tv Deadline White House MSNBC November 12, 2021 1:00pm-3:00pm PST
bannon -- nothing had happened with the department of justice. now that it has, perhaps it will give the select committee more confidence to move forward with their threat to also refer a criminal contempt charge to the justice department on behalf of mark meadows, and perhaps even jeff lee clark, the former department of justice trump administration official who also has defied the january 6th select committee's subpoena. >> lee anne called well, joyce vance, pete williams reporting on this breaking news this hour. thanks to all of you. thank you for watching this hour of hallie jackson reports. you know nicole is going to have more on this. "deadline: white house" starts right now. hi, there, everyone it's 4:00 in new york. we begin with that breaking news, the merrick garland justice department -- out of the merrick garland justice department that will have implications into the deadly capitol insurrection.
d.o.j. announcing in just the last few minutes that a federal grand jury has indicted steve bannon on two counts of contempt of congress of course because of his refusal to comply with a subpoena from the select committee. it comes on a day chock full of developments for the january 6th select committee. former white house chief of staff mark meadows is refusing, and today refused to show up in person for a deposition. that's despite being threatened by the committee with a contempt referral all of his own. joining us now, member of the house select committee investigating january 6th, congresswoman zoey lock ran of minnesota. you were scheduled to be here before the indictment came down. it has. we are pleased to have you here on this day of breaking news. first your reaction to the indictment of steve bannon? >> i think it is important. i think it follows the rule of law. you know, bannon, and now meadow appear to believe that they are above the law, that the law doesn't apply to them. that's not the case. and i'm glad that the department
of justice reviewed the facts and the law, and that mr. bannon has been indicted, and i believe an arrest warrant signed. you can't do that in america. i hope mr. meadows will come to his senses and come in and answer questions and produce documents as the law requires. >> just as a practical matter, can you take us through what happens next for steve bannon? >> well, you know, i'm not an expert in the criminal law, but i believe that, you know, when someone is indicted, then they are arrested and they are arraigned. and then the question before the judge would be whether he's a flight risk or not, whether he can be released on bond pending his trial. and i don't know what the answer to that would be. >> is he still an interest? should the fact that things are getting real for mr. bannon -- i believe he has been pardoned.
i believe he had a ten use relationship with the truth in previous testimony in other investigations involving his exboss. he has now been charged with criminal contempt of congress. if he somehow gets religion, are you still interested to talking to him? >> well, of course. not only interested in asking him questions, but we're interested in documents that we have asked him for, you know, the documents don't lie. you know, i have heard from others that he has sometimes a tenuous connection with reality and the truth. i don't know if that's the case or not. but we do want him to come in. we have questions to ask him. and of course if he lies to congress, that's also a criminal offense. >> congresswoman, mark meadows missed his deposition today. can you take us through the process for him. will there be a criminal referral for him as well for contempt? >> the committee hasn't yet met
to decide that. but it seems to me that we've got to take some action. you can't allow these individuals who have information that the committee needs to simply flout their obligation, thumb their nose at congress and the law. this just -- that can't happen in america. we have got to take stern steps. i would hope, actually, that mark would see this and understand that he has an obligation to come in. and we'll go through the questions one by one. if he has, you know, an assertion of privilege for one question, he can go ahead and assert it. and we'll make a judgment on that. but you can't just refuse to come in and do your duty and answer questions. >> with the process of obtaining documents for you and your colleagues at least delayed a bit by the lawsuit now, i wonder
how important it is to have these contempt referrals move expeditiously so that the document production is encouraged by anyone who hasn't yet defied a subpoena and as people go through this process, perhaps they become more generous with sharing those documents. can you just weigh in on that from the perspective of the investigation. >> sure. the former president obviously is trying to delay this. his case is almost non-existent, as you can tell from reading the decision by the trial court judge. i am actually -- was pleased by the aggressive posture taken by the appellate court. it has to be -- the briefs are due within days. there will be a decision, we think, very promptly. and that's right. we have to get this done. it's november 12th, and we need to get these documents. we need to be able to take a
look at the facts, see what legislation we want to propose that would keep this from happening again. tame is awastin'. we've got to get this done. >> john carlyle released videos of excerpts of interviews he did with the expresident. there is no -- shame isn't the right word, but there is no flimplging around the mission statement of the insurrectionists themselves, which was to hang mike pence. he makes clear he was never worried about mike pence. this is still the leader of the republican party. i believe 58% of all republicans in this country would like to see him -- most of them believe he is still the president which of course is ridiculous. but they would like to see him run again, and win. how does that weigh on all of
you? >> well, it is a a tremendous concern. i mean, his behavior is a threat to our democratic republic. i mean, it's in a simple. you know, that he would countenance the use of violence, apparently, to try to hang onto power after he lost an election, it really is extraordinary. it's never happened in american history. and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. you know, the two political parties -- i believe that it is important to have two strong parties with different views. you know, we can have agreements about policy issues. but we can't have disagreements about reality, about whether violence is appropriate in seizing power in the united states. that should not ever be part of our political culture in the united states. >> since mark meadows was the witness who did not show up today, we here have been looking at all of the places where he
either spearheads or intersects very much with donald trump's conduct leading up to december -- or to january 6th. of course, there is the call to georgia's secretary of state, raffensperger, where he's on the line. there is all of the participation in donald trump's pressure campaign with the justice department. he's on those calls. he makes some himself. can you speak about the importance of meadows as a witness since his defiance of that subpoena comes when d.o.j. has made abundantly clear how they, as a department, vee defiance of a congressional subpoena? >> i think hits defiance is completely unwarranted. we have a lot of questions about what he did. he may wish to assert that a conversation that he had with the former president is privileged the -- actually, the white house says no. the current white house counsel. but let's say, just for the sake of argument, that a conversation
he had with the president is not going to be answered. what about all the conversations he had with members of congress, with legislators, with the department of justice? that's not privileged in any way. and he needs to answer questions about it. we need to get the documents about it. we need to understand what role he played in trying to undermine the constitution. >> with steve bannon's indictment today -- i know you said already you are not a criminal law expert. sadly, neither am i. but do you have a sense what have the punishment is? do you know what steve bannon is facing and what mark meadows could face if he defies the subpoena? >> it could be a year in jail. yes. >> wow, and are you -- did you all sit around and discuss a plan b had merrick garland not taken this course? i think there has been a lot of talk. adam kinzinger talked yesterday
about the precedent of congress enforcing its own subpoena. was that on the table? >> you know, we look at every option. we are researching the opportunities that we have. but i don't think it would be productive to go into those discussions here on television. >> congresswoman, i have one last question. you mentioned the rule of law. the attorney general says this in his statement today. since my first day in office i promised justice department employees that together we would show the american people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law. i think a lot of people feel like that hasn't been the case at any point, not in the mueller investigation, not in the stormy daniels campaign finance crimes that michael cohen went to jail for. do you have a feeling that this is different? >> well, i think it's important -- this is an important step for the department of justice. and i do know people thought it was, you know, a attorney general decision as ultimately
the buck stops with him. but it was the product of the ordinary investigation, the fbi investigated, i happen to know, and looked at the documents. and just as you would with any potential crime. and reached a conclusion that resulted in a grand jury indicting mr. bannon. that's right. that's the right way to go about it. it shouldn't be a political endeavor. it should follow the facts and the law. that's what was promise. and that's what happened here. and that's the way our country is supposed to run. i think it is a piece of good news for the rule of law. >> it certainly is. thank you for starting us off. we are grateful. >> you bet. >> let's bring into our conversation neal cattial, charlie sykes is here, and carol lentic joins us.
