right now. good evening. >> i'm thrilled, very excited for the book tour. >> i am, too. >> i'm excited to be asked to do a book event with you. i'm hoping everyone is paying attention on national television so you're on the record. it's going to happen. >> it's going to happen. >> it does sound awesome and very, very, very of the moment. >> it really is. yeah. thanks. >> awesome job in advance. i've already preordered six copies for everyone in my family. >> you're the best. >> i love you. >> thank you, alex. love you, too. >> thank you, my friend. okay. so today started with great news. really great news for any foreign entities that would like to shovel cash at president-elect donald trump. "the new york times" reports today that the trump organization is planning to operate under a different set of ethics rules than it did during trump's first term in the white house. specifically, the trump organization plans to continue making foreign deals despite the fact that trump will be the

president of the united states. the "times" reports that in the months leading up to election day the trump organization's de facto leader, eric trump, was busy striking up real estate deals in vietnam and saudi arabia and the united arab emirates. now eric trump reportedly has his eyes set on more deals in other countries in the middle east and latin america and asia. ah. what could go wrong? now i know we are in a slowly boiling pot here, after all trump is already selling guitars and bibles and gold sneakers and silver coins and $10,000 watches and -- and nft trading cards and cryptocurrency and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and. the list of ways to funnel money into donald trump's pockets just goes on and on and on. this new reporting for the "times" shows even though trump

is about to become the most powerful person in the free world, he and his companies are still open for business. we are already just seeing just how problematic that is. this week "the washington post" reported that chinese businessman justin sun invested $30 million in trump's cryptocurrency. the math of it is complicated. but this effectively means that a chinese businessman just pumped more than $22 million of profit into trump's company. and okay, i mean maybe justin sun thinks trump's cryptocurrency is just a great investment. but for all intents and purposes, justin sun also handed the trump family $22 million, and the head of that family, president-elect donald trump, could also be very helpful to justin sun. that's because justin sun is under investigation by the securities and exchange commission for allegedly manipulating a different cryptocurrency market. and yesterday trump chose an sec

chair who is famously pro-crypto. trump's new sec chair could, if he wanted to or if trump directed him to, the new ceo chair could dismiss the investigation into justin sun entirely. now, whether or not sun offering trump $22 million of profit will actually influence anything or even help justin sun at all, that is unknowable at this point. but these kinds of conflicts of interest are precisely why presidents do not do business like this. it is impossible to know where trump the business ends and where trump the president begins. and this one chinese billionaire buying trump's cryptocurrency is just the example we have today. next week eric trump who again is now the de facto leader of trump's businesses, he is headed to abu dhabi to headline a cryptocurrency conference. eric trump is literally traveling to another country to pitch the trump cryptocurrency

to international investors. are you a rich person from a foreign country? would you like the opportunity to put a lot of money into the pacts of the american president -- pockets of the american president? you are in the right place. trump's second term is looking very much like a billionaire's playground. yesterday trump picked former georgia senator kelly loeffler to run the small business administration. why pick senator loeffler for that role? one big reason might be that loeffler and her husband, her husband who literally owns the new york stock exchange, they collectively donated more than $5 million to trump's re-election effort. and loeffler is in good company. she's the ninth major trump donor to land a top spot in the new trump administration. to put all of this in speck, president biden's -- speck, president biden's cabinet had a net worth of $120 million. nothing sneeze at but $120 million. just kelly loeffler and her husband alone are worth about

