her colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. okay. so, today, special counsel jack smith attached judge chutkan to dismiss the federal election interference case against donald trump here's what jack smith wrote in his filing. hero, quote, the government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed but the circumstances have. the justice department position as a constitution requires the 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 ran out the clock before winning the election. for all of you out there who have been following these cases close solely, as we all have been, might feel kind of jolting in this moment. especially to those of you who thought there would be accountability. real accountability. we know there are aspects i could've played out differently. i was thinking about this and i wanted to take a step back and walk through how we got here. i was reminded of this myself. especially when it comes to the sobering dismissal the case centered around january 6. you may not remember this detail from the day, and i don't even remember it until today, but early in the afternoon of january 6, 2021, news broke that then president elect joe biden would nominate merrick garland to serve as attorney general. a bodden official told nbc news that the justice department

nominees affirmed biden's commitment to restoring independence and integrity to the justice department. a very important message at the time and anytime. i happen to know that biden picked garland in part because he wanted somebody who was apolitical, above the fray. someone who would do things by the book. that all sounded great, at least on paper. on that same day, a couple of hours later, rioters would breach the barriers leading to the u.s. capitol. the culmination of a months long attempt by trump to steal the 2020 election. in the aftermath of that 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 insurrection, but by the time the senate trial was underway, only a month later, republicans got cold feet. i think we know how that ended. during that senate trial, just before trump was acquitted, trump's lawyer, his lawyer, 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 for the president of the united states can run rampant in the end of his term and go away scott free. the department of justice does know what to do with such people. >> a version of that was mcconnell's argument reportedly to republican senators trying to convince and convinced to vote against impeachment. that was trump's attorney inviting prosecutors to indict his own client. it was and remains a stunning thing to hear. it seemed a sure bet that the doj would hold trump accountable. is "the washington post" later reported, within a year would pass before prosecutors and fbi agents jointly embarked on a former a probe to steal the election. as we know, the investigation s it's not unusual for prosecutors to start at the bottom and work their way up.

in this case, the clock was ticking. in the meantime, the bipartisan house select committee on january 6 was taking matters into their own hands and they collected data, announce subpoenas, interviewed witnesses, and held major prime time hearings. all focusing on trump, the top. and those in his or her. as "the new york times" put it at the time, they dialed up the pressure on garland to move more aggressively. kind of seemed to work. is "the washington post" reported at the time, accounts of the committee's discovery fueled public criticism that the justice department appeared to be lagging. so, there was growing pressure on the department, then, trump announced his candidacy for president. prompting the appointment of jack smith as special counsel. smith notably vowed that the pace of the investigations will not pause or flag under my watch, and, he delivered on it.

within a year he brought an indictment against trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. that was in august 2023. more than a full calendar year before the 2024 election. we now know that didn't leave smith enough time to complete his job. thanks in large part two, the supreme court. in october of 2023, trump's team filed a motion to dismiss the case which kicked off a months long back and forth battle in the courts, totally unnecessary. i could have decide -- decided it sooner and it delayed the trial and it culminated in the supreme court's decision to grant trump presidential immunity. that set a dangerous precedent right president access above the law in a round like a king than a commander-in-chief, but it also almost guaranteed a trial would not be able to take place before the election and as we know, didn't. trump won the election and he's the president elect. he has shed the criminal cases for the most part that dogged him for years. after this news today, in all

likelihood he will be more embolden even more certain he can avoid accountability with the goal of appointing a number of people to leave the justice department who are loyal to him. as we are digesting this, it was a winding road between january 6 2021, and today. so many things could've gone differently and come to a different outcome and for those who follow the norms and respected the traditions and color inside all the lines, kind of begs the question. is that how things should happen moving forward? is that the best way to operate when you're dealing with a president elect and a political movement that does pretty much the opposite of. i'm not quite sure how to answer all those questions but i have the perfect person to ask who's sitting here with me. joining me senator elect adam schiff of california. a member the house select committee that investigated january 6. this was big news, not unexpected necessarily, today. you are here test -- yesterday

