just $39 a month, with no contract, and a money back guarantee. all on the largest, fastest, reliable network. from the company that powers more businesses than anyone else. call and start saving today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

♪♪ hello everyone, it is 4:00 in new york on a big newsday, just got a rare and unique and potentially alarming look into judicial process that is typically shrouded in secrecy and one that has been characterized as potentially the most damaging to the twice impeached, disgraced ex- president right now, of course the special grand jury investigation in fulton county, georgia, yesterday in a very revealing interview with our own blaine alexander, the juries for woman spoke out about the months long investigation and confirmed that the jury recommended indictments for multiple people. while she did not disclose specific names, she gave some pretty telling hints. >> i will tell you it is not a shortlist. we saw 75 people, and 6 pages of the report cut out, i think, if you look at the page numbers.

so it's not -- >> we are talking about more than a dozen people? bigger i would say that, yes. >> did the grand jury recommend an indictment of former president trump? bigger i'm not going to speak on exact indictments. >> would we be surprised, are there bombshells? >> i don't think there are any giant plot twists coming, or any giant -- that's not the way i expected this to go at all, i don't think that is in store for anyone. >> the art of speaking about what you should be speaking about this -- definitely on display, she is very careful and speaking out at this time, which makes it unprecedented but also in an unprecedented moment for the district attorney, fanny willis, who is still determining whether to seek charges including against an ex-president, she will have

to present her case before a regular grand jury if she wants to pursue indictments, the das office is declining to comment on the interview, and with the atlanta journal-constitution, she gave additional insights into new evidence we did know about before that the jury reviewed. she said the special grand jury heard tape recordings of phone conversations that have already been made public, trumps january 2, 2021, with the georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger, but there are other recordings of calls that the jury heard and which have yet to be made public, she said we heard a lot of recordings of president trump on the phone, declining to give specifics, it is amazing how many hours of footage you can find of that man on the phone. some of these that were privately recorded by people, or by a staffer. legal analysts have said that

while she speaking out is entirely legal, it is her right, it is not necessarily helpful, but the former district attorney for dekalb county, georgia, fleming says that da willis' decision-making will not be influenced. >> she is not going to present a case before she is ready to do so, so she is not going to be pushed into a faster timeline, particularly if it may jeopardize the outcome of her case, she will stick to her guns in her schedule, we will be waiting to see when and if the grand jury makes an ultimate decision. >> all of the intrigue, fresh off the incredible interview, blaine alexander joins us, andrew weissman, and lawrence o'donnell, former justice department prosecutor, and senior counsel of robert mueller investigation, he is

lucky for us, a nbc legal analyst and at the table, many time zones away, harry litman, former deputy assistant attorney general, we have talked in therapy lately, i will start with you. [ laughter ] blaine was first, it is a huge get. it makes our jaws dropped, because it is such a secretive process we believe but a two- part question, does it need to be, and 2, what happens now? >> it is what is going on at the time, the judge had jurisdiction and say be quiet, now they have been discharged so they don't have to, what happens now? fanny willis takes -- she is not much of a poker player, of course, taken the information that i think we can suss out pretty well that's been given to her, it would be a profound surprise if she departed in

material ways, more than a little bit, from what they are recommending. >> is cheapest, did she say darn it? >> yes, in other words, no comment behind the scenes, is what the health, they do think it could give them heartburn down the line, choosing jurors who are impartial, they will say did you happen to hear the for persons interview, and when she said who's nice and not, and essentially, even a little few feathers on the scale of changing venue, getting the case of georgia, which is one of trump schools, it sure doesn't help them, and there's the overall raising of expectations like oh, we know it's there now, when will the da act? bigger the interview heard around the world but i don't to

take away from the gift she's given the public who wants to know everything, the skill that she try to deploy in not this disclosing names and things she wasn't supposed to, and i want just share her explanation as to why she did this, let me play this?>> because this was a really cool experience, and a lot because the legal system works by choice, the whole government, government by choice of the people, that's how government functions, at some point in history, they agree with that, it works and if they don't participate in it, it won't work, so i think it is really important in general to not try to skip jury duty, jury duty, that's my chance to be a part of making the system work, and that's how you make it work, i think that is important.>> she is wrong on

no counts their right, we can read the tea leaves about how it affects the tea leaves, furry ex-president who is skillful beyond the rational exploding these episodes but at its essence, she is talking about a system that only works if people like her participate in it? >> what was so fascinating, a number of fascinating things, about our conversation, we talked about 45 minutes yesterday the soundbite was her response to the very first question i asked her, which is why you speaking publicly, why do you want to talk about this, you heard what she had to say, i asked are you concerned about threats, this is a very polarizing thing, has drawn a lot of attention, are you concerned about threats, being part of the process and for speaking out or about it, she said no she wasn't concerned, she wanted to have more charge of the stream of information and believe that it was

something that was going to get out anyway, rather than sitting back and watching people talk about her in the process she was part of, she wanted to play some role of getting the stream of information out in her words, an interesting conversation, you talk about the fact that she seemed to press the gravity of it to degree, seem to have a sense of duty about this, and kind of proud of the fact that citizens came together in did this and able to subpoena 75 witnesses and it could not have gone on without the involvement of her and her fellow special grand jurors but on the other side we also saw the fact that she was excited about parts of the process, she told me that the coolest moment in the process for instance was shaking the hand of rudy giuliani, and different moments of being face- to-face with some more high- profile witnesses. i do take away from it that this is somebody who volunteered to be a four-person, was an [null], she raised her

hand said she wanted to do it, nobody went up against her, nobody went up against her the job, the presidential elections since 2016 and 2020, the phone call that we know so well between donald trump and brad raffensperger, she never heard it before but she became a member of the special grand jury, interesting to listen to what she says, this will be a surprise or a bombshell, it will be interesting to interpret what she would consider to be a surprise or bombshell, certainly a lot of questions arising. >> you had the first television interview with her, she also spoke to the associated press and the ajc, can you just catalog for us all that we know now that we didn't know 24 hours ago? i keep thinking of james comey, 30 i hope there are tapes, sounds like there are a lot of tapes, it sounds like recording trump was the ml for anyone in

and around donald trump but take me through what we know today that we didn't know 24 hours ago? >> absolutely, i have to tip my hat to the associated press and the reporter in georgia who found emily and interviewed her first, kind of revealed her name to the world, in speaking with her and other outlets, she gave us a number, told me there are more than a dozen people who were recommended for indictments, confirm with me the report is nine pages long, something we didn't necessarily know before either and mark meadows testified before the special grand jury, and had been ordered to do so, and confirmed that he did in fact come testify for 90 minutes and in her words did not say much. kind of a series of answers about whether or not the former president was on the list to be indicted, more insight there,

the issue of immunity, it was initially discussed before, she told me there about a dozen or so people that came in with immunity deals already in place, she wouldn't tell me the names, try to see if i could qualify the witnesses, said they are not necessarily names you would recognize or be familiar with, and said through the course of testimony there was at least one person who was offered an immunity deal while they were in there testifying, in compelling more testimony, an interesting piece of information as well, the biggest thing is talk about the mindset, and if her fellow grand jurors seem to grasp it as well, and she was the one who volunteered for this, nobody really a poster on that and talk about the fact that at times yes, a lot of people and at other times a few people, i did ask about the specific nugget, that said they voted