$1.1 billion, and had is billion with a b. if you just count positions that need senate confirmation, trump's cabinet is worth about $10 billion. again, president biden's cabinet worth $120 million. if you include roles that don't require senate confirmation like elon musk's role leading the department of government efficiency, if you include those positions, well, the net worth of trump's cabinet skyrockets to more than $340 billion. donald trump is setting up a government quite literally run by billionaires. and today two of those billionaires, elon musk and vivek ramaswamy, went to capitol hill to meet with republicans in congress about their new department of government efficiency. republican speaker of the house mike johnson described the meeting as a brainstorming session, ideaating the ways they could gut the federal government

next year. one idea elon musk floated was gettingrity of all tax credits -- getting rid of all tax credits including for electric vehicles. for background, musk previously said the tax credits help his competitors more than they help his car company, tesla. so yeah, why should the government do that? we are entering an era of government not just run by billionaires but for billionaires. government for the swamp, by the swamp. >> we are all excited, i know you're excited, that elon musk and vivek ramaswamy have joined us today. this is an important day. it's the beginning of a journey. you've heard what doge is all about, the department of government efficiency, it's a new thing. and in -- this is a new day in washington and america. >> joining me, professor at nyu school of law and phillip bump, national columnist for "the washington post." thank you for being here. you know, phillip, we talk a lot

about what donald trump has planned for a second term. there's a lot of -- there are some big statements and proclamations, but a lot of question marks. one thing that seems quite certain is that a for sale sign is hanging out the white house. just in terms of the -- the businesspeople that he has brought in who could make very, very lucrative decisions for themselves helming government agencies. can you talk a little about the way in which this is happening in broad daylight? >> i think something that's become -- coming into focus, and it's obvious over the course of the campaign, is that something shifted. and maybe it was the fact that he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election and got away with it. maybe it was the fact that he, you know, took in millions of dollars, his private company, democrats in the house put a report detailing the millions of dollars from the trump organization took from foreign governments when he was president. he is unabashed in a way that he wasn't eightiers ago.

back -- wasn't eight years ago. back then he paid lip service that presidents don't do these things. but that got thrown out the window. he's not saying he's going to pretend to do these things. he's saying buy the guitars, bieblts. >> wheeling and dealing. >> exactly. the idea that past presidents would have been limited because they don't want the impressions you get from a sun deal where they're getting money and people are questioning your ethics, he doesn't worry about that. people question his ethics anyway. >> why bother and just make the cash? jimmy carter i think put his peanut farm into a blind trust, melissa, the peanut farm is not the same as the trump organization. it's -- yes. >> yes. >> remember when we talked about the emoluments clause in trump one, it was like you can't have a foreign hotel where foreign dig tears are going to -- ies are going to city and funnel money into trump's pocket. that's gone the way of the dodo

board. there doesn't seem legal implications for any of this. >> again, the first administration is a been for constitutional law professors. we got to look at all kinds of provisions in the constitution that had gone unobserved like the emoluments clause. but there were lawsuits filed under the clause because of conflicts with donald trump's business dealings and his role as president and the prohibition in the constitution that you cannot receive benefits from foreign entities, nor domestic entities when you are serving as president. the original anti-corruption clause. it's there in the constitution. a lot of those lawsuits became moot when donald trump lost the election in 2020. they were never conclusively settled. now as you say, we have a president-elect who's emboldened because nothing happened. we also have an environment where this kind of grift, graft, seems to have become normalized. >> yes. >> i know i come on all the time and i can't stop talking about the supreme court. i'm going to talk about the supreme court. >> it is an extension of the

culture. >> an extension, we have normalized this. there have been reports about the emotional support billionaires, about justice thomas receiving gifts, quite substantial gifts from friends including boarding school tuition payments on his mother's house, and it's become so rootenized it's become normalized. if you were donald trump why would you be concerned because it seems the entire government is a wash of this. >> the defiance is the position i don't care and therefore there are no consequences. >> i do -- you know, doge went to capitol hill -- first of all, congratulations to elon musk for getting everyone to use the term doge. that's being part of our life. more to look forward in trump two. the idea he's going to change the regulatory infrastructure to directly benefit his own companies, again, it's not a secret why he's doing it. mike johnson's out there being his number-one cheerleader. i wonder why republicans are not