and you were asked what he thought should happen with these cases. you said they should not 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. the alternative would've been to postpone further proceedings 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 it's a serious distinction because the status quo now is no charges against the president. you would have to upset that status quo to later bring charges again as opposed to merely postponing the proceedings in which case the presumption is to continue when he leaves office. jack smith relied on the opinion of lawyers within the department who said they thought it was required by the constitution to dismiss the case. it is not required by the constitution. there's nothing that would

interfere with his performance of the office whether the case is dismissed without prejudice or merely postponed. i think it's a serious mistake by the department. it compounds the mistake you alluded to which is they waited a year before they even brought the case forward began the investigation. you have the supreme court with this immunity decision a potential nominee in pam bondi who is saying 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 -- you have a different interpretation the with the department of justin's advised jack smith and his team to do. one of the arguments he also has been making according to reporters is trump's team would

have come in and fully dismissed it out right anyway. this allows him to frame it in the facts of the case have not change. do you agree with that or that's not a good enough -- >> i don't agree with it. trump's appointees would move to dismiss the case, but the court would make the decision as to whether it should be dismissed or should be postponed. there's another principle of the law this is you don't get to be your own judge and jury. if donald trump can appoint a prosecutor to be as judge and jury and order him to dismiss the case, that runs afoul of the principal. even if he were successful in a court and grant that motion, then that is on donald trump. it's not on the department. i think that is significant. i think this compounds the mistake the department made by delaying so long before initiating the investigation of those who were higher up like donald trump. it sets a terrible precedent

that essentially, the president of the united states is a get out of jail free card. that's not what the office is for. >> one of the things that could've happened and i was working in the biden administration at the time but not for the department of justice as it could've been a special prosecutor appointed on the first day. >> yes. >> with that i made a difference? >> i think of jack smith had been appointed the first day it with have made a difference. he moved with expedition. the department that didn't move quickly except for the foot soldiers, it moved rapidly with those who broke into the capitol , police officers were beaten but waited a long time and may have waited indefinitely if the january 6 committee had not brought all the evidence before the american people. it should not take congress to do that. they should've done that on the rum. >> you reference the thing that could've been done differently in the past.

looking forward, we are not guaranteed there will not be -- trump will be president but there will be another figure who tries to test the system in this way. you are a senator elect and you don't know what committees you will be on, but you wish the senate or congress would do to better protect and prevent this type of activity from happening in the future. >> there's a number of things. we put a package together called protecting our democracy it would got through the house but we weren't able to get through the senate. it won't get through this republican house and senate. we won't be able to reestablish those guardrails. white we are going to depend on is whether republican senators in particular will demonstrate the willingness to uphold the checks and balances in our system. give meaning to that advise and consent process. hold the administration accountable. the track record is not particularly encouraging if you

look at the first four years of donald trump. the rejection of mccabe's gives us room for hope. -- matt gaetz. they may come to an agreement that we need certain guardrails or we will head too far in the direction of autocracy. >> pam bondi is who trump nominated to replace matt gaetz who was the nominee for eight days. there are still questions that should be asked about her. you said something similar. what should people take into, she's an election denier, what more would you like to know about her background? payment >> 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. that they were ballots mailed to dead people and there was ballot dumping and all the rest of it. is she going to maintain that

falsehood, that big lie, and is she willing to do that under oath? if she is willing to disassemble under oath, that is, and you want to and attorney general. her threats to prosecute the prosecutors. let's remember that evidence was provided to a grand jury and they found that donald trump committed multiple crimes. even the republicans who use this refrain of deep state and weaponize in the justice department, they don't really deny the facts. they don't deny that trump had boxes and boxes of documents in mar-a-lago and many were the in they don't deny he incited a violent attack on the capitol. they don't deny any of those things but the parent his deep state talking points. is she going to deny those things? she going to go after people in the justice apartment brought these investigations?

those are questions i'm going to want to ask, and the question she will have to answer. >> we will talk about this and you were the former chair of the house intel committee and i want to talk about some of those nominees. those nominees.

i don't know of any intelligence work she has done. she is, in terms of the intelligence committee, very unqualified. she is potentially compromised and could be and is there questions about whether she is a russian asset. >> you believe she could be a russian is it? >> i think she's someone who was holy backing and support of a putin and i worry she won't have america's best interest at heart. >> potentially compromise, questions of whether or not she is a russian asset. that was a sitting u.s. senator talk about trump's choice to be the next, countries next director of national intelligence tulsi gabbard.