unanimously, that there was no election fraud here in the state of georgia, she said she believed that was important to put in because in many ways that was kind of the entire underpinning and of the investigation and they thought it was important to included in the import is -- report as well. >> andrew wiseman, i want your thoughts and all of it but let me start with the narrow one and brought it out. mark meadows and her words did not say much, is it a reasonable hunch to say that he is not a cooperating witness in the probe? >> yes, that is a very reasonable hunch that he asserted the fifth, attorney- client privilege, which by the way, went out of the way, with respect to rudy giuliani, it is his right, not very good at understanding the understanding of what legal privileges and

understanding stating it or versus intentionally lying but your question, and mark meadows, somebody who jack smith, and fanny willis are very much focused on, and if i were them, i would be lining up a federal and state indictment if you can prove it, to put pressure on him to try to cooperate. >> what you make of what we understand now? i thought of james comey when i heard her talk about other tapes, i never had heard of anybody recording each other, clearly a lot of people recorded donald trump, and potentially that is what one does when there are questions of criminality by him all the time swirling. the fact that there are multiple people that they

recommended indictments for, that means criminal proceedings potentially are imminent now for multiple people potentially including the president, the ex- president. >> it is important to remember that we are talking about one juror, not 24, and that this was just a special grand jury that made recommendations call it is still up to the da to decide who she thinks should be charged, and a normal, regular grand jury that would make the decision. so we are still a number of steps away because the da has an independent judgment, as the special grand jury recognizes, but it does appear, i agree with harry, if there are these recommendations, it does put a lot of pressure on the da to really take that, some weight has to be given. there is one thing i wanted to point out that struck me and i know barb mcquaid made a

similar point, one of the things that the grand jurors said, was that she was doing something, while she was eating a popsicle that she got for me party with the das office, of all the things that she said, that was the thing that i thought whoever gets charged is going to use to, as harry said, none of this is helpful, it may not hurt at the end of the day, but it is not helpful. i was somewhat surprised by that, that lack of formality cut doesn't mean that anything improper happened, but it's not a good look, let's put it that way. the grand jurors have one role, the da has another role, so that was certainly surprising as a former federal prosecutor, i was surprised by that fact and i'm sure that whoever is charged will use that fact.>>

my colleague rachel maddow would advise everybody to watch the space at this moment, also offbrand for what we know from fanny willis, disciplined and protective of the process and the sanctity of it. blaine alexander, congratulations on having the first television interview was someone who will be known to history, a pivotal person no matter who happens that's right what happens next . my a block desk, breaking news, jack smith and the doj investigation, the attempted coup plot by donald trump, and the ex-president's role. reporting special counsel jack smith has subpoenaed and ivanka trump and jared kushner, from the and it underscores how deeply into his inner circle

he's reaching in the latest sign that no potential high- level witness is off-limits, and seeking to block them from testifying, executive privilege as he is tried with other witnesses. and they served as white house officials and stop them testifying to the select committee, investigating the january 6 attack and everything that led to it. harry, this feels significant, and yet from trump's perspective, i hate even utter that phrase, he did permit them to speak it would appear without parameters to the congressional committee? >> but that doesn't undermine the significance. >> explain the significant. >> once again smith is uncounted by any witness, going for the jugular. >> after liz cheney.

>> i get it, but not the first person to have invited them. >> but he has the power, he could think it over, maybe he even was, but in addition, another indication that we are in the endgame, why does he want ivanka trump and jared kushner, a were in the center, especially ivanka trump, on january 6, more indication that trump is in the crosshairs and he is going forward aggressively without fear or favor, it is of a piece with mark meadows who might be even more important, but it reaffirms what we were thinking, and one more indication that he is farther along, not simply in mar-a-lago but especially in the january 6 welter of cases, and that i think is the headline.>> the generous his committee transcripts, among the transcripts for two months, why not go to them first, yvonne qasim centralist to understand what happened with trump and

pence? >> he surely has gone to them first, she was a little bit equivocal, she would allow us to maybe for example the big call with pence, it was spirited, he wants to know the words and i don't think the january 6 committee plumbed the depths of the many times people were saying you have to stop them, you're the only one, as well. >> the centrality, the unique ability to stop the violence. anyone he's going to put on, he needs the testimony from in case they go south, it won't be enough to say the generous his committee, this shows that she is a potential witness here against her father. >> we are joined now by mike schmidt, new york times reporter who broke the story. take us through your reporting. >> basically reporting about

the next movement in this investigation, the fact that jack smith once to have jared kushner and ivanka trump testify before a grand jury. i was thinking back on the different investigations into trump, i think it is the first time that i can recall that either of them have been asked to testify before a grand jury. it is obviously a different environment than simply sitting down and being interviewed by prosecutors or agents the way that kushner was during the mueller investigation. the biggest question i think here is, what will trump do? as you are pointing out, trump did allow them, that's probably not the right way of saying it, he didn't try to stop them from speaking before the january 6 committee, what will he do here? we know he has become very

obsessive about the investigations in recent months, obviously in a different place today, that he was when the congressional investigation was going on, and the legal liability is even more to the forefront as all of these different sprawling investigations, locally and at the federal level. will he try to stop them from testifying? it seems like they willingly went in to meet with the january 6 committee, who were able to use the testimony very effectively, they kept on playing the clip of ivanka trump talking about how she didn't think there was election fraud, sort of in -- endorsing the view of bar, constantly playing these clips. and jack smith showing look, whether it is mike pence or the

prison son-in-law and daughter, he's not afraid to reach this as far as the inner circle is possible.>> some reporting the story that i want to see if you can tell us if you have any indication, these are of specific interest to jack smith, you write that he was in the oval office, placing in the morning call to pressure to block or delay congressional certification of the electrical -- electoral college, president of the senate, and serving any ceremonial rule, is there anything to be read into the importance, one of the chronicled challenges of the investigations was the lack of first-hand witnesses, to the criminal act, a potential window into what trump did and why he said it? >> of course. and everyone interacting with

trump in this period of time to understand what were the true motivations behind what he was doing, that's what he wanted to talk to mike pence and jared and ivanka trump. i think we have a pretty good sense from the transcript, before the january 6 committee about what they would say, and remember they can't really deviate from what they said the congress, that would raise questions about the accuracy of the testimony. if you are jack smith, you want to know everything that trump was saying, whether it helps build a case or doesn't, no matter what happens, you need to know what he was saying and doing, it would potentially undermine a criminal charge, an important information to have because it would have to be disclosed at a trial. so you want a 360 degree view of what trump was doing and saying, not just the things

that help get you to the charge but the things that may cut against it. at the end of the day it will all come out if you were to indict and go to trial. >> there's been an interesting final note here, you write this, quote, trump, what do we call it, truth, but something he distributed on his platform, contrary to fake news reporting, i never asked jared or yvonne cuddy be part of the 2024 campaign to be present and specifically asked her not to do it, going on to say the campaign would be to mean and nasty, is that to be read as cutting them loose, i think he tweeted that after he was known -- they were known to have testified to the committee. >> i don't know, i can't make sense of that. [ laughter ] it's clear that based on what we know, they are not in the room with trump