fully clocking how controversial this may be in terms of setting aside elon musk's desire to grift off the system. the things elon musk wants to do to the rest of the federal government may not sit well with people who are actually in the actual government. >> yeah. this has been sort of the tensions within the republican party. the old republican party. the pre-trump republican party was always the paul ryan types saying we're going to cut government spending until people started hearing from constituents. then things got a little iffy here. that is -- sort of refreshing that we get to go back to that era of republican politics. you know, the thing i think is striking about this external organization that they've butt together is that elon musk and vivek ramaswamy very obvious don't understand -- obviously don't understand what they're talking about. they say we're going to cut people -- by a social security number, two trillion, a third of the federal budget. it's unsane. they don't know -- what they do know about is the things that benefit elon musk and benefit big business. those are the things they're going to protect. i think for any elected official

who's responsible to constituents to fail to understand that they quite literally only understand the things that benefit them is going to be a huge problem for them politically down the line. >> well, i also just -- i mean, there -- if you're rivian, an electric car company that has a vested interest in electric vehicle tax credits that elon musk seeks to do away with because it helps competitors and hurts -- well, at least doesn't help tesla, there are going to be lawsuits, right? i mean, you've got to imagine that the competitors are going to be like, wait a second, dude, you can't do this as head of doge or whatever. >> there are likely to be lawsuits. there are likely to be received by perhaps a more conservative judiciary. again, this is all been laid out. i'm reminded of when you went to michigan, alex, to talk to working class union voters and how what they wanted was a government that worked for them. they felt the biden administration was not working for them. we saw on election night even in ruby red states, there were a number of states where paid family leave measures passed.

again, sort of classic redistribution, working class issues. they want government that works for them, and what we're seeing -- again, i think the question is in the messaging, is how do you show these people that working for elon musk, working for vivek ramaswamy is working for you when it may just be working for them. >> for them. >> that's the gap. again, we talked about this when you showed those clips. like how are you on board for the party that for eight years of nine different election cycles or eight election cycles has run the sun of a million -- son of a millionaire or millionaire, and now we have a whole government full of billionaires. >> billionaires. >> how is that working for working class people? i think there is going to be a real marks liemt with where the -- real miss alignment with where the real voters are. >> and when it comes to tax cutting -- they're not going to touch social security, not going

to touch medicare. they have touch the programs if they're going to slash federal spending. they can't -- the social security -- like cutting people, firing people who have a social security number beginning in an odd number is not a feasible plan for restructuring the government. and then there are the republican congressmen who have projects and like some of the government spending. i just foresee a massive break between what trump and his party can withstand politically, and the giant promises and the bluster inning from people like vivek ramaswamy and elon musk. >> yeah. two things. the first thing is there's a lot of focus on federal employees because they're easy targets. makes up 4% of federal spending. paying those employees, about 4%. if you're cutting a third of it, you're not going to get very far. the second thing, it's an important distinction especially now that he's not going to be able to run again. it's important to distinguish what's good for trump and for the party. trump never cares what's good for the party. the party has incidentally

benefited at times from his leadership and his ability to turn out his voters, but he doesn't care. like what's going to happen in those situations is those republicans will be we have a problem, and worst case, what businesses will contribute to my super pac that i can use to pay my legal bills?scenario. but not outside the realm of possibility. meanwhile, the republicans are stuck holding the bag. >> totally. >> if this goes south the republicans are the ones held accountable, and donald trump is going to go back to mar-a-lago after his term is over -- you know, you know, best case scenario. what does he care? >> he is a lame duck president as of january 20th, right? and the reality is that republicans in congress, we remember what the government shutdown looked like under donald trump. a dysfunctional federal government does not do well for the party in charge. and that is what we are barreling toward with not only a cabinet of people that don't really care about the -- the democratic principles or people, but also someone in charge who's just -- like they don't have the experience, there's not the