adam schiff is back with me, the former chairman of the house intel committee and you said you wouldn't use that same language to describe her in the same way but you said you have profound concerns. one of the arguments have heard made is the intelligence community is a big world. it's full of career servants. they can protect from someone like her at the top. what do you think of that? >> no, don't think that is the case. first of all, think she combines inexperience with bad judgment which is not particularly the kind of combination you're looking for in the head of the intelligence agencies. looking at inexperience, she hasn't even served in the intelligence committee in the house and she has no experience in the military with intelligence matters. she is completely inexperienced in an area the programs are deeply complicated. learning about them takes years. when you are a new member, it will take a couple of years

just to familiarize herself with the different systems, with how the intelligence committee operates. it's a steep learning curve. she starts with no experience but also when you look at her judgment, defending russia's invasion of ukraine, reckoning criminal talking points, taking meetings going all the way to syria to take a meeting with a murderous dictator who gases his own people claiming it's not someone who's an enemy of the united states. at a minimum, shows terrible judgment. 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 that meeting which was well photographed of donald trump in the oval office with the russian ambassador and

maybe a foreign minister, i can't remember both participants, and there was public reporting that he had shared with him intelligence that came from a foreign source without saying whether it was accurate or inaccurate. that's the kind of thing that causes foreign intelligence agencies to dry up their intelligence and not share it with us. they will share some things but the fact they won't share their things with us makes the american people less safe. if our allies don't trust her, if there's reasons they should not, that's a real problem. >> it's such an important piece for people to understand about our allies and partners around the world not sharing intelligence. you're not going to get into specifics, but broadly speaking in terms of protecting the american people, this could include things like threats against the united states, threats against our foreign basis. what are the types of things our allies have that they shared that we might not have access to? >> they could share information

that may come from a well- placed human source comes from a well-placed technical source. that intelligence may be really important to protecting us against a terrorist threat for example. more than that, if that intelligence is shared either intentionally or unintentionally through negligence by the head of our agencies are by the president of the united states, and they will cut us off. it will jeopardize that source and everything that may have come from that source. that's a real problem. we can't have someone that has poor judgment, advising the president. it's the other job with the director of national intelligence. they oversee all the intelligence agencies and they have to manage competition between the agencies, priorities, but they advise the president. you want that person giving the resident advice to have good judgment. the president elect already has

this very unhealthy, dangerous predilection for foreign despots. we don't need someone is whispering in his ear that putin is his friend. that is a real concern. >> you have said there are some nominees like marco rubio who you feel are qualified but i'm sure you'll question them. is tulsi gabbard a person at this point you are clear you would vote no on or have you made that decision? >> the only one i was perfectly clear i would say -- vote no on was matt gaetz. i've had too much exposure to him in the house of representatives to think he would be qualified for anything. the others i want to hear them out. even tulsi gabbard. i have serious concerns outlined about her and about pam bondi, but as you say, there is a great many other nominees that seem far less problematic that clearly have the experience. the other thing i want to wait for with all these nominees is

trump is not feting them or if he is, he's not vetting them in a traditional way. he's not having the professionals to the vetting. he's probably having people that them who tells him what he wants to hear. the senate will have to do the heavy lifting with the vetting and i want to make sure that is done before i make a final decision. >> you think the senate committee should hold these nominees and others an fbi background check? >> they either need to do the investigations themselves or get the bureau to do the investigations. this is for the benefit of the american people, and it's for the benefit of the president. we want someone serving the president that's not compromised by some illegal activity they were engaged in or other compromising behavior. that's something people tend to -- not volunteer so you want to bring that out. >> there is a thorough process in place that democrats and republicans have used for

decades. thank you so much. i can't wait to see what committees you will be on. there's some dissent in the republican ranks whether fbi background checks for key cabinet picks are a good idea. my panel of experts is standing by joining the table next. able. a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.