>> neal, you were right. you predicted this day would come. i was skeptical. i will admit it. you were right. your thoughts? >> well, you know, i can't say it better than merrick garland just did n a really beautiful statement to use the trumpian word. this indictment is necessary to preserve the rule of law and equal justice under law. the process the attorney general went under. he doesn't reflexively do what congress said. he studied it and came to this conclusion. this is all about a guy, steve bannon, who is afraid to tell the truth under oath. that's why he is being indicted. i lost track personally of how many trump advisers have been indicted. steve bannon was -- this is not his first rodeo. he was indicted and convicted once already. this is a bit different. this is not about fund-raising,
cheating, which was what bannon was indicted for before, something like that. it is about an attack on the soul of our democracy, about january 6th. if you can't come and tell the truth about that, if you are afraid to do that, of course contempt is the right thing. i am glad to see the grand jury doing what it's doing -- doing what it did. and i think the attorney general was absolutely right in making this call and seeking this indictment. >> i want to ask you, neal, to sort of take us through the process. first i want to read from the justice department's announcement that this had happened. in its subpoena, the select committee said it had reason to believe bannon had information relevant to understanding events related to january 6th. bannon, formerly a chief strategist and adviser to the president has been -- since 2017. each count of contell of congress carries a minimum of 30 days a maximum of 1 year in
jail, a maximum fine of $100,000. a judge will consider any sentence after considering the u.s. sentencing guidelines. take me through what you would imagine is going on between a lawyer and the now indicted steve bannon. >> nothing good. so, first of all, the process on the garland side. you know, garland is as i have been saying, methodical, meticulous about this. this is a guy who has never been overruled once by the supreme court in 20 years of being a judge on the nation's second highest court. while i haven't read the indictment yet, i suspect everything in it is going to be buttoned up really well. steve bannon and his lawyer -- to the extent he can get a lawyer -- there the process goes like this. first of all, nobody has been indicted for criminal contempt of congress for 38 years. it has been a long time, because normally people come and tell
the truth to congress. the process will be, after this grand jury indictment, there will be an arrest warrant issued by a manning straight judge. bannon will then have to appear for his arraignment very soon, over the weekend. the potential charges here are between 30 days in jail to a year in jail that arraignment will decide when his preliminary trial date will be set. it is supposed to be set within 70 days. but it can be suspended and waived. i suspect it probably will be here because trump and his minions do everything to try to delay things. i expect the justice department to oppose that and say nope, we are ready to go. one of the reasons we have been waiting for garland i suppose the last couple of weeks is so he could have the case ready to go and they can say to the judge we want to go as fast as possible. >> it is my understanding from the justice department's release that one year in jail is
possible for each count. he has been indicted on two counts of contempt. i have one more question to you about the time line. mark meadows now finds himself in the position that is clearly articulated in this time line. on page 7 of the indictments, it talks about bannon not burying before his select committee deposition schedule. that was october 14th. today is that date for mark meadows. then the following day, on the 15th, the select committee chair sends a letter to bannon through his attorney addressing the refusal to produce documents. by 6:00 p.m. on the 18th, bannon thou made no submission for the committee investigation, did not say he conducted a diligent seven for responsive documents, did not appear for a deposition, and did not obey the subpoena in any way. between the 14th and the 18th, this moves very quickly. what is your sense of -- if
today is similar to what the 14th was for bannon, how quickly do you think they will move on mark meadows. >> they can move more quickly than they did for bannon, but not super quickly because there are differences. there is three different reasons why garland may have concluded that executive privilege doesn't apply. any of them wuv enough. one is, trump is not the president. the supreme court said it is mostly up to the current president to invoke executive privilege that applies equally to bannon and meadows and everyone else. second is executive privilege can be overcome if there is an overwhelming need for the evidence. that would apply again, equally to the two. but the third reason is that that bannon wasn't working for the government at the time of this supposed executive privilege. meadows, of course, as the chief of staff, was. depending which of the rationales was use by garland, it may delay things a little bit as they evaluate that third
prong. there is no doubt nicole that the effect of the bannon indictment today is to very much change the dynamic between mark meadows and his lawyer and jeffrey qulark and his lawyer and how they interact with congress. now these people have to know the justice department is serious about getting to the bottom of the truth unlike the last four years where we had cover-ups and shenanigans. these people may be looking at real jail time and there is no possibility president biden is going to pardonen them. >> i want to bring carol and charlie in, who have nodded. i can see them. our viewers can't. i want to be blunt, i want to put this out there. neal was confident this would come to pass. but anecdotally and certainly making calls, this was not a foregone conclusion. there was a lot of angst about what merrick garland would do. i want to play something congressman adam kinzinger said on cnn yesterday. it is abundantly clear from
garland's career and everything that's public facing that this is a deliberate and meticulous person. but that deliberation existed adjacent to a pressure cooker of political pressure from this committee. let me play the congressman. >> we certainly hope and expect the department of justice will do their job and refer this to a grand jury and get it done. if a court makes a subpoena of a witness and the witness doesn't show up, they are held in contempt. same thing with congress. what we don't do is send out the congressional police force to arrest somebody though with some rule changes we actually probably could do that. we rely on the d.o.j. to complete that enforcement because we believe in those separations of powers when necessary. we suspect and hope that the d.o.j. will. if we start setting the precedent that something can simply on something so egraejous as what happened on january 6th
that somebody can ignore the will of the people -- aka, congress that's not going to be good for the kopgs branch in the long term, the american people in the long term. >> an argument made by republicans and by democrats. carol, your sense of how that weighed on this process? >> i think about the pressure cooker you referenced. this is a judge who has never been reversed, thinks things through deliberately. but the role of a judge is different than the role attorney general. the role of a judge is thinking through every possible nuance rather than a prosecutor, who will often say to a defense counsel, hey, if your guy doesn't show up on friday, we will be indicting on monday. see you then. i have actually literally witnessed that conversation. so it is a very, very different situation for merrick garland. he's not thinking that way. he is thinking about buttoned
up. but, honestly, the calls for action were so strong, not just kinzinger. a ton of people. i heard attorneys all over this city complaining about white collar lawyers arrested on bench warrants for not producing the documents quickly enough. they were asking themselves what's the deal with meadows, bannon, cache patel? what's the deference here? part of the reason this law has never been tested is because time and time again, presidential advisers and former presidential advisers have lined up, done their job, gone in, and told the truth. and this was something donald trump punished career public servants for doing. as you may remember from the whole impeachment process of congress and their investigation. he went on sort of a revenge tour of firing or removing every single career person who did their job, went in, when
subpoenaed, provided information about what they had heard on that pretty scandalizing call between the president of the united states at the time and the president of ukraine at the time. and the pressure that donald trump placed on a foreign power to investigate an american politician and his family. i would just say that one thing important to remember about this moment is we don't know how the law is going to shake out, because it hasn't been tested. but it makes sense to me that garland reached this pointed, both for process reasons, and political reasons. he literally was being, you know, screamed at from the highest chambers of the republican side and the democrat side. what exactly are you doing? you are the attorney general. the problem for merrick garland has always been, he doesn't want to give the appearance that attorney general barr gave, which is i have got the thumb on the scale for my guy.
and the facts are totally on his side. so it seems like the reasonable route to choose. >> you know what? charlie, i have always -- i have heard that hand wringing from democratic officials. and they are going -- i mean, there are some people who don't spend as much time sadly as people like you and i do watching right wing media. they will say you put your finger on the scale, they say you put your finger on the scale -- doesn't matter. if you are a democrat do the right i think the. they are going the say you did the wrong thing. all you have to do is watch three and a half minutes of any hour of fox news and you will know that. >> yeah, there are some people who think you need to slow walk this because otherwise the republicans will demonize you. well, they are going to demonize you anyway.
i agreed with neal, i was very, very hopeful that the attorney general would do this. because there is a new sheriff in town. think about the significance of this, how the ground has shifted. the principle here is people like steve bannon and mark meadows are not going to be able to participate in the this stonewall. they are not above the law. they are going to have to treat congress with the respect that it deserves. so there will be no pardons here. there is a huge blow to the president's -- the former president's desire to stonewall this investigation as he stonewalled other investigations. and the principle i think is fundamental. carol is right, of course, we don't know exactly how this will play out. but that's one of the reasons why i think merrick garland took so much time, because he understood that he wanted to get this right because the stakes are so huge. not just the stakes about finding the truth about january 6th, but also in ratifying the role of congress and its ability to engage in oversight in these investigations.