expertise and not the concern. where does that leave us? i don't know. i think theism indications for the party -- the mplicationses for the party are vast. >> this is change election. anti-incumbency around the world is on the rise. and this election was no different. i think even if you look here at new york city where many parts of the city went red, i don't know if it's because there's a mandate for donald trump. but i think there is some skepticism of blue governance. why do we pay so many taxes, and the services are negligible. why does the subway feel unsafe? even if it isn't unsafe, why does it feel like that? why can't i get more for what i'm paying? they want a reason to believe in government again. i don't know if this is it. >> doge isn't it? >> a faculty committee. >> melissa and phillip, thank you for joining me tonight. we have a lot to get to tonight including an answer to this question -- just in time for rfk jr. to take the reins as health secretary, are we closer to the next pandemic than we think? first, the latest on the

manhunt for the prime suspect in the murder of the united healthcare ceo. i'll talk to national security analyst clint watts about the latest on a potential motive. that is next.

the search continues this hour for the masked gunman who shot and killed united healthcare ceo brian thompson outside a manhattan hotel wednesday morning in what police are calling a premeditated, preplanned, targeted attack. now the suspect is still at large, but earlier today police released these photos of a person of interest who is wanted for questioning. the images were taken from a security camera at an upper west side hostel. nbc news reports that police are investigating whether the individual used a fake i.d. and paid cash to book his room at the hostel. in addition to those details, we are getting new information about what this person of interest left behind at the scene of the shooting. according to "the new york times," investigators are examining a cellphone left near the scene, but they have not yet gained access to the device. three senior law enforcement officials also tell nbc news that the suspect arrived in new york city on sunday, the 24th,

on a greyhound bus that originated in atlanta. as far as possible motives, law enforcement officials say that shell casings found at the scene were inscribed with the words "deny, defend, and depose." joining me is clinton watts, msnbc national security analyst and former fbi special agent. clint, thank you so much for being here. i'm eager to get your assessment of all this. i mean, with these photos of the -- of the person of interest, with the potential cellphone, with some information about his itinerary through the city, how meaningful is that in terms of ultimately getting an i.d. on this person? >> alex, all of it is a major step forwarded to this -- forward compared to this time yesterday. is this a paid killer, an attack, a personal grievance, or is it about the ceo and his

position at united healthcare. what we're learning is law enforcement hasn't been able to -- has been able to track his travels into the city and while he was into the city. also they've got some evidence, there's -- pointing to a water bottle that maybe has a fingerprint on it, taking about the cartridges and maybe get something idea of the motive. then having a picture of him without the mask on. that's critical to enabling the public to help you do an identification. all those things are major steps forward investigatively. at the same time this individual went through a lot of perception, a lot of reconnaissance and rehearsal, knew what they wanted to do. they may have a withdrawal plan that is equally complex and also well thought out heading into the first two or three days after this shooting. >> it seems clear that the suspect here wanted to send a message with the words on the shell casings. deny, defend, and depose, which bears a resemblance to a book about insurers refusing to honor the terms of their policies,

that's called delay, deny, defend. how are you looking at those words? i mean, what does that tell you, first of all, about the sort of climate in and around american health care and those who sit at the top of these giant insurance companies? >> it is an interesting way to send a message by putting that on those casings. seems like the shooter knew they were going to leave those behind, and that was a way to send a message and try and connect it to the health care industry. i think the other part is the reaction that you see in the online space. maybe some of those ideas could have come from the online space in terms of this individual, why they chose to do it or what the words were they chose to use. the other thing that i'm very curious about was there was some discussion a few hours ago that the shooter was on the phone prior to the shooting. that maybe there's imagery of him actually using the phone and calling somebody. could this be part of more of a nexus of individuals, at

inspired movement that's focused on the insurance industry and, in this case, united health. could this be much larger? we ask if you just rewind ten years ago to 20 years ago whether it was terrorist groups around a violent idealogy, is this really just one of maybe many, or is this the tipping point for one of many? there could be a contagion that we could see. that's something law enforcement agencies nationwide are concerned about. >> you mercedez-benz the -- mention the online space. a lot of people get frustrated with their insurance claims and the way they're processed. it's almost a universal feeling in many circle that's it takes too long, it's frustrating, or there's some disagreement there. in terms of the online formums -- forums, how aggressively is the fbi examining those communities? and can you -- i wonder if you have any sort of like intelligence on how activated those communities have been in recent years, or how much those

