the last thing before we go. giving tuesday starts right now. after days of shopping deals, tomorrow is about helping others. it's a global day of generosity and action. the opportunity to give your time or money to a worthy cause. for inspiration, check out giving tuesday.org where they list organizations i can use your help. if you need help, ask for it but if you can give help, please give it. on that note i wish you a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late. we will see you again tomorrow. i will see you at the end of tomorrow.

okay. as you probably know, president biden pardon hunter last night. if you recall the president saying repeatedly the last few months that he would not pardon his son for months he has been saying that, you would be correct. it was a commitment that was applauded, for good reason including by me. last night, joe biden reversed course on that commitment. if you are wondering whether that is good politics, if you're wondering if it's great for his legacy as someone who has stood for principle over personal needs, who even kept the guy on in delaware who was appointed by trump who would keep investigating his son? it's not good politics. hunter biden has done some stupid things. yes, hunter biden has done some illegal things.

he shouldn't have lied about his drug use when registering for a handgun. we knew about his recovering, his recovery for addiction. he should've paid his taxes in full and on time as everyone should. my bet is joe biden knows that too. he made the decision as a dad. by the way, his son is a private citizen. he's not a threat to national intelligence or law enforcement institutions. biden will be a private citizen in 50 days too. tonight, and moving forward, we will spend most of our time talking about the people who are and maybe. people like kash patel who trump tapped to lead the fbi. there are lots of problems with that choice. he is unqualified. he's a conspiracy theorist. that thing trump likes the most is the very thing that should be most disqualifying. that is his blind allegiance to one man. is the atlantic described it,

even in administration full of loyalist, patel was exceptional in his devotion to trump. to be clear, the reason that loyalty or that excessive loyalty is so concerning is the fbi is supposed to be an nonpartisan law enforcement agency, responsible for investigating crimes without bias or political influence. that's why they are tenured terms but kash patel made clear he intends to do the opposite of trump's behalf. >> we will go out of on the conspirators not justin government and the media. we will come after the people in the media who lied about american citizens and help joe biden break presidential elections. we will come after you. we are putting you on notice. >> kash patel is a bit of a deep state conspiracy theorist clearly with an asked to grant. and a bookie released, patel listed the people he says are part of the executive branch

deep state, and his words. people he called corrupt actors of the first order. the list included biden and obama officials of former members of the trump administration. including former white house counsel pat cipollone and mark meadows, cassidy hutchinson and fbi director christopher wray. the man who still has three more years in his term who patel is hoping to replace. think about that. that guy trump picked to lead the fbi talks repeatedly about going after the deep state. he literally has a list. that on its own should send a chill up the spine of every person who cares about the rule of law in this country. today we also learned a whole lot more about trump's pick for secretary of defense, fox news host pete hegseth. the new yorker released a jaw- dropping piece this morning about hegseth. i want to read a few paragraphs because it captures it. as i am reading it, hold in

your mind that the person i am talking about in being described in the pieces trump's choice to lead the department of defense. here we go. , quote, a previously undisclosed whistle blower report of his tenure as the president of concerned veterans for america from 2013 until 2016 describes as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity. the detailed seven-page report which was compiled by multiple former employees and sent to the senior management february 2015 states that, at one point, hegseth had to be restrained will drop from dawning dancers on the stage of a louisiana strip club where he had brought his team. the report said that hegseth who was married at the time and other members of his management team sexually pursued the female staffers with a divided into two groups.