and you think about the alternative. if he hadn't brought this indictment, what it would have said. it would have rendered not just the january 6th committee, but congress itself as completely toothless this the face of a president who had complete and total contempt for the other branch of government. i would also say this, though. i want to disagree with neal on one point. i don't think steve bannon is afraid to tough under oath. i think he is all in in support of insurrection, he was in support of what was going on and is completely all in in the president's desire to stonewall this investigation and to come back to power. so, you know, i think what you have to understand is that these people will continue to resist this investigation, particularly as the president moves -- i assume you are going to be talking about this -- as the former president becomes more explicit in his endorsement of the absolute agenda of the
insurrection, including its violent aspects. i mean, we are -- today, it feels like we have moved into a new chapter. the former president explicitly, openly endorsing the "hang mike pence" but also, the department of justice saying we want to be apolitical but we are not going to allow steve bannon to plout the rule of law and to ignore a congressional subpoena. this has got to send a tremendous message to everybody else in trump world who up until now had felt they were protected, immune, and above the law. >> well, because they have been. and i think a it's an important point you are making about steve bannon. i would just add that i think steve bannon had some perilous moments where in previous testimony before congress there were open questions about whether he was truthful. and then the crime for which he was pardoned wasn't taking money from any of us. it was taking money from donald trump's build the wall zealots. they gave money i guess for
steve bannon to build and wall and he stole it and there is still no wall. i want to bring into our conversation congressman eric swalwell of california. or reaction to the indictment of steve bannon. s the the rule of law striking back, nicole. these guys, donald trump, steve bannon, mark meadows, they have run rampant the last four years in a land of no laws, they were essentially above the law, where they were pirates in international waters. and now they are coming to find that they should be and will be treated just like everyone else. mark meadows, call your office, because your refusal to show up today is probably not going to be looked upon kindly at the department of justice. i predict this is going to, you know, see a lot of the witnesses who have refused to come in so far have a change of tune and that you will start to see them. and that means probably once depositions are completed, a pretty powerful public
presentation of who planned the january 6th insurrection, who financed it, what was the president's role as he incited and aimed the mob at capitol? and then, of course as the temperature rises in this country with political violence, what can we do to make sure it never happens again? >> i want to read you something that came across my desk since we have been on the air. it is a joint statement from chairman thompson and vice chair complainy on mark meadows. they write, mr. meadows' actions today choosing to defy the law will force the select committee to consider pursuing contempt or other proceedings to enforce the subpoena f. his defiance persists and that process moves ahead the record will reveal the wide range of matters the committee wished to discuss with meadows until his assertion of privilege. many of those matters are not subject to a privilege claim
even if there were one, including whether he was using a private cell phone to communicate on january 6th and where his text messages from that day are. i believe mr. meadows has retained a real and credible lawyer, george terwilliger. are you surprised his defiance of even basic facts being established has been so bannon-like that there is no attempt as a former member of the body, and with a lawyer like mr. terwilliger to engage the committee at all, especially today, now that he faces criminal contempt? >> i was in many of the impeachment interviews with mark meadows where it was obvious when he was a member of congress that he was more faithful to protecting donald trump than protecting the congress that donald trump was ultimately charged with obstructioning. so that doesn't surprise me at all, nicole. what i believe peel see, though, is that mark meadows is going to
realize he doesn't look good in orange and he and many others are going to come forward and cooperate because today the department has shown there is no other path. maybe mark meadows thought that the years of lawlessness would continue under joe biden. well, they are not. the only other reason he wouldn't want to come forward, nicole, he has nothing to clear himself or the president. if that's the case, the not coming forward would be perceived as a consciousness of guilt and they would draw a negative inference toward his silence. >> congressman, as an investigative theory, are these indictments or referrals that in this case led to an indictment most valuable in freeing up everybody else? even if steve bannon says i would rather sit in jail two years, oh, well maybe you don't
get to see steve bannon but most of what he did he revealed on the podcast. >> inside nothing comfortable about being, i'm sure, under indictment, and paying legal fees and worrying whether the fbi in the early hours of the morning are going to come in and bring you into court. if you are mark meadows and kash patel, it seems like if you and the president did nothing wrong it would be easier to come forward and cooperate. that's why i hope this yields more witnesses. for your viewers i hope they understand the reason we are doing it, it is not for any other reason than the political temperature in this country is rising. death threats are being made not over inventive lies as they were on january 6th. but actually over votes by republicans for bridges, roads, and tunnels. we are hitting, you know, the most volatile time i think our country has seen since the civil war. if we don't understand how to
make sure that doesn't happen again, we are going to be in a dark place as a country. we will be lost. that's why we have to press these subpoenas. >> you mentioned this climate. we have spent a lot of time talking about it here. i know there is a resolution from mr. gosar. do you want to talk about that? >> earlier this week, paul gosar hosted a fantasy of him killing alexandria ocasio cortez, swinging swords at joe biden. this is a party now where it is not condemned by kevin mccarthy. but rather, they prefer and are more comfortable with violence than they are with voting. we can't let that stand. because nicole, if they don't win the next election you can be guaranteed that if they are not putting forward their policy ideas if they are more comfortable with violence than voting, they will seek to overturn the result. they will call upon their supporters in a country with unrestricted weaponry to take up arms. many of them are already doing that. kevin mccarthy said he wanted to
bludgeon speaker pelosi with a gavel. matt gaetz sats he wanted to blow up the metal detectors at the capitol. and go czar is leveling these threats at plosy. we have to take them at their word, that means bringing upon them accountability. >> this is probably a conversation for another day. but it seems like -- when you talk about turning down the temperature it is the accountability piece to disincentivize the conduct. but you are right w leaders like kevin mccarthy, if democrats have to sanction the bad republican members who report to daddy kevin, what's the hope of actually changing anything? >> that's right. democrats often -- we hear from our voters and activists, why don't you fight like them? why don't you fight fire with fire? look how they tell lies, they resort to violence? i understand the frustration. but today is a victory for the
rule of law. when we have the high ground of the rule of law, that is paramount to what they are trying to do with their lies and their violence. i think you are going to see this cascading you will rulings coming against donald trump, against people like bannon and meadows and ultimately that's why this democracy will be redeemed and roll on. if we keep fighting for the rule of law i am going to bet on that over what republicans have to offer. >> congressman swalwell thank you for spending time with us. >> thank you. >> neal, should we hope for a cascade the rule of law surging back? i think most people are afraid to hope for that. >> i think if it weren't clear what the justice department's view on trying to get to the bottom of things and what cuttive privilege is and isn't i think we are sure now, after this indictment. you know, as eric and i predicted last night on tv, we have been thinking this would be
what garland would do. and trump is now out of office. trump is out of options like pardons and the like. i had a chance the read the indictment while the congressman was talking. it is a remarkable piece of work. we are used to a 100-page baroque legal files to answer trumps baroque legal claims. this is the opposite. it is nine pager. every last hope steve bannon had to avoid accountability is shredded in a single digit document. and the audience here -- you know, this is not -- in my judgment, this is not written for lawyers. this is written for everyone. every american can read this and look at what steve bannon did, and how it blocks getting to the truth. there are not legalisms or anything like that. and it's the first indictment for someone in contempt of congress in 38 years. to put that in perspective, just how long that is, steve bannon graduated from college that year, donald trump just bought
that trump tower at that time and i think trump's dad realized he made a mistaken trusting any part of the business to his son? we will leave that for the shrinks to unpack at this point in the story. i wanted to share some reporting from my colleague, pete williams. he reports that steve bannon will turn himself in on monday and appear in court then. it is remarkable. it may also be a spectacle. charlie sykes. >> well, it will be. you he no, steve bannon is -- let's say he's not shy. and i think he's going to try to brazen this out. i think trump world is going to try to brazen this out. the reality -- i haven't had a chance the read this indictment but i agree with neal. i mean, this is a huge shot. it could be the beginning of the turn. i know we have seen this over and over again. but for the justice department to say the rules have changed, there is new sheriff in town, we are not going to tolerate this
behavior is significant. now, is it going to change steve bannon? is it going to make him, you know, plea for mercy? no. but go through the list of the other people who have been subpoenaed. you made an interesting point, nicole. what about the people who are not the professional grifters and insurrectionists? what about the people who would like to get on with their lives who have families, mortgage, who don't necessarily have limitless resources to pay legal bills? how are they reacting? what are those conversations going on right now? because right now, the price of staying loyal to the former president has just gone up exponentially. and i think that there is a new seriousness here that they are going to have to confront. >> carol, that is sort of having been on campaigns myself, one of you referenced the pirate ship. the pirate ship doesn't have unlimited seating. most of the pirates are down in
the bottom where it is really yucky. i wonder your thoughts about the idea that, yes, monday may be a spectacle, steve bannon may or may not care that this happened. stepien and some of those others who had careers that predated their turns on donald trump's sort of political machinery may be having a very different reaction this hour. >> that's absolutely right. i mean, there is no way as an investigative reporter i am going to spectacular late about which person is going to jump ship soonest. but it's clear to me that both -- let's start with the select committee. in their most recent flurry of subpoenas, they were going deep. not -- not high. they weren't going to most senior people. >> yeah. >> they started to go to the aides and deputies of the people who weren't cooperating. you know, a deputy and counsel to jeff clark, who refused to speak. an administrative assistant who was with meadows for part of
those conversations. the effort to try to get to, forgive me, the deputy, principle deputy and secretary, meaning real secretary level, is interesting. it's like looking for the people who might have more to lose, less interest in staying loyal to donald trump when their whole career is in front of them. you know, this is interesting to me because of something we learned in our report being bill barr's reaction to president trump in those final months in the fall, in december, especially, of 2020. barr ultimately decided he was the person that was going to confront the president, that this big lie about alleged fraud that the president had to stop doing this and stop saying this, it was going hurt the party, it was going to hurt mitch mcconnell's chance to be senate majority leader, it was going to hurt the country. and he decided he needed to do that because so many other people in the white house didn't have his resources.