are instances of deep anti-institutional frustration? >> i would estimate that no one was look at it for its insinuation to go to a violent plot. there probably wasn't enough examples or instances of it. however, since this happened yesterday, the online spaces have been rife with comments, derogatory comments. comments that advocate or condone or applaud violence. and that can create a major shift really in terms of housewife audiences think about -- how audiences think about this. maybe they were frustrated over their claims or health care industry, but they weren't thinking about mobilizing toward violence. it's an incident like that can be -- think back to the attack in nor yay. a gentleman -- year way. a gentleman went to the island, shot many children. preplanned the plot. it was kind of a far right plot. but that one instance tipped off and essentially ticked off many other instances that followed that model.

so i think things to look for maybe in the coming days is is this person connected to a larger movement. second, does law enforcement come back with a manifesto or anything in terms of why this person chose united health's ceo or this individual target? do they have their grievances sort of listed on? and do wooey see any sort -- do we see any sort of amplification and multiplication of those threats across the online space? doesn't mean it will happen, but these are oftentimes those tipping points where you can see a contagion spread quickly if people are mobilized in such a way in the online space. >> what do you think is happening with -- first of all, brian thompson, his wife said, had received death threats. and yet he didn't travel with a security detail. is it common broadly speaking for ceos atop major corporations to travel with security details? and if it wasn't before, would you imagine it is now? >> i would have thought there would have been a security detail with the ceo of a corporation as large as that, particularly at a major event.

going for a financial meeting for the company. so you would think that's an open space where shareholders can come. and if a shareholder had grievances they would maybe get violent. doesn't mean there would be a shooting, but there would be other reasons to protect the principal, the ceo. at the same point, i am surprised that some of the threats, if there are online threats, weren't seen as indicators for actually providing security to the ceo. i think a hot of that has change -- a lot of that has changed overnight. as it should. this is some sort of contagion, this larger movement, a wider call to action seen by others that are thinking about doing some violence or mobilizing in some sort of way. an incident like this can inspire them. anyone that fits a similar prototype, that role in a similar company, they could be theum next target and -- the next target and would need

security. >> valuable perspective. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. still ahead this evening, just as the bird flu outbreak worsens -- gets a lot scarier -- our potential future health secretary, robert f. kennedy jr., has identified exactly the right guy to advise him. here's a hint -- he's the guy in the center of a bird flu controversy. that story is next. (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.

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.

your business needs a network it can count on... even during the unexpected. power's out! -power's out! power's out! comcast business has got you covered, with wifi backup to help keep you up and running. wifi's up. let's power on! let's power on! -let's power on! it's from the company with 99.9% network reliability. let's power on! power on with the leader in connectivity. get wifi backup for your business, or get started with comcast business internet. and for a limited time, get an $800 holiday bonus. call today.

there is a lot of big national news capturing the country's attention now. if you turn on the local noaa you see in fresno, california, there is a different story domestic knitting the -- dominating the headlines. >> the owner of a california dairy farm says that he's cooperating with the state since his raw milk operations. suspended. all operations at this farm from herds to bottled products are now under quarantine. >> inspectors in santa clara county said they find bird flu in a sample over the weekend. the ceo is challenging those findings and sharing his side. >> they have no detection now of-viralusesin our milk. -- viruses in our milk. >> this is a natural product. not something i didn't do wrong or right. >> there's no illnesses. we believe there's not a potential for illness because of the physiology and science behind what happens to flu bugs in raw milk.