every day the way they were in the white house, and besides that, what do the inner workings of the trump family look like post-white house, i don't have a great sense of it, i'm not sure what that message or tweet or post was about, or what he is trying to say. at the end of the day, these are people who are around trump for some of the most critical moments of his presidency, and to have access to those people would be pretty extraordinary, extraordinary with a january 6 committee when they spoke to him and extraordinary if they ultimately are able to get their testimony before grand jury. these are not just run-of-the- mill aides or people who were there at different points, they were there for the entire presidency, and in the room for much of it, that's an incredible wealth of information, if you are a prosecutor looking at donald trump and a wide range of

things, these are great witnesses. >> andrew weissmann, there's another line in the story i want to read, i forgot about this fact, mike is reporting this, ms. trump accompanied her father to the rally at the ellipse near the white house, hundreds of trump supporters moved from there to the capitol, where they attacked the building, some chanting hitting mike pence to for his refusal to do what trump wished. i forgot she made that movement with him but cassidy hutchinson brought our attention to how pivotal those hours were, the knowledge they were armed and his a desire and intent to have the mags removed so they could get closer to the stage, and traveling to the capitol. the window of time. what's the significance, with the significance. >> a discrepancy we learned a little bit about it, the

generous is committee, between sarah matthews and ivanka trump with regard to the state of mind, whether he was particularly upset at the time. and this is somebody, generally six, with the former president, learning about all the reactions, what he was seeking to do and what his demeanor was, whether he wanted to go to the capitol, as mike said, this is somebody who said yes, the presidents daughter but she also because of that was given this position at the white house and incredibly trusted aide as was jared, in that capacity they are being called into the grand jury. and i should say it's not just about january 6, there's a wealth of information they could have about the fake elect or scheme. the pressure on doj, and mike pence, there are all sorts of

aspects of the investigation. indeed, it could even go into mar-a-lago, and deal with what was it that they were told about how to retain or not retain documents. so there are lots of ways they could become very useful witnesses. the other thing to pay attention to is something harry said and i would like to . this is not asking them to come in for an interview, and coming into the grand jury, to me the fact it shows that jack smith is really being tenacious. usually there are all sorts of accommodations that are made for people like this to be interviewed, to have their counsel present, but this is saying no, everyone in america, i'm entitled to everyone's testimony in the grand jury, and they're being treated just like everyone else, and i think

it shows it is no longer likely mueller special counsel investigation, the former president is now the former president, the attorney general is not attorney general barr, and those accommodations don't need to be made, where he's going to be fired, so you see him taking advantage of that and making sure he get their testimony under oath in the grand jury, which is what you really need to do to set up the case going forward if you're going to bring charges. >> five seconds. >> let me ask andrew question. if ivanka trump's testimonies used, and bill barr, and he has the claims they were bogus, and ivanka trump did you see that way, and the result is that can be made or any guesses as to whether not bill barr has asked to come before the grand jury or has happened already? >> i would suspect if it hasn't happened, it's going to happen. some of this will depend on what

jack smith's view is of how thorough the questioning was of bill barr by the january 6 committee, the more you think they did a thorough job and you don't have other questions, the less you might find the need to do that but in general, i had to say in my experience there are always other questions and things that you want to lockdown because you're doing the investigation for different purpose. you are thinking, how will this play in a criminal trial? i would have the assumption that if bill barr has not received a grand jury subpoena to testify, that he will. >> one more weird question because of your comment about mar-a-lago, you think anyone has asked jared kushner if he wittingly or unwittingly took home classified documents? >> i don't know if the january 6 medhi did, i would suspect they didn't because of their limited purview but i think it would come up if you're putting him

in the grand jury, i would be interested, tell me about the protocol on the training and what you did and how you followed it, because it's going to be important in terms of proving a potential documents case with the atmosphere was in the training, and what you were told by white house counsel, and how did you do it, how did you implement what you were told by white house counsel, what you could and couldn't take. i should add one other thing, how did you communicate, by which i mean did you always use government emails or did you have any encrypted things that you communicate long, such as signal or whatsapp, and connecting with the material to make sure it was preserved for posterity. >> i think it has been reported that he used whatsapp, and none of that has been preserved -- or if any of that has been.

>> her interview absolutely, kid gloves, they backed off and let her give impressions, and bill barr, quite possible they interviewed him and he came involuntarily, they don't desailly no. >> if there wasn't a subpoena they might not. >> third, the timing is interesting, a partial insurance policy for mike pence, a clever move in might be able to delay things, that is good but on the other side of things, it might indicate he's looking for other days to get to mike pence. >> to get himself in the room, that's fascinating, mike schmidt, your last word? >> it's interesting to listen to andrew talk about the fact that the difference between trumping president and not being president, and how jack smith does not have to look over his shoulder when he issue subpoenas like this for people

that are so close to the president, thinking or maybe he's going to get fired, i think that the mueller people certainly were aggressive in certain ways but in other ways they were not making moves like this, and i think they were more constraint. and it is an obvious point, things are much different now, but you are seeing criminal investigations advance in ways in which they were stymied or were not able to proceed or mature when he was an option -- office. and he's not present anymore, it's obvious but the ramifications of that are significant.>> mike schmidt, new york times correspondent, author of donald trump versus the united states, thank you for the breaking news and 4:00, we always like that happens, andrew and harry kustok around, a special guest coming up, zoe lofgren joins us.

on the headlines including the latest move by jack smith. we will ask her about kevin mccarthy's decision to hand over hours and hours of january 6 surveillance video, handing it over to none other than fox news anchor tucker carlson, who spent the better part of two years running conspiracies about the january 6 insurrection. tucker teasing the tapes will reveal a lot, a lot of what we wonder, zoe lofgren is calling it a roadmap to another insurrection, talking about that when deadline white house continues, don't go anywhere today. here today.

new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? safelite makes it easy. whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. >> tech vo: you can schedule in just a few clicks. and we'll come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> man: looks great.

>> tech: that's service on your time. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

♪ ♪ to all the chevy silverado owners out there. the adventurers and the doers. to everyone that works hard and plays hard. whether it's your first silverado or your tenth. thank you for making chevy silverado the #1 best-selling retail full-size pickup.

joining us now, democratic congress woman zoe lofgren, a former member of the select committee and never cancels on us when news breaks that we would love to ask you about. first your reaction to the news that jack smith has subpoenaed ivanka trump, we will do them separately, ivanka trump was used was such great effect by the select committee, your thoughts about going for the grand jury if jack smith has his way? >> all i know is what the press has reported but i think it is significant. both of them appeared before our committee, some of it was useful but i will say there was a vagueness, especially with mr. kushner, and ivanka trump, hard to believe, i believe the

grand jury appearance might shake their recollections in some cases. >> what did ivanka trump a hard time remembering? >> she couldn't remember whether she had actually been sent in to convince the president to do various things, which numerous other witnesses had testified about. there was a vagueness as to his behavior and mood at the rally, remember, cassidy hutchinson's testimony, that her lawyer said if you could remember everything, and that's not the case, that is perjury, not saying that she engaged in that, and the recollection. it seemed hard to believe, maybe it's true, we don't know,

but i think that this subpoena has been issued and shows the special counsel is serious about this, and i think the drilling down that will occur in a grand jury setting is likely to be effective. >> so much of what the committee did with less tools that it's the disposal that jack smith has, is to get it, the intent by proving knowledge of defeat, evocative, if nothing else, did that quite effectively, saw the election the same way bill barr did, that she had lost, the times reporting reminds us that she went with her father to the ellipse, she may not remember what happened on the ellipse an hour before a deadly insurrection at the u.s. capitol, seems like a weird thing to forget, she's a young woman, i remember every moment of the day, speak to her specifically as a fact witness in the room for both her father