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. as of now, trump's picks

for the most import jobs in our government could be considered for confirmation without going through fbi background checks. something that's been a standard since the eisenhower administration. that's raising concerns even among republican senators. susan collins who sits on the intelligence committee said the fbi should do the background checks. senator kramer of north dakota said if you want to supplement it with a private firm, i would say okay, but the fbi has access to information the probably a private firm what i have even a good savvy one. senator murkowski of alaska said it's important to do these checks and the fbi has done this for decades. hard to argue with any of that. some republicans seem to disagree. hears bill hagerty of tennessee. >> i don't think the american public cares who does a background checks. what they care about is to see the mandate devoted in delivered upon. >> i mean, the american public

manicure exactly but the detail of who does it but they care about the details. joining me, tonight is a former senior adviser to house speakers paul ryan and mark fayne are. a staff writer at the atlantic and a congressional reporter for punch bowl news. melanie, will start with you. of these nominees, who comes up the most when you talk to republican senators or their staffers as being the most at risk. >> there two names, tulsi gabbard nominated for the director of national intelligence and pete hegseth nominated to leave the pentagon department. with tulsi gabbard, would have heard from republicans is had she been nominated for cia director, that would've been a redline. they are willing to give her more consideration given it's a lesser role but there is a lot of concerns about the fact that she once visited secretly with the president of syria and this secret trip. she parroted talking points that have been russian propaganda. the list goes on. she was on the tsa watch list

at one point. there are concerns behind-the- scenes from republicans and pete hegseth, their sexual assault allegations and concerns about his qualifications. what i will say is the natural position that republicans, their default position, as difference to trump. they think he has a mandate. they don't want to get in his way and don't want to but targets on their back, opening themselves up to maga primary threat so they won't come out the gate and say the publicly against them so the strategy is back channeling concerns behind- the-scenes and that's why the background checks is an important piece. they want to know everything before they make these critical consists -- decisions. >> i'm concerned they don't understand the flow command in the intelligence issue. background checks. one of the things have heard from people on the hill is fbi background checks, in committee hearings in the process is democrats could say, we will hold these nominees if we get a republican or two until there's an fbi background check.

do you think that could happen with some of these nominees? >> i don't doubt there's a lot of want to get difference to the president but all you need is one or two to stop the entire process. it's important to appreciate it's very early. trump filled his cabinet very early and we will learn a lot about these people. it doesn't take, susan collins, lisa murkowski and mitch mcconnell. you just need one more to stop these people in mitch mcconnell could be counted in some of the circumstances. you don't want to ask questions you don't want the answers to. summit background checks you don't want to confront so some of these people like the tennessee senator he doesn't want to nobody's voting for. there may be enough, these people take themselves seriously in the senate and i think they will want to go through the process. >> normally, this what happens is they fill these questionnaires and they go to the committee and the committee

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

reporting on this, the bullet points of pete hegseth and rfk jr. and tulsi gabbard, matt gaetz before them, pam bondi. you know a lot. at some point, you do have an opening for some collective action of senators locking arm and saying it's unacceptable. again, that's predicated on senators, republican senators, acting like they never have. >> they are willing to do that but not for every nominee. i think they'll use their capitol wisely and they tanked matt gaetz nomination and how many more they willing to stand up? >> who else is on the list be on the two you mentioned? >> rfk is someone who does come up occasionally. he has said extreme things when it comes to vaccines. there's questions, at least for republicans, he supported abortion rights.

she's a congresswoman who just lost reelection and she was appointed to lead the labor department, but she has beendon would strengthen collective bargaining. that's been problematic for republicans but it's a nod to the idea -- >> democratic votes? >> absolutely. i think she could win democratic votes. there's been a nod to prolabor. trump is all over the place but this is clearly a nod to that and she had the teamsters backing as well. >> that was interesting. it's an interesting choice. what do you thinks in terms of the people who are on the senators behind the scenes working something with committees to demand background checks. >> those of the obvious choices picks that will get a lot of scrutiny. mitch mcconnell chairs the subcommittee on appropriations for defense. he has the purse brings over