>> a fresno raw milk farm was quarantined by health officials after regulators say some milk tested positive for bird flu from infected cows. and the ceo, mark mcafee, has appeared on just about every local station in the frizz no area to say he disputes the findings and his milk is safe to drink. he says all of this is just a political issue. but what makes this a story of national importance it what mark mcafee says happened next. >> now mcafee may play a role in national policy. he says rfk jr., on track to run the fda in the trump administration, asked him to amaze to be an adviser on raw milk policy and standards development. >> yes. the raw milk ceo currently fighting claims about bird flu contamination has reportedly been contacted by john f. kennedy to be part of the --

robert f. kennedy jr. to be part of the department of health when they are facing down the threat of bird flu contamination. for context, the cdc is currently warning people across the entire country not to drink raw milk because of the risks associated with the growing bird flu outbreak. but rfk jr. made the deregulation of raw milk one of his passion projects, if you will, despite whatever possible pandemics may be on the horizon. now kennedy is reportedly reaching out to that embattled fresno raw milk ceo for help setting national raw milk policy. that is maybe worrisome because researchers this week are warning that bird flu could easily evolve to become a much bigger threat to humans than it is currently. since this outbreak began in march, the cdc has identified 58 people who have been infected with bird flu. almost all of those cases appear to have come from contact with livestock. now so far, experts don't think the virus is spread from human to human.

but a new study published by the scripps research institute suggests that the virus may be closer than previously thought to being able to spread from human to human. experts stress that more research is needed to know exactly how close we are to that point. if the bird flu does become a virus that spread between humans, that could result in yet another public health emergency and one that we are not prepared for. just this week house republicans released a 500-page aren't on the u.s. spobs response to the covid pandemic. that report criticized all of the efforts taken to stop the spread of covid from masking to social distancing to lockdowns. so those are the people who could end up making the policies for the next pandemic. and the incoming administration appears to have no interest in preventing one from starting in the first place. coming up, republicans in congress are gearing up to deliver on the trump agenda as democrats begin drawing up their own battle plan. we'll have the latest on that

with "the atlantic's" mark leibovich and "the bulwark's" tim miller. m miller

it took more than four weeks, but the 2024 election is finally over. yesterday nbc news made a projection for the winner in the final house race that remained uncalled. it was a democrat. that leaves republicans officially in control of both the house and the senate. beth with very slim majorities. democrats are preparing for that and the incoming trump

administration by reportedly shaking up the ranks of their leadership. "politico" reports that house democrats are poised to unseat several senior committee leaders, and hakeem jeffries is letting it happen. it's akin to mutiny, party lawmakers are increasingly anxious about the incoming trump administration and full gop control of congress. meanwhile, republicans are figuring out how to make use of their narrow majorities to execute on trump's agenda. republican senator tom till is acknowledged to nbc that it will be super challenging. the key is addressing all these coalitions that will threaten an unsufficient number of votes unless they got their priorities. it's more complex. joining me mark leibovich staff writer at "the atlantic" and tim miller from "the bulwark" podcast. mark, let me ask in terms of all of this, there's been different schools of thought about how

trump in the white house might alleviate some of the pressures that have thus far existed on the house republican conference. do you think having a republican leading the executive branch in any way makes it easier for the legislative branch, or is this conference too -- what's the right word -- raucous to fall in line? >> i think the raucousness that we saw in republican caucuses, raucous, caucus, it was free wheeling. now that trump is back, there will be a -- i wouldn't say a more orderly procession, but i do think that there is such fear and such rallying around of trump, at least early on in his second term, it has been an hoerignizing principle to -- an organizing furlough some degree. having said that, this is a very, very -- an unpredictable caucus. we saw that from last year. and what they achieved in the last congress. look, trump is not exactly going to like take a nuanced approach