acknowledging defeat potentially and his knowledge of violence and enthusiasm for going there and witnessing it?>> i think she was so close to him obviously, and unpaid employee but also very close to her father, all the other witnesses really described her as the one person who could get to the ex-president. so i think she has insight into his mood, intent, that is very important and i think will be likely more fully explored in a grand jury setting and i think memories will become clear likely in a grand jury setting. >> if i have this wrong, i believe they also marshaled evidence of evocative assistant describing the reaction to what her brother said to trump, and described because he's famous, is understanding evocative's

reaction to pens, soap sitting to evocative assistant provided sworn testimony, your committee, the trauma, and the word, is that assumed to be part of this prong of smith's probe? >> and pursuing things that he thinks are important, not just with the vodka, the assistance seem to have a clear memory. >> we will see. >> and the problem is, and at least now, maybe the defenders, their own leads, jeered in the vodka first, a safe assumption

that they reached it already and the testimony will have to sync up, endanger perjury? >> i don't know, information on all the witnesses, nor should we, and the transcripts, the transcripts are available to them, and made with the understanding that lying to the congress was a crime, and they can rely on that, whether they need to call the witnesses in, that is a decision they will have to make. being called into a grand jury is no small thing. and perjury, you can be at risk if you don't tell the full truth, it is a serious matter. >> any matter that the committee spent a good deal of

time and care as i understand, as has been reported and we talked about, the security footage, excuse me, tapes from multiple angles on that day. tucker carlson isn't just any cable host, he's one with a lot of viewers but also in the dominion lawsuit has been outed as knowingly lying to his viewers and doing it for ratings and with newsmax and other outlets, what you are concerned about, take as much time as you need, about that person being the one who is holding all of those hours of security footage?>> is pretty strange that the one person given, in his words, unfettered access to the video, was that the general news media but essentially a propagandist. we know from the dominion lawsuit that he knowingly lies to his viewers and certainly

has done so about january 6 as well. >> it's our understanding that he has not been handed a hard drive to the video, he's been given access to the capitol but he said he intends to air some of the video on his show next week. so there's a lot we don't know about how the speaker has arranged his access. we just have mr. carlson's representation that he will be showing video. and i have concerns. the committee was very careful, the only people who had access to the video were the members of the committee and slick staff. it was very carefully controlled and none of the video was shown, unless we had agreement from the capitol police that it would endanger security of

the capitol. it is not clear to me that procedure is in place, and the representation. and it would seem to indicate it is not, a lot of material, and jeopardize, and escape routes, there are gaps in the placement of the cameras, one of the recommendations we made, those gaps, through the placement of additional cameras, i certainly don't want the bad guys to know where the gaps are, the members of congress, and another issue there. we know the ex-president supporters take his word is true and act upon his word. and he has belittled the capitol police. and they suggested, if they are not honorable are called 1a murderer. exposing the identity of all the

capitol police , putting them out risk, to the wild adherents of the ex-president, a concern i have. >> on earth one, more than 1000 people stand criminally charged, and the united states of america, the proud boys stilted standing trial, tucker carlson and latimer putin in the same news cycle started rewriting or shifting the pivot, the frame around ashli babbitt to that of a martyr, there is a lot of work that has gone into rewriting january 6, the congressman called the ordinary tourist visit, the possible motive, for kevin mccarthy to endanger the lives of those who work in the capitol, exposing the footage, we don't know

what would ultimately be exposed but what motive does he have to do that? >> he would have to ask -- answer for his own actions, but i don't think it is responsible to be granted unfettered access to a conspiracy theorist who lies to his audience. clearly, we saw, you can go, you don't have to buy the book, you can go to the gpo website and see a violent mob attacking police officers trying to keep them from gaining entry to the capitol, there's no way to make that look nice, make that look like a tourist visit. you are right that carlson has repeated the same kind of propaganda that putin has, that's a concern, that that kind of propagandist is being granted unfettered access to what can be very sensitive

video. >> you been so generous with your time, we always make you multitask for us and we are grateful, i want to ask you, if you can remember if there were any republicans who did not run alongside democrats, the famous footage things to the committee of josh hawley, and it seems that any effort to selectively edit would have to be really selective and edited, everything we saw was that republicans and democrats all ran for safety. what in their wildest delusions with a b trying to depict that shows something else? >> i don't know, getting to really poor woman was under the belief that the president wanted her to break into the capitol. she broke in a window, was trying to crawl through into the speaker's lobby. the members of congress were about 40 feet away being evacuated. so, you know, it was a mixed

crowd, republicans and democrats. i was there with a lot of republican members and the police trying to usher us to safety. there's no way to make democrats the only once at risk, and we should not approach this in that way. this is about the united states of america. united we stand. it's our congress that we need to preserve as a legislative branch. we can't allow a portion of government to be put at risk by bad guys. anything that would make the legislative branch more vulnerable is not something we should endorse. >> congresswoman lofgren, thank you so much for about being with us. we're really grateful. >> thank you. continuing our coverage, carolyn who knows more about this part of the story. also joining us former republican congressman david

jolley, who retains more ability to understand this party than i do. carolyn, your thoughts on this extraordinary move, even by mccarthy standards, to turn over the security footage to tucker carlson. >> in a normal situation, no matter a reporter's bent or the platform on which they stand, i can say if a reporter can get access to video and evidence held by congress, have at it. i certainly view it that way when i'm able to get information from congress that other people aren't. however, in this situation tuxer carlson has proved himself many times to cross the natural ethical lines of a reporter, including viewers he not to be false. frankly from my perspective some

of the things his program has aired would have led to the firing of employees at my institution if they had been engaged in it. i'm thinking specifically on the issue of. you may remember this or not, your memory is stunningly good, so i'm going to say you'll remember, but in the summer of 2020, there were allegations of fires burning out, riots and certainly people carrying guns and attacking civilians in portland, and in washington state in seattle, and elsewhere. folks who were protesting against george floyd's death, but more. in those events certainly there are riots. there was violence.

tucker carlson's program, however, aired a mishmash of photographs and video that pretended as if black individuals were holding rifles and shotguns against the backdrop of a city on fire. those were identified by photographers who took those photographs as basically an amalgam of multiple images. the worry is that it's a fabrication, a fab ulist version. it was to stoke fear about attacks on cities by black lives matter protesters that doesn't reflect anything about what was happening in those cities. >> we now have tucker carlson in his own words lying to viewers.