dod. he cares a lot about these issues. i think he will have a serious problem with pete hegseth. >> tulsi gabbard? >> probably both equally but the dod is important to him and he will be focused on that and he may not think this person is qualified. forget the other personal stuff . i think the substantive issues and national security will reigns supreme for mitch mcconnell. >> you have written extensively of republicans being quiet when they could be louder. do you think matt gaetz no longer the nominee or whatever mitch mcconnell may or may not be doing behind-the-scenes, do you think that's a sign of anything? are to serve their interest or how should we read into it? >> matt gaetz made it easy for senators to quietly, mostly off the record, have reservations and get back to trump he did not have the votes. i more skeptical on mitch mcconnell being a bulwark against maga abuse. i think you talked about -- the two names you hear are

murkowski, collins, mcconnell maybe. cassidy maybe. there's some other senators you could potentially get here but were not talking a lot. the default is they are not going to do anything. it's unfortunate and it's pivotal because republicans in the senate are the only real check and balance we're talking about. it's conceivably the least checked and balanced presidency, especially right out of the gate as we've seen in a long time. >> there should be a high bar for rejecting a president's nominee. there should be some deference to the president gets his team but he's nominating people, john curtis from utah is another person to keep and eye on going in the mitt romney mold. >> they have to nominate people to high bars. thank you so much i appreciate you joining us. trump's transition is running on secret money which

means literally fork over cash and no one will ever know. what could possibly go wrong? g

if you're living with hiv, imagine being good to go without daily hiv pills. ♪♪ 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 w 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 help right 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. it seems that trump has already found a new way to use the presidency to craft some cash, as one does. incoming president allowed to solicit funds for their transition into office. normally for incoming administrations, were talking small dollar donations with a cap on how much they can get. the names of the phone --

donors are made public and exams for following those rules, the president elect gets millions of dollars in federal funds toward their transition efforts. trump is ignoring those rules and apparently rejecting the funds which may sound strange on the surface. rejects free money for their transition? "the new york times" explains it in more detail writing, quote, by dodging the agreement, trump can raise unlimited amounts of money from unknown donors to pay for those staff, travel, and of a space evolved and prepared to take over the government. here is the kicker. the secant to curry favor with the incoming administration have the opportunity to donate to the winning candidate without their names are potential conflicts ever entering the public space. unlike with campaign contributions, foreign nationals are left to donate to the transition. 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. there are a lot of potential takers.

we already know how cozy he is with foreign governments and how he thinks those relationships are. take putin's russia. trump's close relationship with putin has been well documented over the past decade dating back to 2013 when trump then a reality show host wrote a personal letter to putin practically begging him to attend his miss universe pageant. putin did not show but reportedly sent trump a gift and he earned a glowing endorsement for 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. i can tell you he's very interested in what we're doing here today. he's probably interested in what you and i are saying today. i do have a relationship with him. it's very interesting to see what has happened.

he has done a very brilliant job in terms of what he represents and who he is representing. >> of course, we saw how trump's flattery like that a putin paid massive dividends later on. it is not just russia. democrats, house oversight committee have aunts -- who the trump doj covered a $10 million cash bribe to donald trump from the egyptian president in 2017. never got to the bottom of that scandal. we do know for a fact that trump's son, jared kushner got a $2 billion investment from a fund run by the saudi crown prince six months after leaving office. according to the senate finance committee, the firm offered no return on that investment. it's almost as if the saudi's are expecting something other than financial in nature. drawing from receipts and records. using the most conservative accounting possible.

this year, the house oversight committee assessed that while president, trump received at least $7.8 million in payments from foreign countries. china, india, albania, his hotels and properties around the world. the actual dollar value could be much much higher. now, the floodgates are open once again. donald trump is still a private citizen but the grift has already begun. already begun. everyone customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. customize and sa— (balloon doug pops & deflates) and then i wake up. and you have this dream every night? yeah, every night! hmm... i see. (limu squawks) only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life

insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

of how the trump cabinet picks, pete has set might of the most explaining. there are growing concerns for good reason about is payment to a woman who according to a police report alleged that he raped her. beyond the's allegations which he denies, there are real concerns, and there should be questions, but what ideology he

would bring to overseeing the big massive department of defense. he has said in his 2020 book, american crusade, he lays out the strategy we must employ in order to defeat the internal enemies. he said american leftists insist on pursuing the same policies that led to the cultural invasion in europe. he said that, quote, our american crusade is not about literal swords and our fight is not with guns. yet. that emphasis, by the way, is his. hegseth attacked the u.n. and nato and argued the u.s. should ignore the geneva conventions and laws governing the conduct in war. he once wrote, would've retreated the enemy the way they treated us? with that not be incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? al qaeda, if you surrender, we may spare your life. if not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs. all of that is a sample from