to this. it's not like he's going to learn everybody's districts and learn everybody's pet interests and so forth. he's going to be -- he's going to try to be as blunt force as possible. i think once his poll numbers change and once he looks a little more vulnerable, i think some republicans might see their own vulnerability if it looks like the house is going to flip. might try to protect their own self-interests. >> i mean, the house is one question, the senate's another. and i think when you look at both chambers it right now -- i don't know, tim. what do you make of what's happening in the senate? i must play some of the indignation on the airwaves courtesy of tommy tuberville, a man known for his indignation. this is what's he's saying about senate republican resistance to nominees including pete hegseth. take a listen. >> donald trump did all the vetting they needed to do on pete hegseth. i can't believe we even have people on our side saying, well, i've got to look at this, got look at that. what they're doing is they're

throwing rocks at donald trump. they're not throwing them at pete hegseth. they're throwing them at donald trump. >> maybe he doesn't go that the senate role -- know is that the senate role is to advise and consent. is that for real? do you think there's a sort of mutinous strain of where senate republicans are now, tim? >> i don't know that tommy tuberville knows what the word vetting means. it's hard to know because he clearly didn't vet pete hegseth since more and more information continues to come out about his disastrous personal life. like -- maybe the most generous way to put it. as far as the mutiny question is concerned, i don't know if i'd call it mutinous. the gaetz withdrawal surprised me. and the other thing that did surprise me is that donald trump himself has not yet been throwing his weights around so it speak with these nominees. he seems happy to kind of let them die on the vine themselves if they're going to or not.

i'm not sure there's a lot of evidence he carries either way. he's not using a lot of political muscle to twist arms on capitol hill. so i think it remains to be seen what they look like in that case. i'll tell you this, while you don't make money betting on the courage of senate republicans, if you start from the baseline of having murkowski and collins as two that i think will likely buck the craziest nominees, you really only need two more. and unlike the house, as leo points out, all of the house guys are up in two years. that's not the case in the senate. you're going to have retiring senators, people that just got elected that are up for six years. there's a lot of old timers that you forget are there. mike rounds is also doing interviews again. he been there for 20 years. there's a lot of old guard there that hasn't flipped. there aren't as many magas as there are in the house. there just is room for them to reject trump. i think the more they reject him the more, you know, once there's blood in the water, i think that

it becomes harder for trump to kind of reverse that. i think the next month is kind of critical in that reward. >> mike rounds, the nation turns its lonely eyes to you. you know, there's interesting reporting relevant to mike rounds perhaps, mark, that tulsi gabbard and rfk jr. are trump's red lines. this is from the reputable news source "the bulwark." he reports, the importance of rfk jr. and tulsi gabbard represent a realignment in american politics that you saw in the election, said roger stone, a longtime trump friend and adviser. as if we needed to know. he, trump, understands the historical significance of that realignment. that basically fwabard and kennedy -- gabbard and kennedy represent badges of honor in terms of flipping former democrats into maga land. and that trump is i guess going to fight for them in a way that i think he hasn't fought for the other nominees. are you buying that? >> you know, that was an interesting report.

i hadn't thought of that -- i also thought that if trump is going to sort of line up behind or sort of go to the mat for nominees he would have a bias toward the more brute force nominees like someone more out there stylistically like a gaetz. obviously not going to be gaetz at this point. you know, maybe a hegseth, maybe a kash patel, someone like that. i did -- it was a point i hadn't thought about which is that if he really wanted to put his mark on idea lodge cal realignment -- ideological realignment, kennedy and gabbard one two to broaden the coalition. also badges in which he could sort of show that he can bully republicans into accepting anything well beyond anything they'd agreed with ideologically. these are two people traditionally quite liberal, politically they're democrats politically. so i don't know if he would go to the mat, but i think that he likes the idea of himself as a shapeshifter here.