and that he's basically a hostage of his own ratings. >> i thinkist a defining moments in kevin mccarthy's speakership. this is his posturing as a j-6 apologist. he will likely be known for a few things, releasing security tapes into the public that jeopardizes the security of the capitol, a witch-hunt against hunter biden, and probably shutting down the government and defaulting. but i think the definition is this we obvious project him as being held hostage by the maga insurrectionist wing. he did not need to do this for the insurrectionist wing. he did this because he believed

it was the right things to do. this shifts or analysis of the speaker, to someone who is now a fully member of that wing. in terms of the lens of capitol security and national security, there's really no excuse for it. it shows him to be an incredibly weak speaker and someone who answered to some really untoward voices within the party and within conservative media and not to the interest of the nation. carolyn, i don't want to let you go without getting your opinion of the subpoena to jared kushner and ivana trump. >> i couldn't get closer. ivanka was the american brought around to calm the president down, to kind of get him less riled up and excited about a riot on the capitol grounds that

was threatening the lives of police officers and members of congress, but to try to get him cool, calm and willing to tape a message to his viewers. i couldn't agree more with congresswoman zoe lofgren about what the possibilities are for jack smith, in terms of pressing beyond what the committee was able to get. under threat of perjury, under threat of being charged with false statements -- i'm not suggesting that anybody in the trump family is looking to do that, but under that threat, people are a little more evocative and more mindful and memory-ful about what happened. you know, there was a moment that i had to giggle during her

testimony. she wanted to know where something came from, and they pointed to the book, and they said this could imfrom this book in which you said this is what you did on this day. so memories can be brought back when a federal subpoena for testimony is served. >> only someone trying to keep their stories straight has to say, wait, wait, who do i tell that to? an amazing day of news. lovely to have you all here at the table. thank you so much. when we come, my dear colleague ali velshi will be part of our panel. he's live in ukraine, and hit one of the most brutal hit part of that country today. the next hour of "deadline: white house" starts after a quick break. don't go anywhere.

♪♪ today, as we approach the one-year anniversary of russia's invasion, it's even more important we continue to stand together, and i think this is proof of this. that's why i wanted to meet all of you in person today, as nato's eastern flank, you're the front lines of our collective defense. you know better than anyone what's at stake in this conflict, not just for ukraine, but for the freedom of democracies throughout europe and around the world. hi there, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york. you be the judge, each trying to project strength, and steadfast calm. who we think is doing a better job. on the one hand, president joe

biden set to land in washington safe and sound following a historic trip, including a secret mission into an active war zone, with a rousing speech, and a meeting with allies designed to rea sure and rally them, that the united states will uphold its sacred commitment to defending every inch of nato territory. and, on the other hand, one vladimir putin. he met with chinese diplomats today, delivered a speech this morning on the eve of defensor of the fatherland day. it's really called that, praising russian soldiers, some of whom have been forced into a still described as a special operation that is now in humiliating fashion nearly a year old and not much more successful my tearily speaking. predictably, as he always seems to do when backed into a corner, is again talking about nuclear weapons. yesterday he suspended his

nation's involvement with the last remaining so-called new s.t.a.r.t. nuclear treaty. don't confuse kremlin's power of what could be a sign of panic at the kremlin. >> i don't have time. >> reporter: no time? >> no. it's a big mistake. >> i don't have time. as recently as the past week, nbc news as confirmed that they used the notification to let it know it was testing an intercontinental ballistic missile, a test which is reported to have failed so we begin the hour with some of our

favorite reporters and friends. my friend and colleague ali velshi, who skillfully hell many these hours yesterday. hello, my friend. back with us, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine, william teller, now the vice president for russia and europe at the institute for peace, and kevin barrett is here. ali, you want to start us off with your reporting today? >> reporter: yeah, i remember back to april 2nd of 2022. i was in ukraine at the time. the prior night we had, for the first time, seen the images that kim out of bucha. the russians were all the way up to kyiv. in fact, on the night on the invasion, my colleagues here could see russian tanks from this balcony of this hotel. they didn't get into the center

of kyiv, but they went into suburbs, and one of them was bucha, it was liberated on april 1st or 2nd of last year. we started to see images come out of there. we had to have serious discussions on television about whether we would air these pictures, because they were that gruesome. they reminded the world this isn't a war between two armies, as you think of a war. there were atrocities, crimes against humanity, war crimes being committed. i went there this morning with a man i had spoken to on that morning of april 2nd. he's a member of parliament. he had gone there, doing a live report for us. today he walked me through the areas we were in last year. let's listen to a bit of what he told me. >> the most awful thing during all this war was not here, but very close, in a small village, which is from ukrainian, it

means "dream." a beautiful name. but there were cars. in one of the cars there was the body of a small boy, probably like 6 years old. and also staying there for weeks, like my young child is 4 years, and, like, ah. >> reporter: i was talking to you at the time. you had gone through, and ump discovering these things in that moment. >> yeah. >> reporter: what were you thinking? >> use know. it was like, i was shocked and -- i was shocked and i -- i wanted revenge, and i wanted justice. like today, after one year, it's the same. we want justice. >> reporter: so, nicolle,

remember, the russians were in control of areas right around kyiv. they have been pushed back. they were liberated. while vladimir putin is sitter here on the almost one-year anniversary with very little to show, the ukrainians has a lot to show for the resilience and the fight they put up. >> i remember when the bucha story vote, and i remember pushing officials about it. it was the first time i saw john kirby choke up, and he's had that job for years. there's humanities that we don't have eyes on yet. how extensive is the war crimes, the crimes against humanity investigation in ukraine today? >> reporter: well, you remember one of the points about mariupol is there may have been thousands of people like this, but these

were areas under russian control. we've learned there were burn pits and they went out of their way to cover up what happened. the estimates of 8,000 to 30,000 civilians are debt. the military has also died. something that the vice president brought up in munich, they're harder crimes to prove. war crimes are easier to prove, because soldiers are not supposed to kill unaffirmed soldiers or people whose hands are bound. they're certainly not supposed to kill civilians. they took people out of their houses. if you have witnesses and video, you can determine that. crimes against humanity are organized. they have an intent, and the intent is harder to prove. it's impossible to prove if he

don't have somebody defeated, or if the perpetrator is the viktor of a war, they're impossible to prosecutor if you don't arrest somebody and they don't face justice. the war crimes discussion is important, one that the ukrainians are trying to further, but it is a difficult conversation. you actually have to charge people who are in decisionmaking authority. either way, there's a lot of evidence in this country by a lot of organizations and international organizations that atrocities have been committed. >> ambassador taylor, i remember the reporting at the time being that putin had invited this unit back, giving them awards and medals, that was it was precisely the way putin wanted this war waged. do you believe he's paid a price for that? >> no, not yet.

he must be held to account. all that ali was talking about, he's right, that has to go on, but you've identified a gap in the system. there's no security that is able to prosecutor vladimir putin for the crime of aggression. the crime of aggression is the fundamental crime. it is the basis for the crimes of atrocities and war crimes. genocide even. the crime of agrelgs is the fundamental one, and that's the responsibility of one man, president putin. to take him, to be able to go after him, hold him accountable, there needs to be an international tribunal, an international tribunal to prosecutor the crime of aggression, and the u.n. general assembly can establish such a crime -- such a court to prosecutor that crime. that needs to happen. that's a high priority for the ukrainians.