the party girls and the not party girls. in addition the reporter asserts that under his leadership, the organization became a hostile workplace that ignored serious accusations of impropriety including allegation made by female employee that another employee on the staff had attempted to sexually assault her at the louisiana strip club. in a separate letter of complaint which was sent to the organization in late 2015, a different former employee described hegseth at a bar in the early morning hours of may 29, 2015, while an official tour through ohio drunkenly chanting, kill all muslims. kill all muslims. again, that is the guy that donald trump wants in the nuclear chain of command. wait, there's more in the story. according to the reporting, he wasn't exactly a star manager. is ahead of the nonprofit group veterans for freedom he racked up $430,000 in unpaid bills in addition to as much as $75,000 in credit card debt. as one strategist who worked at the time emphasized it was an

exceedingly small organization with fewer than 10 employees and a budget of between 5 million and $10 million. the strategist went on to say, quote, hegseth couldn't do it properly. i don't know how he will run an organization with an $857 billion budget and $3 million individuals. his next up leading the nonprofit concerned veterans for america did not go much better. in an email, one of the whistle blows it attributed to the report stated he treated the organization of funds like they were a personal expense account. partying, drinking, and using the events as little more than an opportunities to hook up with women on the road. so, set aside the 2017 rape allegation. set aside his alarming take on the geneva conventions, even set aside the stories of him being drunk and trying to get on stage with strippers.

what you're left with is a guy who couldn't even run a small nonprofit. look, i don't want to sit here every week and tell you everything is a five alarm fire. not everything will be and i won't tell you everything is. i have worked in the white house and the national security space for years. i know how important these jobs are. are not political jobs either. if kash patel and pete hegseth get confirmed or somehow find themselves in these jobs? five alarm fire might be an understatement. starting a suffered two people who have insight into the confirmation process. the importance of fbi background checks, a former council member to republicans on the senate judiciary committee and a former counsel to democrats on the senate judiciary committee during the time in those roles they oversaw hundreds of nominations. they wrote an joint op-ed about the importance of fbi background checks and the process and they both join me now.

i've been talking about the importance of background checks and i want to dive into it. i want to start by asking about the confirmation process. i read extensively from, and there's more, from a jane mayer publicly reported piece on pete hegseth. you are used to dealing with background checks. the information is not publicly available, a lot of it, what do you do if your the armed services committee with a report like that? >> well, that's generally the case that most background check processes are totally confidential and handled with discretion and very professionally. we had a great relationship doing this with hundreds of nominations. occasionally, there is public information out there on nominees. if you are the committee, the senators and staff on the committee, you have to take those allegations seriously as part of your review along with whatever is in the fbi file. it needs to be followed up. these are the allegations that,

if true, and substantiated, are of a kind that would doom an nomination in the ordinary course. >> one of the things that struck me is there has been expression of concerns about some nominees and as i noted, not everything is a five alarm fire. there are some who are but i thought democrats, a number of democrats have held back in stating their concern about some of these nominees. do you think that is because they think the process needs to be followed through a confirmation hearing? is that what needs to happen? are there nominees like matt gaetz who should be stopped before that? >> i think the general way things have happened in the past and even now it's a place of traditions of processes is you have a process. you wait to see what the fbi finds. the committee will often do the room follow-up investigation. senators will consider all of that. they will ask questions at a

hearing then they make a decision. that is the way it is supposed to go when one of the reasons for this fbi background process is so you can withdraw a nomination that never should go across the starting line because the problems are too large. ideally you wouldn't be in the situation. there are some nominees where there is so much publicly available, problematic information that it may be appropriate for senators to get ahead of this and say it doesn't seem like an appropriate nominee and it shouldn't come to a hearing. and we have process, let it take its course is one that has served the country pretty well. >> there's a lot of tests i think trump and his world to put on the system. you said recently that trump is deliberately testing the senate floor's willingness to play their constitutional role as a check on the president. he just announced his plans to nominate kash patel to run the

fbi. the current fbi director has three more years. tell me more of what you mean by that and is kash patel an example? >> i think the nomination process, the senate's role of advise and consent is a court checks and balances in our system, designed by the founders. they did not want a king. they were worried about the president's power to appoint people. he should be able to get a team that agrees with him and supports his policy agenda, but he should not be entitled to and the senate should not allow him to have unqualified cronies, his highest loyalties to him and not the law. that's what the founders designed this for. even before the president is in office, he is making some nominations, at least on the face of it, seem like there people who might prioritize loyalty to the president personally about their loyalty to the law and the constitution.

