colleagues, i hope, and with previous— colleagues, i hope, and with previous select committees that i've been grilled by notably the justice you. _ relationship. just let me finish. thank you, that's very encouraging. what _ thank you, that's very encouraging. what might— thank you, that's very encouraging. what might be helpful is that if there _ what might be helpful is that if there are specific questions on the data that _ there are specific questions on the data that you want to put two witnesses in the detail that you are perfectly— witnesses in the detail that you are perfectly reasonably asking, then either— perfectly reasonably asking, then either setting out in slightly more detailed _ either setting out in slightly more detailed those questions and i will endeavour to get it. can i commit to one point— endeavour to get it. can i commit to one point because you raised an important — one point because you raised an important point about a form requested by the committee and a commitment that was given to the committee to provide that form, and i will undertake to ensure that the committee has that. i i will undert

now is bob neill, joining us now is sir bob neill, who's chairman of the house of commons justice select committeell very it's all very well. >> the prime minister is taking stuff into the house of commons. but how is it going to get it pass the supreme court? well, by making that we comply with making sure that we comply with the the supreme court's the law and the supreme court's judgement actually, i think was perfectly reasonable on the on the law and the facts. >> what the supreme court said was, in principle, yes, you can do this. they didn't find it was unlawful to process the asylum applications offshore. what they said was on the evidence. we've currently got, which actually dated back to september 21st at rwanda, wasn't a safe country . rwanda, wasn't a safe country. and they set out, i think about 5 or 6 specific areas that raise concern with them on that. now, i think what they're doing, what the government is working on at the government is working on at the moment, are specific ways of actually addressing precisely those deficiencies that the supreme court found. so we can say, yeah,

report, to the special counsel, and department of justice, and what you see playing out now is pride and parcel, a lot of the work that the select committee did. >> reporter: we ain't going to say crimes were committed, you're gonna see mistakes were made. you all were very clear, not only the believe the crimes were committed, but, who in fact, committed the crimes. of one of the things, congressman, that i thought was brilliant in your approach was pushing to have these hearings aired on prime time, in front of the country, so that they could have a sense of transparency about what was going on. do you feel like that, ultimately, got to the american public, and move the needle, and that they understood the gravity of the moment in which we are in? >> no question about it. we made a decision early on to tell our story before the american people. if we had done the traditional hearings, it would not have gotten the impact that we received. our witnesses were stellar witnesses, the majority of those witnesses were republicans. they were secretaries of state. they were basically card carrying republicans, but they were patriots. and they di

have willful misconduct by the department of justice and fbi demonstrated time and time again forms worked out by the judiciary committee and even some select intelligence committee need to be passed. we are sorry it will have to be as late as april but the fact is, we moved it out of committee and prepared to have a vote on the floor on these packages. if accepted by the administration in the senate, we will have security abroad and dramatically better protection for the american people including a second look when the fbi says something that isn't true, the way they did even with president trump and others, if you can take on presidential candidate and circumvent the constitution, you can take on and circumvent any of us as americans. >> congressman darrell isaac, thinkable for your time today. tony blinken sank this morning the of administration is trying to do everything it can to instruct civilians are protected instruct civilians are protected manicuring assistant gets to civilians in gaza, live report kn is next. ♪r gl you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's poss

justice symptom. you and i would be sitting here. i would've taken a stop on -- was spot on the select committee appointed by nancy pelosi.ephen: the january 6 committee uncovered a lot of events that led to the insurrection. but you write in your book but you notice those red flags while they were happening. what were some of the reddest of those flags? >> ms. cheney: yeah, i talk about the fact that after the election there were signs. i would see the signs of parts of donald trump's efforts. of course at the time i didn't know the whole picture. but for example as we got in days past the election it was clear that we didn't have the& evidence to back up the claims we were making. a statement in mid-november saying put up or shut up. if you don't have evidence to back up these claims the need to respect the outcome of the election. we need to move forward. we also had signs that he had planning underway at the pentagon that was very concerning. he fired the secretary of defense after the election. in the weeks after that you have people suggesting mike flynn suggesting trump should deplore the military to seize ballot b

lot is where we start today with former lead investigator for the january 6th select committee and at the table, nbc news justice reporter and author, ryan riley and msnbc legal analyst, lisa rubin. could not think of better people to be with us today. lisa, break down this ruling. what does it mean? >> essentially confirms what jack smith's team told her over the weekend. the trial cannot go forward until trump's assertion of constitutional immunity is resolved either by the d.c. circuit or by the supreme court. at the same time, she's giving jack smith's team what they said they wanted. they are saying to her you still have jurisdiction to enforce the basic rules of this proceeding. that means you can enforce his conditions of release, which are the circumstances under which he's still a free man having been indicted and maybe most importantly, you can enforce the protective order. trump has been given 13 million some pages of discovery in this case and a protective order precludes him from sharing with the public. like regina george. he still needs to keep those materials secret until further order by the cou