>> russia still sits on the u.n. security council, though. we're a long way from assembly a tribunal to prosecutor putin, right? >> a long way, and of course it won't happen in the security council. there's got to be a lot of work done to pass a resolution to get that done. the point is, that needs to start. president putin cannot go -- he has to be held accountable. this is the way to begin to find a way to hold him accountable. >> ambassador, you were the first person on this program to educate me to the thing that has borne out, how adept the ukrainian military is, at a byproduct of not just their skill and training, that they've been at war for many years. i have quoted you over and over again, because it's borne out now over the 10, 11, 12 months you've said it.

i wonder if you could give us your thoughts on what they need to prevail. >> many of us knew they would fight. many of us knew they would draw their strength from the ukrainian people. that's where -- this is a fight of all of ukraine against this aggression, so the military takes either strength, its motivation and takes its success from the ukrainian people. they have done extremely well. they start off with what they had, and the arms have come. the weapons have come. to the administration's credit, it's gone from scratchens all the way up to himars, from stingers up to patriots. from no armor up to abrams tanks. so the trend is exactly right. that's what the ukrainian military needs. they can break through the

russian lines. people say the russian offensive has begun, well, it's pretty paltry. the counter-offensive is mounding. they are preparing their units with these new weapons. they can win. they can break through. the military has fought brilliantly, doddly. it's harder they're exhausted, with another big push in them. >> am bass error teller, are you 12350id with what you have seen the it's government and specifically the poig give the ukrainians to works with. the pentagon would say it shouldn't all be on us, but specifically what our country has done, or do you feel ukraine is being asked to fight and win with an armed tied behind its back? >> i wouldn't say that. i would say that the united states has done as amazing job

of getting new pep well way up the ladder. there's a couple rungs left on the ladder. the long-range artillery rockets that need to come. i think secretary austin by organizing 50 nations, mostly 30 of them nato nations, but 20 more nationsb yond nato, that organization has made a big difference. that needs to continue. they need to go up a couple more rungs and soon. this counter-offensive that the ukrainians are about to undertake needs those tanks and long-range, the air defense, drones, and they need them right now. >> donald trump put out a missive, a tweet that said something about world war iii is

closer than it's ever been now. he then attacks a corrupt globalist establishment that has botched every major foreign policy decision. you served as an ambassador when he was there. a lot of people who were in his administration, in the national security agencies, have suggested told have been nothing less than disastrous for ukraine if he was still president. do you share that assessment? >> i do. i do. i think the united states would not have put up the same support for ukraine that we have seen. it would not have let on the international coalition. 8:00 not interest brought on allies. alliances were not big in the previous administration. alliances are key to ukrainian wins, ukrainians winning this battle. i think it would have been re different. >> kevin, with that in mind, let me ask you to speak to the impact of this week for

president zelenskyy. as the ambassador and ali have both pointed out ukraine is wins on the battlefield, but also with what it is fighting for, and the spirit and the resill unions and resolve of the people there. how much did a visit from an american president sort of turn up the rhole on all those things? ukraine has done a lot on the battlefield, and it seems to be a morale boost, exactly what they wanted, we'll see what it does. ali mentioned the munich conference at the top. i was at the conference this weekend. of all the questions i've heard you ask, they are right on spot, but they lead me for a general

conclusion, you know, that things are still so uncertain. nobody knows how long the war will go on. nobody knows just how much more advanced weaponry the allies are willing to give, beyond the tanks it took months for them to agree to give. nobody knows how the war will end, whether a negotiating table or protracted conflict. i think there's a lot of discontent among the allies. even that conference, from kamala harris' speech in the main hall to what you heard in the sidebar rooms, was different. they're worried of the real yi9ity, you know, money isn't infinite, weapons are not infinite, but it at least buys them the time they need to get through any russian offensive coming their way.

>> it has to be causing some consternation to see china, i don't know if codying up is the right word, but at least not running away from vladimir putin's russia. >> yeah, this is a major shift where basis engine has kept itself at arm's length, at time was willing to break with russia, and not they're muddying the water even more, but really, you know, it's been a long trend. even in the statements this week, you see, you know, the visit by minister yi, reports that xi is going to visit. at the same time, statements that beijing doesn't support russia's invasion, they're using every chance they can to wrap biden with it. you can see the chinese foreign

ministerry's twitter feed and it's one tongue in chief after another. it's an alignment that no one wants, but beijing is willing to take. >> ali, he i know where you are, everyone is fully aware. tell me what they believe the timeline is for prevailing, and it's not a straight line, right? it's this, then that. so just take me through some of those scenarios from the ukrainian perspective. >> reporter: well, you know, it was the polish president who articulated this on friday. we celebrate another anniversary next year, russia will feel em -- emboldened to target another state. it seems impossible that russia

would try with poland, but those countries need that to be a real possibility. they need this to end. they joined nato years ago, and here in ukraine, they believe they are the flank, the border between russia and those nato countries on the eastern flank. they sort of said things likes, to get to you, they will have to go through us first, and we will stand here, we will defend you, but you need to help us. to also kids, they know all the weaponry, the names of the things they're getting, the things they want. they don't want western soldiers. they've said this a million times. they want their pilots trained, but we will fight under the end and we will win. the other thing is they don't want a negotiated settlement. they want russia to leave. joe biden said, if russia stops

fighting this war it would end, if ukraine stops fighting this war, ukraine will end. such a pleasure to have all three of you. thank you for sharing your reporting with us and starting off this hour. when we come back, as ukraine fights to keep its country and democracy together, a top ally of kevin mccarthy is talking about breaks hours into bits. marjorie taylor greechb is no longer the fringe of the republican party. she and vladimir putin are, at least for now, pushing the same lines, the same words, same message about succession. why it can't be ignored. and back to the story that broke in the last hour, jared kushner and ivanka trump have

been subpoenaed. we'll have guests with his reaction to this breaking news. don't go anywhere today. o this s don't go anywhere today. when you shop wayfair, you get big deals for your home - every day. so big, we'll have you saying... am i a big deal? yeah you are, because it's a big deal, when you get a big deal. wayfair deals so big that you might get a big head. because with savings so real... you can get your dream sofa for half the price. wayfair. it's always a big deal. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do.

indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire ♪ ♪ to all the chevy silverado owners out there. the adventurers and the doers. to everyone that works hard and plays hard. whether it's your first silverado or your tenth.

thank you for making chevy silverado the #1 best-selling retail full-size pickup.

freedom. there is no sweeter word than freedom. americans know that, and you know it. all that we do now must be done to our children and grandchildren will know it as well. >> president joe biden's

surprise trip into kyiv to stand with the democratic leader fighting to protect his democracy, and that sweeping speech to deliver to -- we're all reminded how fragile democracy and freedom are. nothing exemplifies this more that ukrainians are now defending their fremont dom and democracy. not just for them, but for us too. other democracies. despite a week of trying to underscore that point and lived of democracy, its ideals, it seems there's still some people in this country in the republican party who want to destroy it, right now, today, even as we celebrate ukraine's valiant efforts. on presidents' day, the day

honoring our presidents, as well as during biden's trip to ukraine, one of the main peddlers, and in thely anointed best friend and powerbroker. speaker kevin mccarthy, marjorie taylor greene called tweeted this, quote -- we need a national divorce. we need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government from the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the democrats last policies, we are done. the first intuition is to ignore her, right? brush off crazy mtg. thank to kevin mccarthy, she's the most powerful person in his caucus, and scary thing, she's

not alone. she's a louder void, a louder sentiment. pete waner rights this, the republican party, in a fight guess secession, now finds the move worth contemplating. joining us ben rhodes and donna edwards, both msnbc contributors. ben, your thoughts? >> i think you framed it right, nicolle. we are truly living in a consequentially time. nowhere is that clearen that you even crane -- in ukraine. and china is challenging the united states more directly than ever before. here back home, you have this disease infecting the republican party, reaching this logical

crescendo in marjorie taylor greene's words, that our union is not even worth preserving. it's so discordant from what's happening around the world, and yet, as much as you can dismiss it, it has very real consequences. you talk to people in ukraine, part of the reason that they feel like the next year is decisive, part of it that is unspoken, nobody knows what's going to happen in our election, and donald trump is lurking in the rings, ron desan tills moving in the direction of that maga brand of american isolationism. so what's at stake really is the safety and security and future of our democracy, but also the ripple effects that that has through the world. so, we can't dismiss people this close to power, frankly we have only lived through this period of divided government for like a month. what will happen when there are inevitably major crises internationally or domestically

in this country? what's going to happen in this new era of a divided government, with people like her that close to the center of power? i think we could be in for unsteady times, not the least, of course, is the debt ceiling. >> donna, the right did such a job on smearing and dismantling legitimate questions by rob mueller's goals about shared goals between the russian government and the trump campaign, which proves out but there's such a -- congressman swalwell and congressman schiff come back to it, but this is what's happened -- actually this happened before. ten house republicans voted against military aid against ukraine. the usual suspects.