you know, i do think, as tim said, at some point he will have to throw has weight around, probably more so when he's in office and has a better sense of what's at stake. >> he also hates being dubbed a loser. it's really hard for me to imagine, tim, that he would take the defeat of potentially pete hegseth, maybe kash patel, then you throw maybe gabbard and kennedy on top of it. the narrative going into day one of the -- whatever day whatever of the trump administration would be that of actually failure and mutiny. and i think that that's something he will not countenance. >> yeah. there's real risk of that already. things unraveling. it's not like things haven't unraveled for trump before in many of his private businesses and in the first trump administration. so it's possible. you're also -- i did notice john thune has maybe a less lackadaisical senate for the senate than in the past. and so that offsets some of what i'm about to say. you know, even if they do get through, like having contentious

confirmation hearings, you know, for several of these or more embarrassing things come out or there's more bad press, as much as donald trump doesn't like losing bad press, he likes even less possibly. and so i think that all of that is a real risk for them for january. >> mark, meanwhile, democrats are engaged in i deswhat is being termed their own mutiny. ousting longtime more senior leaders in the house who sit atop prime committee spots. for potentially a younger generation. and there's a question about, you know, whether alexandria ocasio-cortez might head the oversight committee or raj -- you are well versed in the political culture of the democratic party and the republican party. what do you make of what is i guess a changing of the guard or a new generation of leaders coming to the fore inside congress? >> yeah. it does look like democrats are being far more aggressive than

they have in the past to try to change up certainly the committee chairmanships. it doesn't look like hakeem jeffries is going to take as heavy a hand as maybe nancy pelosi would have in the past. i also think that someone like jamie raskin has proven himself to be incredibly talented. seen it over and over. a lot of very public, high-profile settings. and jerry nadler other i wouldn't say the knife's been out for him in the party, but there has about impatience with his style over the years. i think that didn't surprise me that much. and again, yeah, aoc is on oversight. a high-profile position potentially, especially for parity in the minority. and -- party in the minority. and she has a platform, an ability to get attention, and a lot of people listen to her. i think that would be a pretty telling elevation inside the caucus and one that she could really do a lot of work with. >> what do you think about that strategically, tim? there is a sense that democrats

need to be more pugnacious in the age of trump than they were during the campaign. and having someone like aoc and oversight, a powerful committee, in the age of trump 2.0, what do you think of that a battle posture for the democrats? >> with aoc there, i'm less worried about age and more worried about the democrats' agreeableness. there's like, a little too much agreeableness among democrats culturally. i think it's led to problems. i think potentially on the hill. i like at this as to what we were discussing at the beginning. the republicans have this tiny house majority that's -- it's a three-seat majority, but they're going to have vacancies. they're going to need to get every republican on board for stuff. in the past, in the first term administration and throughout kevin mccarthy's speakership, the democrats, we founded the government because the democrats helped the republicans fund the government. mccarthy and johnson have never had the votes to fund the government neither of their entire sheerkships. i wonder -- speakerships.

i wonder if it's time to reconsider that, democrats should reconsider tactics. and if having new blood helps with that, i'm all for that. i think more hardball tactics on this sort of stuff and making republicans actually govern and show the american people how they plan to governor fern they're forced to govern themselves. i think might be a wise tactical shift for the democrats. i hope they take it. >> maybe not rescuing republicans from catastrophes of their own making. >> yeah. >> mark leibovich, tim miller, thank you for your time tonight, my friends. we'll be right back. my friends we'll be right back.

jen b asks, "how can i get fast download speeds while out and about?" jen, we've engineered xfinity mobile with wifi speeds up to a gig, so you can download and do much more all at once. it's an idea that's quite attractive. or... another word... -fashionable? i was gonna say- "popular! you're gonna be pop-uuuu-larrr!" can you do defying gravity?! yeah, get my harness. buy one line of unlimited, get one free for a year with xfinity mobile. and see “wicked,” in theaters now.

one bit of breaking news before we go tonight. donald trump has just announced his pick of silicon valley billionaire david sacks to be the new white house crypto and a.i. czar. you are probably old enough to remember way back in january of 2021 when sacks said this of trump after the insurrection. i think he's disqualified him from being a candidate at the national level. if you want to see this mob as a gun, i think trump loaded the gun. he pointed it in a certain direction. that's our show. "way too early" is coming up next. i think for a number of ournators they want -- our senators nay want to make sure that any allegations have been cleared, and that's wh