they had careers in front of them. they didn't have money to pay lawyers to fight with donald trump. the same paradigm is going to happen here. i am remembering as well nixon's administration. alexander butterfield, one of the most loyal deputies to president nixon that you would ever find, ultimately concluded his loyalty had to end somewhere where it was starting to pain his future and his sense of self. and he ultimately agreed to tell the committee, and ultimately tell the world, that nixon had been taping all of these conversations that were the evidence of him trying to obstruct a criminal probe. >> it's such a good -- sometimes the watergate parallels don't hold up because our country is less than it was then, if that lands uncomfortably, i'm sorry. that's the truth. but it is important to remember
that we don't know what we don't know. in this statement that i read from from liz cheney and chairman chompson, they say once again, more than 150 people already talked to us. we don't know who those are. we only know these ones that are fought, that are subpoenaed. that's a great point. i ask both of you to stick around. we will have much more on the breaking news of the indictment of steve bannon after a quick break. don't go anywhere today. woman: i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
now, there's skyrizi. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just two doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. theo is saving big, holiday shopping at amazon. so now, he's free to become, thoughtful theo. and he's got a gift for everyone. so thoughtful.
bye mom. my helpers abound, i'll need you today. our sleigh is now ready, let's get on our way. a mountain of toys to fulfill many wishes. must be carried across all roads and all bridges. and when everyone is smiling and having their fun i can turn my sleigh north because my job here is done. it's not magic that makes more holiday deliveries to homes in the us than anyone else, it's the hardworking people of the united states postal service.
i want to bring into our conversation melissa murray, nyu law professor and a msnbc legal analyst, charlie sykes and carol len i go are back with us. breaking news this hour, the department of justice has indicted steve bannon on two counts of contempt of congress. pete williams reports mr. bannon will turn himself in on monday and appear in court that day. melissa, i want to come to you with some of the signaling i think that's already coming from the 1/6 committee how this applies to the future. the first one up in the future i guess would be mr. mark meadows. this is a statement they put out just after the indictment of steve bannon. meadows actions today choosing to defy the law will force the select committee to consider pursuing contempt or other proceedings to enforce the subpoena. if his defiance persists and that process moves ahead the
record will reveal the wide range of matters the committee wished to discuss about mr. meadows until his decision to hide behind the former president's powerious privilege claims. many of those subjects wouldn't be protected by any privilege claim, even if there were one. how do you see this playing out? >> after there will be a criminal prosecution, if not a guilty plea. that will take time to unfold. but i think what the committee is making clear is that with the department of justice's assist, they are willing to really go to the mattresses to get at these witnesses. so the whole strategy of stonewalling congress, which really was a hallmark of the trump administration, is not going to finds a hospitalible reception with this particular committee. they will push, they will push for contempt charges and they will refer this to the department of justice to then bring a formal prosecution. >> carol and i were talking about of the break, melissa,
about how many witnesses have come in voluntarily. i want to read that part of thompson and cheney's statement from this afternoon. the select committee has talked with more than 150 individuals who are engaging and cooperating with our probe and providing critical details. while we are determined to get all of the information we are seeking, mr. meadows, mr. bannon, and others who go down this path won't prevail in stopping the selected committee's effort in getting answers for the american people about january 6th, making legislative recommendations to help protected our democracy and helping to ensure nothing like that day ever happens again. they seem to be basically saying, we have got a lot of people, and we will get your story, whether you talk to us or not. >> yeah. that seems exactly right. lots of people here. but obviously, it is the big fish that they really do want. perhaps they even need in order to make all of this come together, especially if the purpose this probe is to show that the fish real rots at the
head. and that's the president who really orchestrated this. they need people close to him. i think they recognize in stonewalling part of the strategy here was to run out clock because if this goes all the way to the mid-term elections and the control of congress shifts from the democrats in the house to the republicans, then this select committee goes away. i think they understand that part of the strategy of recalcitrance here was to run the clock out on this committee and this charge. >> you talked about the fish, and the head -- i never remember which is which but this is donald trump making clear his indifference to hanging mike pence. >> were you worried about him during that siege? were you worried about his safety. >> no, i thought he was well protected. and i had heard he was in good shape. no. because i had heard he was in very good shape. but -- but, no -- you. >> heard those chants. that was terrible. >> he could have -- the people were very angry. >> sake hang mike pence. >> it is common sense, john, it's common sense that you are supposed to protect -- how can
you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right. >> right. >> how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to congress? >> carol len i go, he says two times, i knew he was in good shape. who told him that? >> you know, our reporting for this, nicole, for the book, focused in on an aide to pence who communicated with an aide to the president. basically it's pence's top aide mark short, speaking to the president's top aide, mark meadows, on that day. we don't know whether mark meadows said to the president, hey, pence is already, everything is fine. what mark short said to meadows is look we are down here, we are going to stay here. the vice president is deciding he is going to stay until this election is certified. he explained to meadows that they were in a secure location because they had to be evacuated due to the threats a little -- two or three floors up where people were waving the noose,
chanting in the hallways to find pence and to execute him, to hang him. so it seems to me that meadows must have known the level of danger that pence was in. there is another element of this that is really service detail for mike pence was begging him to leave the building. that's the level of concern they had, marauders crashed true the gates, security of the building no longer sure and certain. they wanted him out of there and he is the person who insisted, mike pence himself, who insisted, i'm not getting in that car. i'm not leaving. as you mentioned earlier. the white house knew that. because the chief of staff, forgive me, i'm going to say that wrong. there was a national security adviser to pence who told the secret service's boss, deputy white house chief of staff, ornado told him pence is in
trouble. trying to evacuate. he's going to stay. the deputy chief of staff, a person who works directly for president trump also stationed at the white house said, well, okay, but we'd like to get him to joint base andrews. get him somewhere safer. so he knew that pence wasn't safe and anybody who was in the white house could have communicated that fairly easily to their boss who they directly reported to. >> i mean -- >> wow. >> he wasn't in good shape, and video evidence clearly wasn't in good shape. >> no. >> but donald trump did do that interview with john carl before he saw the video. the video came out in the impeachment trial. donald trump knows he wasn't fine. the most remarkable thing about a remarkable interview there, and hearing a sociopath in his own voice is always more insane than reading about a sociopath, but when john carl says, you know, hang mike pence, it's really bad.