you have marjorie taylor greene tweeting about secession, and this comment from -- as i commented yesterday, breaking up america is a kremlin talking point. putin supports secessionist movements all over the world. so, again, i think we get chicken and egg. the point is marjorie taylor greene, vladimir putin, and too often than anyone would like to acknowledge, tucker carlson are at same page. they are. when i heard president biden in kyiv, and, of course, in war saw, i heard he was speaking as much to an interaudience as he was to a domestic audience.

the clarion call for democracy and freedom, because he realizes and recognizes the challenge that is we are facing and we might describe it as a small outlier faction, but the problem with that description is that that faction grows, and we don't know what percentage of the american people, and marjorie taylor greene isn'tups an outlier anymore. she's central in the republican party, in the republican house of representatives. i don't think we can just dismiss these notions that somehow, separate from our own fight for freedom and for democracy, and it really is on the line. i worry that sometimes we think that russia is one thing and something separate from the fight we are having here in the united states, but that could be true when the echos are the same

from members of the republican party and we hear from the kremlin. >> and even if the kremlin takeover of the gop isn't imminent, there's this risk of political violence, let me read this to you. southerly war will not happen in the units, at least not anytime soon, but all the emotions ato which to a desire for secession, seething reseven machine, unforgiving spirit, content and hatred for those who disagree are stoked by this kind of rhetoric employed by marjorie taylor greene. it would destroy american culture, and easily lead to political violence. ben, that seems like some of what we have entered, with the targeted political shootings in

new mexico, the attack on the speaker's husband, and others. yeah, nicolle, it's currently happening the this is not a future scenario. what happens is, because it's incremental in its escalation, first we get accustomed to threats, then we get accustomed to small acts of violence, then accustomed to the increasing pace of violence. this is already ticking upward. i want to come back to something we said, because these things all do connect. you have to take them seriously. i want to say this from experience. it was easy, you know, in, say, after the 2012 election to dismiss donald trump as, like a marjorie taylor greene, he's fringe, and nutso things they say on fox news, and maybe we laugh at it. a few years later he was president. to your russia point, we constantly have this debate about is russia creating this

content that's catching fire on the internet and the conspiracy theorists corners of the enter in the or simply amplified? i think it's a distinct without a difference. the point is there are people against department sit, that want to turn us against one another, that are okay radicalizing people, even to commit acts of violence. that's a snowball that's been growing over the course of the last decade. we can't assume it's going to go away. particularly with so many momentum. as donna said, like, look at this as one big challenge. these areforces trying to tear us apart. we should not take for granted our democracy. >> i feel like the three of us

need to pick up on this. i think that's the national security crisis of the moment, this intersection of our adversary and the amplifiers in our country. who started it doesn't matter. that's a middle-school question. it's a fact, but also a great political opportunity to further grow the democracy. to be continued. thank you both so much. we're going to go back to the big breaking news. "new york times" that jared curb her and ivanka trump have been subpoenaed by jack smith. we'll get tim hakke on this network. don't go anywhere. hakke on this network. don't go anywhere.

♪ well, the stock is bubbling in the pot ♪ ♪ just till they taste what we've got ♪ [ tires squeal, crash ] when owning a small business gets real, progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we? [ cheering ] hi, i'm tony hawk, and like many of you,

now, where were we? i take a statin to reduce cholesterol, but statins can also deplete coq10 levels. that's why my doctor recommended qunol coq10. qunol has the number one cardiologist recommended form of coq10. qunol. the brand i trust. we got the house! you did! pods handles the driving. pack at your pace. store your things until you're ready. then we deliver to your new home - across town or across the country. pods, your personal moving and storage team. when you stay at a vrbo the host doesn't stay with you. because without privacy in your vacation home, it isn't really a vacation... ...is it? [birds chirping] your heart is the beat of life. if you have heart failure, entrust your heart to entresto. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren,

or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto.

when i entered the office the second time, he was on a telephone with who i later found out to be was the vice president. the conversation was, was pretty heated. tiffs a different tone that i had heard him take with the vice president before. >> on the morning of january 6th, ivanka trump heard her father on the phone with the vice president, when he spoke in a different attorney, pressuring him to block or delay the certification of the electoral college. i just one example of the firsthand accounts that ivanka

had already provided. we learned in the last hour from breaking news in "new york times," that special prosecutor jack smith has subpoenaed ivanka and jared tissue ner to appear before the grange in his investigation into january 6th. tim was the key investigators of the house select committee. he joins us now, first reaction and breaking news. we not that it was painful to watch, because she said so also, but we thought of what you were able to get out of her, and she seems to go straight to that phone culls, putting jack smith on the room with donald trump and mike pence. can you understand the significant of that? >> sure, nicolle. thanks for having me on. this is not a surprise, first of all. special counsel is going to speak to anything that he thinks has direct evidence of the

president's state of mind. that's crucial to him. so his statements and actions before january 6th and on that day are directly relevant, so to me this is a logical step. as you said, ivanka, when she spoke to the select committee, was very careful in her words and her account was much less colorful than the account provided by others, including her chief of staff, julia bradford, who testified that ivanka came back visibly shaken after witnessing that phone call and reported to her the president used the "p" word. even though this is cable television, i think it's obvious. she was careful with us, but she has directly relevant information that i'm confidence jack smith and his team will want to develop under oath. >> thanks to bill barr, a lot of

the cable news and swearing have gone down, but we appreciate you not using it. that was a favorite word of donald trump. let me read the part of the transcript from your interview. this is ivanka's chief of staff. she shared that donald trump had called the vice president an expletive. i think that bothered her. the word she relayed to you that the president called vice president -- i policy gize being implies, do you remember what it was? >> the "p" word. congresswoman lofgren didn't go so far to suggest that i have ivanka didn't remember things. do you think she lied to you? >> i think she was extremely careful, nicolle. this is a difficult situation for her, to be called to answer

questions about her father. she didn't recall some things in a reasonably you would have expected her to call, things that others told us very directly she was involved in. curbman said he went to get her because she would have a calming influence. she said i didn't think i was being used as a calming influence. she didn't recall the specifics words, again. kayleigh mcenancy said it was her that got -- she didn't remember if that was her or someone else. so my interpretation at the time was she was being very careful, she did not recall things that others recalled specifically. he didn't deny them. she didn't recall them. she was trying to do the minimal amount necessary without directly lying. >> do you think she will be more forthcoming in front of a grand jury?