joyce vance, the january 6th select committee, it showed how major figures at the justice department,n masse. what happens if -- trump has legal loyalists who are willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy their boss. what then? >> right. i think we're talking about the difference between someone like mike pence who obviously signed on with the understanding that he had to be personally loyal, even though at the end he did the right thing. compare that to jim comey who declined to extend personal loyalty to trump rather famously, and the fact that trump -- wiser -- i use the word wiser advisedly, the 2.0 version of trump will make sure those loyalty oaths are an explicit condition in order for people to become political appointees in the administration we all hope we won't see in 2025. then the question becomes, can the career people form some sort of guardrail? we know trump has already committed as part of the 2025 project that jason was mentioning, to rooting out people in the career civil service who are simply committed to doing a good job regardless of which party is in power. a

i really don't think it was until the select committee started to present findings that the department of justicehey, wait a minute, this isn't just about a lot of angry rioters assaulting police officers at the capitol. that is part of a broader scheme, which includes these fake electors, which includes the pressure on state officials. easy for us in hindsight to say they should have been focused on that on january 7, 2021, instead of waiting until the congressional process a couple of years later ran its course. the problem is that a lot of these investigative bodies did not really devote the resources required to develop these facts and bring these cases until well into president biden's term closer to the election, which means, unfortunately, the calendars do intersect. the legal process will run contemporaneous with people voting in michigan and otherwise. >> tim, as always, thank you so much for spending some time with us. joy is going to be back in the next hour. >>> after the break, growing fears of a wider war in the middle east, after strikes by iranian backed forces in the middle east

a new january 6th select committee, because we need to hold the old january 6th committee accountable. nancy pelosi accountable, we need to subpoena the fbi, the department of justicee who was involved in what i would call actually the real big lie. that's the big lie is what happened on january 6th. >> jimmy: oh, so she wants to create a january 6th committee to investigate the january 6th committee and do january 6th all over again, i guess. [ laughter ] it's brilliant. did she need to write a book? couldn't we have given her some crayons and a denny's placemat? [ cheers and applause ] and got that out of her system? we are now less than two months out from the republican caucus in iowa, which so far is a race for number two. trump has a big lead, but he may very well be going to prison, and nikki haley's poll numbers are on the rise. in new hampshire nikki haley is polling in second place despite making the mistake of doing some totally unscripted crowd work at a rally in the town of hocksett. >> hi, sweet girl, how are you? >> good. >> i love your hat. >> thank you. thank you. one of your guys gave it to me for free. [ laughter ] >> i want you to tell me which

select committee, which they thought was unfair, and they have been trying to argue against the information that's the basis of this. >> bret: throughout, this josh, in this ruling, the agreeing justicestude and the weight of the questions now before us. we're mindful of the solemn duty to apply the law without fear or favor. it goes on. the politics of this, i touched on this with doug schoen and lee carter what do you think it does? >> people appreciate it the least are donald trump's primary opponents. every time there is court action or any sort of doj action against donald trump, it only makes him stronger. when you have courts of law that are saying you can't vote for donald trump it's only reaffirmed more voters' opinion that they do want to vote for donald trump. it's made him stronger throughout i expect this will do the same. i also expect the supreme court to throw this all the way back to colorado. >> bret: mark levin has written extensively on this. the democrat party's fetish for the 1st amendment is a vile attack on elections directed at one man, donald trump. and he has got extensive defense of why this cannot apply. and mark levin's legal analysis of it. but, to josh'

me about the select committee was the multipart plan and understanding that, you know, there was this plan to pressure the state legislators to, pressure the vice president, to use the justiceent corruptly to put this plan in place, to pressure the vice president. and all of those things were part of this effort to overturn the election and to seize power. and of course the violence itself, refusing to stop the violence, refusing to tell the mob to go home, sending the mob to the capitol when he knew they were armed, as we demonstrated in the hearings, all of that is part of this, you know, illegal, unconstitutional plan that donald trump oversaw to do something no american president has ever done, to seize power. >> and you talk about what no other president has done. he is now at times telegraphing or normalizing vows of revenge. we saw that both -- again, against you, former vice president pence and others, taking officials who by the way, happen to be long-term republicans -- but put that aside, trafficking in intimidation, menacing, potential violence, appeals to violence, talking at a dictator ship, talk about going after the press. these are things we know. your fami

at the last meeting about the selective enthusiasm of the judiciary committee for getting to the bottom of things and what happened to be a policy at the department of justiceanswer committee members' letters and committee members' questions for the record, end of senator whitehouse's quote. the united states congress has constitutional mandate to conduct oversight of republican and democratic administrations without any political bias for either. we have a duty to ensure the justice department and the fbi consistently enforce law without regard to politics. the judiciary committee democrats were eager to engage in the fbi's trump-russia investigation before it was totally debunked. however, they were very eager to falsely attack my and senator johnson's biden family investigation as russian disinformation. sadly, i haven't seen the same enthusiasm for the other side now that a democrat political family is under the microscope. if it's criminal and ethical questions my democrat colleagues are interested in, then the judiciary should, in a bipartisan fashion, bring the family members for interviews and obtain records from them. no the democrat majority wants