that is setting up an early test before he even takes office. the senate needs to ask, will it continue to perform its core constitutional roles? there will be other tests coming but this is the first one. >> who gives you the most concern? >> i have not seen the full background on anybody yet. i will say i am a lawyer and i am very worried about the rule of law and how law is applied. whether lawyers in this administration would further any schemes of retribution the president elect has talked about. i am looking hard at nominees to lead the justice department to leave the federal bureau of investigation. >> pam bondi and kash patel they would oversee both of those. let me ask you both. you have run these processes and you can interpret senate speak. senator thune said today at think the admin understands her

will have to be thorough vetting of these nominations. historically, the best place has been the fbi. they have other alternatives, obviously. how do you interpret that? >> the first part is right. there has to be a thorough vetting. there is a process that at this point has decades of experience where the fbi does this in a way that's objective, thorough, and consistent. the staff and senate understands how to interpret it and follow-up if there is further investigation that needs to be done. maybe there are other processes. i don't know what they are and i don't think senator thune necessarily knows what they are. >> they use outside firms is what i think they are referring to? >> anyone who is paid by, hired by the incoming administration to do something at their bidding is not necessarily going to use that objectivity, that thoroughness, and you cannot have confidence that

there will be a process where everybody knows how to get the information i want and can be confident in that information. >> senator wicker said i think there will be fbi background checks. that's pretty definitive. believes the chairman of the armed services committee and that's the hegseth committee. bring us into the how would that work? it's an area where democrats and republicans can agree on the rate -- break -- break acquirement. if we don't have an fbi an we won't let the nomination forward? >> when we worked in the committee we did move nominations forward until the fbi review was complete and in our hands to evaluate. let's be clear. it's not the fbi that's deciding whether or not somebody should be confirmed. it is the senate. we're talking other vetting process the president elect's team might engage the private contractors.

that's beside the point. the ultimate review is by the senate and what the fbi does and knows how to do is get the senate information. they give hundreds of pages on each nominee. the senate makes its judgment. the fbi, their processes worked in its current form for 40, 50 years in both republicans and democrats are familiar with it and relied on it and it's the appropriate way to go forward. >> people say there isn't hours agreement between democrats and republicans and you say fbi background checks are pivotal and important in these roles. thank you both for joining me. if kash patel makes it to a confirmation hearing, he will face a lot of tough questions, as we were talking about for members of the senate judiciary committee. senator alex padilla is standing by and joins me in 60 seconds. seconds. 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 ♪ the chairman of the senate

judiciary committee had what i think should be the most obvious stance on trumps selection of kash patel is the next fbi director. durbin said kash patel is an unqualified loyalist and should be rejected by the senate. he should be rejected. he doesn't need a confirmation hearing. we're talking about conspiracy theories. a guy whose goal is to go after trump's perceived enemies and a guy who was so troublesome that bill barr had enough sense not to want him near the agency during the first trump term. not sure what there's left to get to the bottom of but i'm all ears. joining miss alex padilla of california and a member the senate judiciary committee. lots of news this weekend and lots of important hearings, your committee is going to be overseeing. let me ask about kash patel. i read whatdurbin said. you said it raises questions you will raise during the confirmation hearing.

i guess my question is, what more do you need to know? are you reserving judgment to whether you will support kash patel? >> the fact he is a conspiracy theorist is just the beginning of this process. there is still time for donald trump and his team to come to a true sense just as they did with matt gaetz. it's equally offensive nomination. they insist on going forward and we will insist on the background checks. we will insist on a thorough and firm confirmation hearing. i know how i will vote. for someone who believes in conspiracy theories and then as a result of the 2020 election and will run the fbi by shutting down fbi headquarters? are you kidding me? that is just for starters. what should not be lost in this conversation is the role and test for senate republicans. how are they going to choose to handle these extremist nominations?