>> grand juries are much more formal procedure. she was not under oath in our proceeding. she will be with the grand jury. we had six or eight hours with her. the goal was really so sort of develop information in a much more of an openended way. the grand jury is a much different proceeding, much more focused. they will try to have a conversation with her in advance of her going under oath. whether she will or will not cooperate, that's unclear. i don't know how to answer that in terms of whether all of those circumstances will result in different answers under the grand jury. i think it's clear again that the special counsel will try his beth to put everyone's potentially relate vanity information through that process and develop a record even more complete. >> so much of what the public knows about donald trump's state of mind, we know from cassidy hutchinson's accounts of mark

meadows' interactions you have in ivanka trump who was a direct interactor, and she was sent in there to call off the dogs from wanting to kill mike pence. what crimes would be underscrutiny if her testimony about being basically a roadrunner, in and out of the oval office all day, would she provide important evidence to either prove or disprove? >> yes. again, the special counsel has to determine whether there's evidence of specific intent to interfere with, disrupt the joint session. the president's actions on january 6th, as the riot is until way doctor, le bear upon that. his resistance to issuing a statement suggests that he was not uncomfortable with what was happening at the capitol, a disruption of the joint session.

my guess is, nicolle, that the special counsel will also ask her about the president's statements before january 6th about the election. he was told repeatedly, even acknowledged, perhaps to her or others, that he lost, which makes the intent to disrupt the joint session by continuing to lie about the election a stronger case. so special counsel will be ask asking about a whole series of events that give a window into the president's and other close enablers or co-conspirators into the collective state of mind to prevent the transfer of power. >> once she's testified before congress, do you anticipate president trump could try to invoke any executive privilege for his daughter? >> he did not with the select committee. there was no privilege assertion made by ivanka or jared. the former president certainly

knew how to invoke it. he did not with his daughter and son-in-law. i think it would be difficult to invoke an executive privilege now that they have already provided some information. i don't think it's a attorney-client that once waived its always waived, but i think it would be difficult at this point to unring the bell. even though she stepped around things, she provided some directly important information that special counsel will want to develop on the record. >> this is in "new york times" story about the subpoena that she went with trump to the eclipse. jared hadn't landed back from the middle east yet, but ivanka goes with him. so much of the dramatic testimony from cassidy is about that day, and about those hours, specifically about trump's knowledge that his backers and supporters were armed,

specifically that he wanted the -- taken down, and the fact that she's there at the point where he's made aware of the violence and continues to insist going to the adapt toll, tell me about the significant of her testimony. >> yeah, it is significant. there's another forecast that has a picture of her hand on his back. to me that's evocative. it was consistent with what other says about her role, that she was a calming influence, she was one of the people that could speak to him and get him to sees reason when others could not. keith kellogg, who was the vice

not like an aide speaks to the president here and i think there were a lot of people that said, she was there to try and tamp down the anger and the rhetoric. she did not put herself in that role as a calling influence, but many others that worked closely with them did. i think that picture of her with her hand on his back, really powerful evidence, that she was trying. this is ending, it is time for us to move forward. >> one of the most effective uses of her stilted and limited testimony was to pair it with bill barr's and ask if she saw the election the way that he did. would you assume that bill barr's testimony has already been shared the grand jury, that he already went in and testified? >> don't know the answer to that. my guess is that special

counsel will want to develop his own evidence and put witnesses that testified as select committee with grand jury under oath. believes the bill barr testimony is relevant, she would want former attorney general to be in the grand jury. ivanka told us that she agreed with attorney general barr and his conclusions that these investigations of alleged election fraud did not bear fruit. there was no evidence, and that it was time to move forward. she was looking to move to florida. they were looking at places to live, schools for their kids in november. jared and ivar, where very soon after the election, seemingly accepting the reality that they had lost the election and were leaving washington. >> is it of interest or something that a prosecutor

would want to ask in front of a grand jury, whether she talked to her father how great it would be with those two living in florida now, number washington winters? is there a conversation that a prosecutor can bring to life in front of a grand jury that proves what the committee sought to prove, he knew he lost? >> yes, absolutely. i think any knowledge that they had in future plans about moving to florida. another thing cited in our report, however, about ivanka and her testimony, the fact that she claimed never to have heard the president , her father , say anything expressing remorse about january 6th. he never expressed concern about the injuries of the capitol police officers. she and jarret both testified that they never discussed january 6th. there may be more therefore the special counsel to develop that again we were not able to get. >> what is jared kushner useful for? >> he was present january 6,

albeit later in the day, as you said, flew back from the middle east and arrived at the white house once the riot was underway and largely concluded. he was a very important voice the next day, january 7th, in trying to encourage the president to issue a statement about committing to the transfer of power. he also has a lot of information about fundraising. kushner was directly involved in campaign fundraising, even postelection. there may be a lot of questions coming to him about approval for expenses for ads that were putting forth the stop the steel narrative. the president raised 240, $250 million after the election by putting forth in television ads, text messages, fundraising messages, that the election had been stolen and jared kushner knows a lot about that. my guess would be that special counsel would want to ask about the big prod fraud as indicated

in the hearings. >> the exposure could possibly be, if you knew that trump had lost, if he and ivanka were looking for property in miami because donald trump would no longer be president, and he participated in fraudulent things, he might be willing to share information if he participated in that? >> yes, potentially. i think, for jared, as opposed to ivanka , knowledge would be likely for epic investigation. for her, it is more about before and on january 6th. >> can you weigh in on kevin mccarthy's decision to share capitol footage with tucker carlson? >> i don't know how much has been shared. all i know is what i have seen in newspapers. i will say, we got access to that surveillance footage under very tight controls and protocols to maintain its cultural originality, it is law enforcement sensitive. the location of where cameras

are around the capitol complex is information the capitol police very much want to protect. the disclosure of it makes the complex less safe and provides information that could be used for the commission of future crimes at the capitol. it is dangerous. we only have carefully used that and worked with the capitol police to minimize the law enforcement impact of this exposure. i don't really know if those same conditions apply, if there is in agreement with the capitol police, what days, hours, any of that. all of that is unclear. >> thank you for your time, once again. we are very grateful. thank you very much for spending time with us was such a remarkable newsday. another break for us. we will be right back. back.

detect this: living with hiv, i learned i can stay undetectable with fewer medicines. that's why i switched to dovato. dovato is for some adults who are starting hiv-1 treatment or replacing their current hiv-1 regimen. detect this: no other complete hiv pill uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2. research shows people who take hiv treatment as prescribed and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit hiv through sex. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients, or if you take dofetilide. taking dovato with dofetilide can cause serious or life-threatening side effects.

hepatitis b can become harder to treat while on dovato. don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor, as your hepatitis b may worsen or become life-threatening. serious or life-threatening side effects can occur, including allergic reactions, lactic acid buildup, and liver problems. if you have a rash or other allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, or if you are, may be, or plan to be pregnant. dovato may harm your unborn baby. use effective birth control while on dovato. do not breastfeed while taking dovato. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect this: i stay undetectable with fewer medicines. ask your doctor about switching to dovato.

thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. someday, we will stop saying that, but not gait. we are grateful. hi, ari. >> thank you so much. welcome to "the beat." we begin with how these legal probes seem to begin, or at least have developments in the trough cases. and more developments about indictments, also several new subpoenas hitting trump's inner circle. nicole was just reporting on this. "the new york times" reports that the and once testimony from kushner and evoke a truck.