trump says, common sense. hanging him? common sense when backing a fraudulent -- he's still not backing down from the mission of the insurrection, to hang mike pence. >> that's why it's significant. we wrestle with what is new and what are we numb to, use the world nommalize a lot. think about what we actually just heard. the former president has been edging this way for some time but now is explicitly endorsing mission of the insurrection and violence and violent threats behind the insurrection. this is significant, because you're seeing a president and much of the right who are now willing to rationalize acts of political violence. yes, because they were angry. well, because, you know, this was fraudulent. and it goes on to talk about how he had talked with pence and urged him to take more action. so there's no question that the president knew what he was talking about here. so here's the really relevant
question that may seem old, but given the fact the president, former president, is now explicitly endorsing threats in the call, this is a time to ask whether any republican will say that this crosses some red line for them. will tim scott, for example, still say he supports president trump returning in 2024? what about mitch mcconnell? has any member of congress issued a statement about the president rationalizing and explicitly endorsing this death threat against the sitting vice president? have any of them, any of them canceled fund-raisers with donald trump? any of them said i'm going to turn back the endorsement? does this make any difference as all because, look, we've been through so much and do need to acknowledge he has now moved the window one step further. that donald trump has pushed the big lie. he's come up with defenses for the insurrection. he's tried to make a martyr out
of ashli babbitt, but what you heard there was something truly extraordinary, and we shouldn't sleep on it. >> we shouldn't cover it as they experience it either, because they don't care doesn't mean we don't care. that, frankly, is one of the more disorienting aspects of covering the republican party in the era of trumpism. trump off the stage, electoral loser in modern history stands by the mission of hanging mike pence. and they're all still with him, but for liz cheney and adam kinzinger, there are no clean departures with donald trump. >> you know, it's -- i'm kind of, i can't believe i'm going to say i'm speechless but it is sort of a striking place to be, and i wonder sometimes, when is this business model more than an ideology? when is this about power for
power's sake, money for money's sake? where is the interest in the public service, the defense of country? so many things have been thrown out the window. i am a journalist. i'm not an analyst, but i hear charlie loud and clear about, we also at the "washington post" watch carefully. where is the needle, where has it moved to now? and i -- i have to give hats off to jonathan karl for great reporting. phil rucker and i also interviewed donald trump and we're sort of gob-smacked by what he claimed to be his alternate reality, but here now the president has, indeed, moved quite a bit, and i don't think we're going to hear mitch mcconnell say he's outraged. i don't think we're going to hear that fund-raisers have been canceled. i don't think we're going to hear that people are very disturbed that mark meadows and steve bannon are still stalling
on cooperating with the rule of law. it is sort of a -- the quicksand almost gets muddier and thinner and more and more sinking is occurring rather than anyone rising and saying, wait a minute. i came to this place to serve. i came to this place to give something back to the country, and give something to the people and lead them, rather than just get re-elected, which sometimes feels like what most of these people are worrying about, and it's certainly what they're privately confiding. >> also today, today, defined by one steve bannon. a pardoned individual, who bilked money from donald trump's basiest base folks. folks who wanted to build a wall and wanted steve bannon to help him. he has been indicted today two
attempts on congress. appearing monday. thank you all so much for beak a part of our breaking coverage. it continues after a break. don't go anywhere today. day. and fermentation. fermentation? yes, formulated to help your body really truly absorb the natural goodness. new chapter. wellness well done. do you take aspirin? plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. new vazalore is the first liquid-filled aspirin capsule clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. vazalore is designed to help protect... releasing aspirin after it leaves your stomach... where it is absorbed to give you the benefits of life saving aspirin... to help prevent another heart attack or stroke. heart protection with your stomach in mind. try new liquid-filled vazalore. aspirin made amazing! is now a good time for a flare-up? enough, crohn's!
for adults with moderate to severe crohn's or ulcerative colitis, stelara® can provide relief, and is the first approved medication to reduce inflammation on and below the surface of the intestine in uc. you, getting on that flight? back off, uc! stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition, may be possible. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options. you get more with aarp medicare advantage plans from unitedhealthcare. like $0 copays on tier 1 and tier 2 prescription drugs. ♪ wow! ♪ ♪ uh-huh. ♪ $0 copays on primary care visits. ♪ wow! ♪ ♪ uh-huh. ♪ and with unitedhealthcare, you get access to medicare advantage's largest provider network.
treated just like everyone else. so mark meadows, call your office, because your refusal to show up today is probably not going to be looked pob kindly at the department of justice. >> hi again, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york. covering breaking news. arrest warrant for one steve bannon signed by a federal judge now threatens to upend what's become a strategy, really, five years of it, for those in donald trump's inner circle. at least the ones facing subpoenas from the january 6th committee. it's now clear that what had been a transparent effort to slow-walk, drag feet, run out the clock so republicans could shield them following the 2022 midterms is no longer a viable is long-term solution for any of them. bannon is expected to turn himself in on monday. you heard congressman swalwell. it should be felt as a shock to the system for one mark meadows today refused to show up for his deposition. whether or not meadows will also be referred is as of yet
unclear, but we know are the stakes. frightening new report from the non-partisan protect democracy project proves it. only authoritarian threats to our institution right now very, very real and time's not on our side. consider the latest from our "new yorker" colleague, the situation is unprecedented. former american president refuses to concede he lost the election. he has launched a public effort to drive the state election officials who certified his defeat from office. he continues to employ the lies and rhetoric that helped incite violence january 6th. it's increasingly clear to many observers that trump plans to make every attempt to ensure that he or an ak light wins the 2024 election at any cost. with that in mind, revisit that report from protect democracy. "history teachers that once autocrats achieved power. it's not easy to dislodge them.
as a nation we succeeded in doing that ensuring the aspects of our system steined to prevent tyranny actually did so. but the authoritarian movement in this country is growing and learning from its past failures so as not to repeat them, unless we meet that faction with an even more powerful collation of those on the left and the right who believe in democracy, the next time, we might be so fortunate." steve bannon's indictment at this moment for our country is where we start this hour. some of our favorite reporters and friends. covering national security and law enforcement for the "washington post." joining by phone mark schmidt, "new york times" correspondent. take me through reporting how today's indictment came to be. >> this is very fast for the justice department. this referral is all of weeks' old and this is a tough issue and you don't see many cases like this in the courthouse history. you know, by my count, three in, since 1990. so obviously, this is a rare
step. this is an unusual step, but i think part of what's going on here is, you can see this sort of, the wall of resistance to the committee's work that trump advisers are trying to build, and i think this stands as a pretty clear warning that if you just, you know, defy the committee outright, you are risking this kind of charge. >> i want to read for you something that congressman thompson and congresswoman cheney put out right after the bannon indictment came down, because there's, clearly signaling something to maybe the names we don't talk about every day. they say this -- it's unfortunate meadows has chose ton join a very small group of witnesses who believe they're above the law and defying a select committee subpoena outright. the select committee has talked with more than 150 individuals who are engaging andcooperating with our probe providing critical details. we're determined to get all information we're seeking those who go down this path will not prevail in stopping the select
committee'sest at getting answers for the american people about january 6th making legislative recommendations to help protect our democracy and helping ensure nothing like that day ever happens again. we don't know what we don't know, in terms of who's in that 150 individuals who are engaging and cooperating with our probe. do we? >> no, but remember, they're casting a wide net. this isn't just about trump advisers. this is about police officers, law enforcement officials. everything that led up to that day and happened that day is really fair game, i think, for the committee. so i don't think you should think of that 150 as being just trump people, or just white house people of that era. i think it's really much broader than that and i think they are trying to show is, a lot of people are cooperating with this. the people who refuse to cooperate in this investigation will stand out and very well may be consequences.