will they be loyal to their oath of office? loyal to the constitution? or loyal to donald trump? every time he says neal and they say how fast? >> sounds like you are a definitive no for kash patel. do you think there are republicans on the committee who would join you and other democrats in requiring background checks in order to move forward? >> i would like to think so from our conversations. behind closed doors, those who want to respect the process. i have seen a lot on national news of late, there is a lot he and i may not agree on in terms of policy, but the way he has approached the process is a little bit encouraging. he's not on the committee. and so, it will be a test for the members of the judiciary committee whether anybody appoints the fbi, the attorney general who oversees the

department of justice, or any other the positions within our jurisdiction. i should point out that the fact these are coming out after trump has announced nominees for a transition team to refuse to allow for fbi background checks as has been the norm, they are there for a reason. it tells you about what background they are doing or not doing whether matt gaetz or what we have learned since. what we learned from the secretary of defense nominee, hegseth, and what we will learn about kash patel or anybody else. that underscores the need for true, professional fbi background checks to inform republicans and democrats through this process. >> there is a purpose of why democrats and republicans have used them. pam bondi, you said she suggested that matt gates was an attempt to make pam bondi look normal which is a funny way of raising a. you pointed

to her refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election. it's another important nomination. have you made a decision on where you stand on that nomination? >> i am skeptical because what i pointed out when she was announced, for someone who denies the results of the 2020 election, someone who believed and touted there was massive amounts of voter fraud throughout the country, i was serving as california secretary of state at the time. challenged team trump to bring forward evidence i had. years and years later, not a single shred of evidence of massive voter fraud in america. the fact she served as one of trumps personal attorneys, first impeachment trial, does beg the question, is she going in to try to do the job of attorney general of the united states independent of the political leanings of the white house? or will she do trump's bidding the american people deserve to know.

>> a lot of questions about you will have. i started off talking about another big story and that's president biden pardoning his son. former attorney general eric holder posted, no u.s. attorney of charge the case given the underlying facts after he investigation the facts discovered only made that clear. had his name in joe smith, the resolution would've been more fairly declination. pardon warrant it. what do you think? >> i heard the announcement. a little surprised because of president biden telling for months and months he would not pardon his son. i'm not sure i would've made the decision he announced, but i want to -- that it's not taking our eyes off the ball. the reason we're talking pardons is what we can expect in a second trump administration, he's already signaled it. the january 6, the people who went through the judicial

system and were found guilty of many, many crimes committed at the nation's capitol. talk go well breaking away from norms. the peaceful transfer of power was interrupted for the first time in our history. that's why he's breaking away from so many norms whether it's background checks for cabinet appointments, his flirtation with recess appointments? we have to restore norms put in place to protect the interest of our country, to protect our democracy. >> senator, thank you for walking over from the senate tonight. you have such an important nominations and i hope you will talk about them again. some republican senators are making a similar kash patel will sail through his confirmation process. i have worked in politics long enough that what they say publicly isn't always the full story. ll story. 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.

how easy is it to play the lottery with jackpocket? step one grab your phone. step two download jackpocket and start ordering tickets for your favorite state lottery game. step three let the good times roll. jackpocket is so easy to use from home or on the go, and there have been over $500m in total prizes won. so now the easiest way to enjoy the lottery is right in your pocket. jackpocket. download america's number one lottery app today.