his book and his worldview. joining me as pat ryan, a veteran or surf two combat tours in iraq and the ranking member the house armed services committee. is great to see you and thank you for your service. i wanted to highlight some of the pieces of his worldview for good reason we talked about this yesterday, there's focus on the nda and the alleged allegations of people should s but he will oversee the department of defense. you're on the armed services committee and you serve yourself, what concerns you have about his worldview? >> he should pull himself out of consideration right now. i've been saying that from the beginning. you talked about the allegations in terms of sexual assault. you talk to the disturbing things he is written in public, not trying to hide them. people need to understand that one of the few, actual places of experience he has had is a koch brothers backed nonprofit that tried to privatize and essentially blow up the va

which takes care of myself and my fellow veterans. he's not a serious. at a serious time for our country. i am hopeful that with a little backbone and an matt gaetz on senators, let's hope that a president. there's so many questions asked. there's not been an fbi background check. you referenced this but you said if he had integrity for the good of our troops he would withdraw. you cert, he served. you referenced the good of our troops. what concerns do you have for the servicemen and women out there who he would oversee. they are around the world, tens of thousands representing our country. >> the secretary of defense holds the lives of our most precious resource, the young men and women, in his hands. someone who's unserious and potentially harmful and dangerous clearly does not understand the oath we take to

support and defend the constitution, not a person or individual or anything else. particularly, his total blatant insult to women whether that's senator tammy duckworth who said, if i did not lose my legs in combat, where did i lose my legs? many are 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 incredibly thoughtful as people can see from what you just said, on how to speak with your constituents, which is something -- the democratic party has lost the way on i think it's safe to say. not everybody but i think it's an outtake from the election. when you talk to your constituents about, and i don't know if they ask, the concert you have about a nominee like pete hegseth. what do you tell them? >> i start with listening.

we've got to get back to listening. when you look at folks who did well and outperformed some of the national trends, there are many common patterns one of which is centering the idea of service and leadership which starts with listening. especially if i'm talking to veterans, want to hear from them first. we have to push back strategically from a place on patriotism. reminding them is not about an individual or ideology are the -- it's about a serious secretary of defense for troops in a seriously dangerous world and that is not him. and there are plenty of other candidates who could come forward who i might not agree with politically, but would at least be up to the qualifications and the expertise to lead the department. >> everybody is preparing for thanksgiving. you won the district twice by talking with people you disagree with. do you have advice for people going to thanksgiving tables whom i devoted for donald

trump? >> that's a great question. i go back to the clichi of listening. we really work to find common ground but it's hard to do and has to be deliberate. let's talk about some sports. i'm a new york sports fans so it's been great and a little heartbreaking year for us. i am a dad. i have two young boys that are three and five and if we center them and get back to humanity, i think that's what we all have to do. >> at the end of a football game, people shake hands, usually. it's a little different and politics. it's great to see you. i hope you come back and we can talk about the future the democratic party and how people listen and talk to people with those they disagree with. we will be right back. i have one more thing to tell you. l you.

okay, that does it for me tonight. i hope everyone has a very happy thanksgiving. and let me just say how thankful i am today and every day for the people who help put this show on. it really does take a village, i promise you. let me also say how thankful i am for you, all of you sitting at home, for letting us come into your homes each week. thank you for that. i hope you have a wonderful holiday. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. hi, rachel. >> that was very nice, a nice way to end the show, jen.

that's sweet. i'm thankful for you as a colleague and thankful for you with these handovers on monday night. >> i invite you every year in case she wants some turkey and stuffing. >> we would be leaving a large swath of strays. >> they're invited too. >> we may show up in a caravan. thank you so much. thank you. have a great holiday. thank you for joining us this hour. really, really happy to have you here. all right, so it started out -- it started out as a bill about the rules for being a dentist. and said so explicitly in the title. a bill to be entitled an act making various changes to the laws of dentistry. before reading this bill today, i had never before even thought about there being laws of dentistry. but there are laws