>> mike schmidt, i want to read from the justice department press release when the indictment was made public, since my first day in office i've promised the justice department employees together we would show the american people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts in the law and pursues equal justice under the law that was attorney general merrick garland. today's charges is the steadfast rest to this. what are your thoughts? >> i couldn't help but think when this happened about how we thought we saw the end of steve bannon sort of legal problems when donald trump pardoned him, in the final minutes of, you know, moments of his presidency. and that was like the latest iteration in the crazy, you know, version of steve bannon's adventures in trump's world,
which ranged from coming out of the campaign out of nowhere to being fired very publicly, to becoming a witness in the mueller investigation, to being estranged from the president and then back into his orbit, but it was always hard for me to think that bannon would not show the utter most loyalty to trump after trump was able to use his powers at the president of the united states to pardon him. essentially the closest thing trump could ever come to do creating instant loyalty to someone. so what we are seeing today, is a lot of things about the garland justice department and about congressional investigation, but also seeing the reach of donald trump's power as president. because he used his power as president to pardon steve bannon. steve bannon got a new lease on life. steve bannon basically branded himself as donald trump's greatest cheerleader. he picked up the cause of the
big lie and has continued since then to push whatever trump, you know, helps trump in any of this stuff. so today this is much about trump's power of the party than anything else. >> he doesn't have power anymore. do you have any indication of whether steve bannon will try to plead guilty or whether he'll go to trial or what his legal strategy might be for this brush with the law? >> i'm not sure what he does. i do know he will not have his longtime lawyer bll burke by his side. bill burke represented many different witnesses in the mueller investigation, he had him to navigate him through mueller, a lot of questions how cooperative bannon had been and whether he had turned over all the materials that he had, and but he's gotten him out of the problems there, but burke will not be representing him here, because bannon had taken such an
extreme view that the president had, that donald trump as a former president had the ability to assert executive privilege when only the president of the united states could do that. so he will not have burke on his side as he conference yet another legal problem to arise in his time and trump's orbit. >> mike, you've reported, or mentioned on this show, that john easmon, adam kinzinger refers to as sort of the author of the blueprint for the coup plot. was having a hard time finding a lawyer. do you know if any of these folks defying subpoenas -- i know mr. meadows is represented by george trawillinger. are they vi challenges in finding lawyers, do you know? >> my understanding that easmon has found a lawyer. i don't know who that lawyer is.
it seems like a fair amount of these witnesses do have lawyers and that's been one of the problems to the committee. that, you know, lawyers that are representing these witnesses tend to know how to deal with the committee, and unlike bannon, sort of engaged enough with the committee to show some willingness to help, and that is an important fact in this, because what happened with bannon is bannon gave the complete heisman to the committee, and said, i have no interest whatsoever in participating, and because of that it made indicting him on today much easier because it was such a clean case. it is more difficult case when a witness comes in and tries to answer some questions, or doesn't answer others, or says that they're waiting a ruling on executive privilege or something like that. so what is distinct about bannon was just how defiant he was. no engagement. there was no, none of the show
whatsoever. just a complete pushback on the committee. >> let me bring you back in and ask if any of your colleagues reported on whether the indictment of steve bannon has recalibrated or been received by mark meadows and his lawyer in any ways that alter his straf? he is not engaging with the committee had in yi way either? >> timing is very important because mark meadows did not show up for the scheduled deposition with the committee today. and obviously, that decision looks way more consequential right now than maybe this morning. >> right. >> so i don't think we know exactly how his legal advisers are going to proceed from here, but i think what the justice department is saying is, you do this at your peril. you flout this process and ignore these subpoenas at your peril, because you might get charged like steve bannon, and
what mark meadows is doing, putting himself on a similar path. we don't know what, you know, doj, what the house ultimately will decide or what doj might do if asked that question, but the similarities are striking and i do think there is a broader message here from the justice department about congressional subpoenas. >> thank you so much for starting us off this hour. let me bring into our coverage eddie glaude of african-american studies add princeton university and clint watts, a distinguished research fellow at the foreign policy research institute and author of the "new yorker" defeated from the quinning. executive editor of thenewyorker.com. talking about mark meadows. would like you to believe he's taking a principled stand. not giving congress what we want because congress can't have it. here's mark meadow saszy
something as a congressman a little dist. >> what are youy kuzing rod rosenstein of, really. >> really for nine months we've asked for documents and that's all we want. are the documents. and what we found is not only have subpoenas been ignored, but information has been hidden. the efforts have been stonewalled. i guess for us it's about transparency so the american people can judge for themselves. so you know, they may be able to ignore congress but they can't ignore the american people. >> you've got to wrap that for me up one more time. have to hear it again before the hour ends, but -- can't ignore congress. can't ignore the american people. hmm. >> so what's striking about this, i think attorney general garland was waiting for federal judge tanya chutkin to rule and what she said is, congress has the right to investigate a violent attack on congress.
congress has the right to subpoena witnesses, to find out who was responsible for trying to stop congress from carrying out its duties, one of its most important duties, certify an election. so there's very clear legal ground here for this subpoena, you know. there was questions whether garland would do it. it's rare but i think he will now the justice department over and over will enforce these subpoenas. to be honest, people talked about this. meadows and bannon will play the victim. trump will say this is another russia, russia, russia, a witch-hunt, but that will play to his base. i just don't know how it is going to play to most americans. again, this is an attack on congress. congress has a right to investigate who planned it, who funded it, who carried it out. >> i waited to bring you in. congresswoman said beginning last hour that this went through all of the sort of steps that
you would go through before you are indicted. she said on this program that the fbi investigated. that it went through the sort of normal process. i believe it was the washington field office, and that while the attorney general may have signed off on this, this was normal order in law enforcement and at doj. can you talk about the importance of that as i think david is suggesting. this will be processed in a totally different way on each side of the information divide in this country. >> that's right, nicolle. you know, it had to be enforced. it had to be pushed to this, because if it wasn't, it just creates a standard across the country that, hey, if you get called to come to congress or to turn over records, or subpoenaed in anyway, why do it? establishing a precedence where you don't have to. it had to be pushed to this level and i'm thankful that it did. i would say while it seems done legally, terms of politics for
steve bannon's orbit and the information environment, this is what they were hoping for in some ways. which is now they have a new war they can fight. it's always looking to poke a fight or provoke a fight and develop a new war in the social media space, in the information space, to rally a base that does not have much to cheer about. donald trump, he is not out on social media right now. it is noticeable, if you went out on twitter and facebook. the conversation around the country is not what it was one or two yearation. i don't care what you think the electoral outcome was, enthusiasm is dieing and gives them one more thing, and this is steve bannon's war, and always said the war on the administrative state. trying to provoke that war and i'm sure we'll see a continuation of this and it won't go quietly, i'm sure, in the social media space. it's going to be a lot of noise for many weeks to come. >> eddie, i think you and i tend to grow impatient, maybe, with