today, trump's picks for top jobs in the new administration continued to make the rounds on capitol hill. it's always what's happening every four years. pam bondi, attorney general after matt gaetz withdrew and he met with chuck grassley and pete hegseth met with senator tommy tuberville. it seems kind normal on the

surface. these picks, the ones i mentioned, are anything but normal and that includes kash patel who in a sea of problematic picks stands out. if you listen to what republicans are saying publicly about kash patel, you might think he will sail the confirmation is the next rector the fbi. >> i think kash patel is a very strong nominee. i think kash patel is going to be confirmed by the senate. >> i have encouraged former president trump to bring it to the table. he represents a change we need to see. >> he has a well-rounded background. i look forward to supporting him and pushing this nomination across the finish line. >> now, when you hear those comments you may think, kash patel will get confirm. here is the thing that support to remember about washington. the most important conversations about nominees are typically happening behind the scenes. that's what happened with matt

gaetz before it became clear that too many republicans opposed him. he didn't have the votes. what are those conversations sounding like among republican senators about people like kash patel and pete hegseth that and maybe others. i have the people to ask. kevin madden was adviser to mitt romney and ali vitali is a correspondent and joins me now. the kash patel. is new. or nomination, he has to fire the current fbi director. it's not an open job. it's important to note. what are you hearing from people on the hill about kash patel and how they are feeling about it on the republican side? >> the comparison point and naturally so is how they reacted around matt gaetz. the entirety of this nomination process is setting a real-time litmus test for hot far trump can push senators to rubber stamp whomever he decides to put in the roles. with matt gaetz the word i would hear from senators who

were never going to vote yes was i will give him a fair confirmation process. that what is the private conversation behind the scenes of we will do the meetings but at the end of the day i will end up as a no. all that contributed to his finding his own exit. the same could be true of patel. i haven't heard one phrase the senators are skeptical are using but there are valid questions. if that gets to a confirmation hearing, that will be a confirmation hearing. the clips you could play, that's when things get difficult. it's not just washington knowing what he has said in the past but it's televised. >> all these hearings are televised. we're talking, the way this works is it used to be that people would say i oppose this nomination for this nomination and there's a collegiality. a lot of these conversations happened behind the scenes because of trump. people don't want to be the

target. what are these conversations like right now about people like pete hegseth or kash patel? is it, how are we going to make clear they don't have a path forward or was it like right now? >> first of all, there is a lot of behavioral science to this on one side. on the other side there's just quiet diplomacy. on the behavioral science part, one of the things that is coursing through the senate is people believe that the president has a mandate. republicans believe the president should have his choices. they don't want to upset the delicate balance of the president believing he has the opportunity to make his choices and they want to be publicly supportive. they want to send the message to the president's base, which is their base back home, but the willingness to play the role in supporting the president but then there's the private diplomacy which is the

president cherishes loyalty and he cherishes the need to be a disrupter of a system that he thinks is broken in washington. if we accept those as fact, a lot of the senators are communicating privately that there's a way to do that and this is not the nominee to do it with. there's probably a long list of people who want to disrupt the system of the defense department and disrupt the fbi, and will be loyal to the president for his goals but they have a greater level of, they have a greater level of being able to meet the standards of the job more so than some of the nominees they have right now. they are asking the president to look at this more closely. there might be better people for the job. >> i do think that matt gaetz is an imperfect person to

compare against for the rest of this slate of nominees because, my understanding at least as trump was willing to go to battle for him. it's who we wanted as his attorney general and matt gaetz understood the political realities. trump is not necessarily someone who always responds to the quiet diplomacy. we know that. there's a world in which senators know that maybe they do the private diplomacy and they still have to do a public vote. >> this is an important week and the senators are back. they're not in for the entire time before christmas. who is most at risk? >> i am watching the 2026 senators, thom tillis, all of these folks are up in 2026, and we are watching them do this delicate dance. you talk about the behavioral science. this could be, i think, the last moment where we see people who were independent-minded, republicans but not full maga and not in lockstep with president elect trump all the time. do they continue that? for thom tillis, when it was gaetz, he was signaling that he might not get to yes on that

and north carolina just went for trump. you have lee when do ski saying remember why you have the majority you have. i think those reminders, rounds on sunday was saying i like the job chris wray has been doing, reminding the fact it's not open. i think the 2026 senators are where i would look, if there were any cracks in the system, and the exception is lisa murkowski who is not up in 2026. >> we only have a minute but it's not what your review is but you are a political expert. who was the most at risk of the nominees? the most chatter behind the scenes of we want to keep trump happy but this person is not someone we can have? >> because of the magnitude of the job, pete hegseth has problems right now with the department of defense job. one of the things, what kind of people are sort of feeling

