think i go back to the clichi of listen and then, we really work to find common ground, another clichi. but really hard to do and have to be deliberate. let's talk about sports. i'm a new york sports fan. it has been a great and heartbreaking year for us. that is what we will talk about it ung boys that are almost three and five. if we center them and just get back to some humanity, i think that is what we need to do. >> at the end of a football game, people shake hands usually. it is a little different from politics. great to see you. thank you for joining. i hope you come back and we can talk more about the future of the democratic party and how people listen and i know it is on the minds of so many. i appreciate you joining me. we will be right back. i have one more thing to tell you!

[clears throat] sounds like you need to vaporize that sore throat. vapocool drops? it's sore throat relief with a rush of vicks vapors. ♪ vapocooooool ♪ whoa. vaporize sore throat pain with vicks vapocool drops. right now across the u.s., people are trying to ban books from public schools and public libraries. yes, libraries. we all have a first amendment right to read and learn different viewpoints. that's why every book belongs on the shelf. yet book banning in the u.s. is worse than i've ever seen. it's people in power who want to control everything. well, i say no to censorship.

and i say yes to freedom of speech and expression. if you do too, please join us in supporting the american civil liberties union today. for over 100 years, the aclu has fought for your rights and mine. including the right to read all manner of books. so please call or go online to myaclu.org. for just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. you can become a guardian of liberty and help protect all the rights promised to us by the u.s. constitution. make no mistake, this move to ban books is a coordinated attack on students right to learn. this is a clear violation of free speech. that's why the aclu is working to fight against censorship in all its forms. it is so important now more than ever. o to myaclu.org and become an aclu guardian of liberty,

for just $19 a month. use your credit card and you'll get this special we the people t-shirt and more to show you're helping to protect the rights of all people. the aclu is in all 50 states, d.c. and puerto rico defending our first amendment right of free speech and all of your constitutional rights. because we the people, means all of us. so please, call or, go online to myaclu.org today.

insurance. 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. okay. that's it for me. i hope everyone has a happy thanksgiving and let me say how thankful i am today an every day for the people who help put the show on. and also thankful i am for you, all of you sitting at home for letting us come into your homes each week. hope you have a wonderful holiday. the "rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> a nice way to end the show. i feel thankful for you as a could league and thankful