the pace of correction of whatever it was that we all went through over the last five years, and this wasn't flashy. and this wasn't political. this was a paper statement, but today steve bannon was indicted. >> yes. and this is really important. it is a day where the rule of law obtained, it's also a moment where it seems that there are consequences to those who are trying and very clear, clear and very explicit ways to undermine our democracy. and, of course, the abstract question of the role of the legislative branch, if a if these subpoenas were not supported in some ways it would gut the role, the power of the legislative branch. the debate behind the scenes between the imperial presidency and legislature that's actually articulated in the protect the democracy document in ways plays itself out here but then there's
a narrative, nicolle, bannon will be imagined as a political martyr, and that will then enflame these folk and in some ways i worry about enflaming the opposition, has in some ways led to us being kind of cautious. but seems to me this is a step necessary in order to protect our democracy. and if we didn't do it, we would in some ways seal or fate. if that makes sense. >> no. i mean i think we're all wrestling with, of course, this is, there's a straight line between steve bannon's conduct and his indictment today. we have contempt of congress, referral from congress, all made in normal order, but we're also attuned to the environment and the climate. david, your entire piece puts this fight, the committee's fight, whether or not congress still has the powers that congress has always had to subpoena and have those subpoenas enforced, inside this moment. i wonder if you can sort of speak to, you know, is our country phrase, frayed, further
fraying, we have this test today that seems to suggest that the rule of law still has a pulse? >> the rule of law does have a pulse, but there is a danger that the disinformation that will come out, we'll be in a deep state attacking steve bannon and mark meadows and donald trump. i want to recognize one person in all of this, and that's liz cheney. she's despised by trump and his supporters, but she and add many kinzinger and the very small be ins of republicans who defy donald trump deserve sort of credit and praise. we're a deeply divided country, but i think she made a very powerful speech in new hampshire earlier in the week saying that democracy is at stake. calling out republican leaders for enabling the lies and the liar, specific term she used. you know, she faces a tremendous backlash, but it's important that there are at least these
two republicans fighting trump, and they deserve credit for that and any, any sort of bipartisanship that we can, you know, exhibit, i think to the public is a positive thing at this point. this had to be done bubt we are entering a dangerous phase. the polarization of this country will deepen as this investigation continues. >> i want it push back on that, david. i don't think it can get deeper. you've got armed militia groups affiliated with white nationalists guarding school board meetings. you've got mask mandates being met with threats of violence. you've got -- i mean, we are there. the apocalyptic divisions and tribes are so deep and hardened that, you know, neighbors are suspicious of neighbors, and i don't think upholding a congress' subpoena's going to pus us over the edge. argue the other side. what if congress is just another failed institution, no teeth, no
power. liz cheney and adam
kinzinger throw their careers away and you couldn't enforce the subpoena? they couldn't do their work? isn't that a worse fate? >> i agree it would be a worse fate in terms of the rule of law and democracy and holding people accountable. i'm just saying the visuals here sort of what clint was saying earlier. steve bannon being sort of led away in a courtroom. that will be used in the disinformation campaigns. there's no choice. this subpoena had to be issued. this subpoena had to be enforced and steve bannon needs to be prosecuted for defying it, but, know, we just should brace ourselves, inevitable, that this wills seen as proof of some giant, you know, conspiracy by the courts and the media and, again, the deep state to silence trump and his supporters. but in a way this is what has to happen as we go through this difficult time in our country.
>> you know, having served
in the party for whatever you want to call this version of the republican party, the hallmark difference is that democrats do the right thing but they do it with such angst. and people in the middle and sort of people that call balls and strikes, it's excruciating to do the right thing for some reasons david is articulating. it's going to be bad, ugly. republicans make it bad and enjoy themselves. republicans know they're going to make -- to the point of the deep state plot, peek over in right wing media. they are still taking a victory lap and feeling avenged around the dossier. most people covered it as sort of unvetted but something out there. other people went farther than that, but i mean, they're already doing that. the deep state was after the entire four years that donald trump was the deep state. so just speak to how far from
reality this information space is at this point, by nature, clint? >> yeah. nicolle, you keep playing the great its hits. it's dossier, it's servers. you know? it's russia. they just will keep playing that same thing and they need to do do -- they need a new chapter. that's what an indictment is for bannon. he can play a new chapter of the deep state war, and i think if there's anything you can remember about this it's ultimately in the social media space, #hysteria. the peemt that support steve bannon or donald trump don't even know what an indictment is or really understand a subpoena. they don't read the "new york times." they're not trying to get a civics class or really understand what's going on in terms of government. it's just the raw, brood pursuit of power. in terms of the media landscape they needed some sort of energy. the play now that's going to be difficult is for the committee to decide how fast they want to go through this. they could drag this out to a certain point.
think back to the russia investigation where you had the mueller team going through, and actually did that incredibly quickly. but even at that pace, drug out to the point provided enough time for the disinformation to take hold. where it could be repeated over and over again. where more claims, the fire hose of falsehoods could be repeated in such a way it starts to conveyor on the mind, because the committee is sitting back investigating, waiting to present its findings. it's the liars dividend that will play out in the coming months. so the committee will have to decide, do we want to drag this out very long? do we want too just bring steve bannon in and get him out of here, bring the evidence out. disclose as much as possible and end with a final report? i think they'll have to really think about their timeline now, because if they go slow, disinformation snowball will start to pile up on them. it were really overtake them over time if he don't manage this just right. they have to really think it through. >> eddie glaude, i wanted your thoughts today about the democrats taking a tougher line
referring to steve bannon, for contempt. keeping up the pressure on him. i'm sure everyone and anyone that's ever been within a mile of the -- say i had nothing to do with merrick garlandal decision but it existed adjacent to what happened today. what do you make of any possible lessons sort of towing a of you iter line with donald trump and his ilk? >> it's absolutely necessary, nicolle. if we don't fight back, if we don't defend the rule of law, if we don't defend american democracy, they will continue to undermine it. they will continue to put in place people in state office that could undermine elections. they will continue to erode the franchise. so if you don't fight back, if you feel cautious, because you don't, you're afraid to enflame this base space, then they will in some termites to eat out the center
of country. if we fight back they claim victorhood and if we decenter them and think about the health of our democracy, the life of our democracy, we need to act aggressively. these people are flouting it. they need to be held to account, and then we need to move even more aggressively to defend the country. and that seems to me at least the initial step. bannon must be held to account. mccarthy, meadows must be held to account. cynical republicans need to be held to account. because democracy is at stake. that seems to me the bottom line. >> eddie glaude, glad you're here. thank you all so much for being part of our coverage. when e we come back, the newest front on the assault on democracy. republicans redrawing congressional maps to squeeze out democrats and people of color. to give themselves maximum partisan advantage. how bad it has become and what can be done about it is next. plus, the biden white house
is mocking the disgraced ex-president for pretending he's still the president. doesn't seem to understand when you're not the president, just a guy in florida, you don't have ambassadors, envoys and don't get to send fake ambassadors to foreign countries, because you're not in charge of anything. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere.
or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutions give you the power of sd-wan and advanced security integrated on our activecore platform so you can control your network from anywhere, anytime. it's network management redefined. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. comcast business powering possibilities.