under attack because of the nominee? right now, the president elect has to realize the problem he has is with republican senators who are looking at some of these questions. watching the questions, increase in volume, and they have their own relationships at the pentagon they want to maintain and they are probably hearing a lot of problems back from the pentagon. they're probably getting negative feedback. that will factor communicating to the president, is this the best choice? >> lots more to follow for the next couple of weeks. it's a little crazy right now. chris christie called what charles kushner did one of the most disgusting crimes he ever prosecuted but trump just picked for ambassador to france. to france.

it's getting to be the time in the new cycle is so crazy that some of the wildest storylines out of trump world start to fly under the radar. that happen this weekend when trump announced his choice to be ambassador to france. a position, i should note, that was once held by none other than benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson. saturday, trump hosted on social media he would give that post to new jersey real estate mogul charles kushner. you may recognize the last name. charles is the father of jared

kushner and he, like trump, has faced allegations of corruption throughout his life as he built up a family empire. in fact, if you're curious what charles kushner was not in trump's last administration? it might be because he's a convicted felon. in 2004, he pled guilty to 18 federal charges, aside from hundreds of thousands -- rising from hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign donations he made as a political power broker. he admitted to violating election laws, tax evasion and witness tampering and serve two years in federal prison. seems like a typical story out of the trump orbit. it with a convicted felon, friend of the family? but it turns out, no one in trump's inner circle has ever done what charles kushner did to obstruct justice. this into this description from the former u.s. attorney who put him away. a guy named chris christie. >> it was so obvious he had to

be prosecuted. if a guy hires a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law and videotapes it and sends a videotape to his sister to attend to intimidate her to testify before a grand jury, do i need any more justification? i mean, it's one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes are prosecuted when i was u.s. attorney. >> you heard all of their right. if it was a lot to take in, let me lay it out. in 2003 when the federal grand jury investigation of kushner began, that grand jury got evidence from two key witnesses. kushner's sister and his sister's husband when he pled guilty, kushner acknowledged she arranged to have a prostitute seduce his brother- in-law in a motel room in new jersey where video cameras were installed. the plot succeeded in mr. kushner had a videotape of the encounter sent to his own sister. yeah, it's no wonder chris christie called it one of the

most disgusting crimes he prosecuted. in trump's last days of president in 2020 he gave charles kushner a presidential pardon that was criticized even among trump's questionable pardons. now he wants him to be the ambassador in paris. the top diplomats to one of the oldest nuclear armed allies. the ambassador to a country where, by the way, they have the internet and google and they know all about charles kushner's past. it would be bigger news if not for the avalanche of alarming reports surrounding the other nominees. guess what? chose kushner's name at the only in law to get a job this week. sunday, trump announced a social media he was naming massad boulos to be a senior white house adviser on arab and middle eastern affairs. he runs a go out of business and has no diplomatic experience but he is a father- in-law of trump's daughter tiffany. i guess the question is, how many important government

positions can you hand out a wealthy friends and family including convicted felons with no relevant experience before the government crumbles under the weight of its own corruption? i honestly do not know the answer, but we may be about to find out. find out. (tony hawk) i still love to surf, snowboard, and of course, skate, so i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's high-absorption magnesium glycinate helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol. the brand i trust.

okay. here was a headline in political. ken martin emerges as early front runner in race tilly democrats as dnc chair. for those of you not familiar with ken martin, his ahead of minnesota's democratic labor party and he has secured nearly half of the endorsement he needs to win the race for dnc chair. we have a long way to go and he has plenty of competition. martin o'malley was averse to throw his hat into the ring and wisconsin democratic party chair ben winkler announced his room before joining us on the show yesterday. the field could expand. ken martin seems to think their secret sauce in minnesota that democrats could use a little of

on a national level. >> when i took over minnesota's democratic party we were deep in debt and disarray, reeling from major losses. we brought people together and build a winning coalition and delivered results. since then, we won every statewide election. 22 in a row and we are the last of the blue law states stanek. if you're looking for a creature of roe is d.c., that's not me. i know how it works and how it is not working and i listen to the voters. to those who feel cast aside for democrats and people working hard within our party with great ideas. >> joining me as the chair the minnesota democratic farmer labor party ken martin. it's great to see you. you mentioned this in your video announcing the minnesota's party did have 22 statewide wins against republicans. what do you think has been working in minnesota that you think you could take to the national party if you were to be elected dnc chair?

>> look, the infrastructure we built in minnesota is second to none. we invest in year-round organizing and we bring partners to the coordinated table. we focus on is second to none direct contact program that invests in building relationships with the voters and turning them out. we have the highest voter turnout and as you mentioned, we haven't lost a statewide election. in a state that was purple and it's got bluer under my time. there is something we can take to d.c. and help the folks in the dnc and folks in washington win collections. i am running for the dnc chair because there's too many in washington who want to win the argument and i want to win collections again. that's the role of political parties to win collections so we can past public policy to improve people lies and the communities. i work for -- who reminded us we do better when we do better.

invested in what we call the wellstone way of winning, building trust with voters, door-to-door, neighbor to neighbor, share values and hopes and dreams. that's how we win and i think we can win around the nation with as a model. >> a lot of democrats would love to win something soon. you said in your launch announcement that you, quote, know how the dnc works and how it is not working. i think a lot of people would love to know, how would you think -- shake things up? >> there's a couple of things. infrastructure is stronger than it had been after the 2016 election. there was a lot of good work done. a couple of things i think we need to focus on as we move forward, we need to make sure the dnc isn't just focused on federal races but we are contesting races up and down the ballot from school boards, city council, mayoral ships and county boards, it's critical we

are a national party and we are competing in every public policy arena around the country. we see the results of years of indifference in ignoring school board races as an example. we have seen public policy passed around the country that is doing a disastrous service to schoolchildren and schools throughout the nation. we have to make sure our party is focused up and down the ballot and focused on 50 states in every zip code. we have to get out of d.c. and get the dnc focused up and down the ballot and winning. >> let me ask about gen z voters, the next generation of voters. there's always an effort to turn them out more. you talked about the need to improve democrats communicate in nontraditional platforms. give some examples. what would you do as dnc chair to better communicate with this generation? >> first, i have two gen zers. a 22-year-old boy and 20-year- old boy and they get their information from tiktok.

i am old-fashioned and i read a hard copy of the newspaper every morning from front to back. maybe that makes me a dinosaur. the reality is we have to compete in this 365 day, 4/7, environment and a more sophisticated way. we know republicans have beaten us to the punch. for the last four years, they spread misinformation and lies on platforms from gaming services to podcasts to nontraditional information sites where they are using trusted messengers and validator's already on those platforms to actually spread their message. we have to be where the voters are. people asked me, where'd you go to hunt? they think i will say, i will go to the woods are my favorite hunting spot. no, you go with the deer are. we need to go to where the voters are. to where people are at and getting their information. we have to be more sophisticated on how we do that. we can't send political folks

are talking heads, but we have to use trusted messengers, micro influencers and validator's to get our message across. >> 10 martin, when people feel tired and beaten down, it's good to talk to somebody like you who has so much energy and bringing ideas to the future. thank you so much for taking the time. it will be a race to watch. wa

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

. that does it for me tonight. the rachel maddow show starts right now. hi, rachel. >> thank you very much, jen. much appreciated. hope you had a great holiday. so in the 1950s police in washington, d.c. assigned a whole squad of police officers, a surprisingly large part of the overall police force and made it their job to police bathrooms and public parks and other places where they thought men might secretly be meeting up to have