voters and voting. suppressing ballot access and allowing partisan actors to take control of how the votes are counted. now republican state lawmakers are redrawing congress' maps for maximum, blatant, obvious partisan advantage squeezing out democrats and die lighting represent angs of people of color. all to try and guarantee their own re-elections, potentially help their party retake control of the house in 2022. now in the "new york times" writes, last week north carolina's republican-controlled house passed a new map that would in about eveningen divided electorate give it 10 of the state's 14 congressional seats, and a proposed republican gerrymander in ohio believed democrats with two seats out of 15, around 13% of the total, in the state that went 53-45 for trump in 2020. and texas state representative is with us and former chairman of the ohio democratic party, author of the book "laboratories
of autocracy: a wake-up dpraul call from behind the lines." representative crockett, you've already lived this talking about texas' redistricting. doesn't seem possible that this is allowable. can you explain the process? >> yes. so first of all, great to see you, but we just got through redistricting here in the state of texas, and it is the state lawmakers that draw the maps for those that end up in congress, and what we saw in the state of texas specifically was that number one, we grew at such a high rate and a fast rate compared to the rest of the country, that we actually were able to gain two new congressional seats in the state of texas and also saw majority of net growth, 95% of that growth was due to people of color. so anyone who believes in representative government would believe there would somehow be two new congressional seats created that would be probably opportunity districts for people
of color. instead somehow with the map we do down here in texas, we have two new congressional seats and they are anglo-seats. just so people understand the numbers in the state of texas. we only added a total of 180,000 anglo-s in the last decade, yet each of our congressional seats is approximately 766,000. how they figured this out i'm not really sure, besides the fact that they cheated and don't care about the people in the state of texas having representation that they're entitled to. >> any recourse? is there any recourse? >> so as relates to recourse, we obviously need to deal with the fact that we don't have the federal legislation that we need. we were looking at the john lewis voting rights advancement act that passed through the house. obviously, stalls when it came to getting to the senate. that's where we get our power. we needed a pre-clearance. we needed big brother to oversee
what was done, and so as relates to what we have right now, what's left of the voting rights act will give us a little bit of help but not what we need. it would protect some of hose historically protected seats. we saw in the state of texas they trieds to chair two together and both in seats historically protected as african-american minority opportunity seats knop reason to pair them. so potentially an issue there. the third seat is johnson's seat here in dallas. they did not mess with that seat very much. they did take away some people in her district, and instead packed them into allred's district. congressman allred was only at about maybe 52, 52 points. now up to 65%. so that's what we saw happening, and so we can go after any of the seats they actually were trying to dilute in some way, but there's nothing we can do really right now, unless we get
some sort of federal legislation. >> david, take me through the situation in ohio. >> it's similar, and i really appreciate her framing this because as we watched the democracy in d.c. and focus on steve bannon, attacks at the state level are going on relentlessly, persistently and they're not stopping. so in ohio, ohio voters actually came twice to try to change this terrible jerry handering and gerrymandering and protect the state. your graphic showed that should be somewhere around eight republicans, seven democratic seats. the map they're proposing now trying to ram through is 13-2. it's absurd, a joke. i think in our situation, we need federal help. the senate has to move forward, but because ohio voters changed think constitution twice, we do get to have a state supreme
court look at this map. and if they continue doing what they're doing, i think we have a chance of striking it down. the shocking thing about it all though, is, these legislators who mostly lived without democracy themselves the past decade arguing we don't care from the constitution says, we're ignoring and don't think the state should do a remedy if they find a -- it's lawlessness. in the briefs you see that's the argument they're making and how bad it's gotten in ohio and texas. >> david, can you take me through some of the broader political climate in ohio? you're right. a lot of the anti-democratic successes on the right are happening in the states, because they don't control the lefbe lf powers in washington and are smartly using their powers, something representative crockett and i share level of exasperation that those in washington appeared to do it as effectively, fervently or
quickly. but talk about ohio and ohio politics a little bit for us. >> sure. i am a proud ohioan. we are a great state being ruined by a broken state house. what we're seeing in ohio, but it's all over the country is basically the end of the 2010 and '11 gerrymandering and seeing just how warped politics gets when you have an entire generation of state house majorities that themselves never went through democracy. they literally are in rig districts. they cannot lose. there's no accountability. like steve bannon, they just keep going, but when they're found to do something constitutional they get re-elected, keep doing it. the downward spiral in states like ohio is far more steep and quick than i think people realize, than i think frankly those in congress realize to be active right now and not only destroying public outcomes. are schools are getting worse. small towns of dieing, but to protect themselves against the fact that the outcomes are
terrible they are have to rig their own elections again to never be held accountability. tie together bad public outcomes and krups when there's no accountability, but these people also control the live ares are levers of power over election. how's that turning out? insulate themselves from the voters. that's happening in state house districting and happening in congressional districting, and the truth is these are people who have never known anything but the system. they would lose in a real democracy. they know they would lose. so thshe to do all they can to avoid democracy. that's the only way they'll stay in power and figured it out and as eddie glaude said before, you have to fight back. the federal government has to fight back. the history of this country is without a strong federal resistance, the state-level attacks on democracy, those attacks win. how we got jim crow, but also have to all focus far more and rethink about our politics as a
fight for democracy and that means go the to win the presidency, got to focus on every state house seat. never let someone run unchallenged, gerrymandered seats. fight back at every level or the history is bleak. they will win. >> representative crockett, thought of you this week when governor abbott's ban on mask mandates was struck down. the legal process is archaic and slow and giving republicans defeats. can you talk about that asymmetry, republican overreach in your state and frankly in ohio, too. so much running room and their bad conduct becomes law in texas. 85% of all abortions are banned while we await the supreme court to take up that case. just talk about the challenges of fighting the republican party in a place like texas. >> you know what?
i think we've all been given the best civics lessons we ever could have received, but we're receiving it in the worst way possible. people are finally understanding why it matters who we put on our state benches. finally understand why it matters who ends up in the white house, because it's not just a popularity contest. but because we actually give out lifetime appointments to benches on the federal level, and these people will shape our lives for decades and decades to come. so you know, what we're dealing with is, we have a party that only cares about power. they don't care about people. they care about power. except for when we're talking about our electoral grid in the state of texas, of course. they care about power so they're waging these wars that are less than tuned in electorate will be excited about. something to get them off their couch and decide they will go out and vote. they don't care about the end
result. they don't care if 12-year-olds will are forced to carry a child to term, even if that child is raped. obviously they are raped because there is no consent at that age. right? they don't care whether or not they ruin people's lives. what they care about is their next election. and so with that, they are digging in. they don't care in ultimately these things get overturned, or if they stand. because they're able to campaign on it. it's just like you were talking about with the bannon situation. right? they're always going to flip it and make it seem as if they are the victims somehow, and so that's what they're doing right now. it's all -- all-out culture wars when it comes to any and everything that really has nothing to do with making sure that we say survive this winter. or making sure that even if we are going to say that there's some or the of an abortion ban, that this abortion ban would make sure that we are going to provide for children and give resources for those new babies
that we care about, because we have new lives. they don't care about policy. in fact, if you look at their policies, most people disagree with them. >> yeah. >> what they're doing right now is, they're doing and saying whatever it takes so that they can somehow maintain this power. >> texas state representative jasmine crockened a david pepper, thank you so much for sort of widening our view. really grateful to both of you. when we come back, disgrationed ex-president, already thinks that he won the 2020 election. we deal with the consequences of that every single day but he's taking his delusions and the fantasies one step further. the biden white house is having a little fun with it today. we'll tell you about it, next. ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark.
but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪ growing up in a little red house, on the edge of a forest to unveiin norway,the world. there were three things my family encouraged: kindness, honesty and hard work. over time, i've come to add a fourth: be curious.
president joe biden has been our president allal our president 297 days. a fact. something we all know to be true. really. except maybe one person, who still really believes he's the president. no surprise who that person is, but of all the weird, wild and problematic things ex-president has said and done since his time of leaving office in january, something he said yesterday is truly next level. speaking to the interdelusions of a man who was and so desperately wants to be commander-in-chief again, it appears.
in a press release yesterday the twice impeached disgraced ex-president who liked to take his mocha test on tv, man, woman, tomato. informed former acting dni also served as ambassador to germany and special envoy to serbia and kosovo while trump was president, rick grinel, announced ex-government person last gig stop the steal stuff had made a trip to have serbia kosovo ton promote peace. that his administration brokered there in 2020. in amp attend to have a foreign policy mission from a man that is no longer in charge of our country's foreign policy. joining ow conversation, "new york times" political investigative reporter and msnbc contributor, and a democratic strategist and director of
public policy college. strikes me we shouldn't laugh about this but learn more. this is part of the lie, and pretending to lead the country. he's got to pretend envoy in rick grinel, unclear whether he'll be a part of that and there are ways. the clinton foundation. ways for ex-presidents to be involved in philanthropy and diplomatic endeavors. this is not that. we're not sneering at ex-government people being involved in activism. this is something darker. this is, like, a barbie house for fake ambassadors, that donald trump has concocted. >> well, you know, i was reading about this not long ago, and political scientists put it this way. that on the world stage, the trump presidency, now that we've seen it, we can't unsee it. that's a problem. it's a problem, because his
impact on the world, the capriciousness by which he made decisions, has really impacted the global political order, and just as we're starting to get back to some sense of normalcy with the biden administration, he's looking to essentially undermine not only the current president but any efforts of other world leaders to try to, you know, bring us back together, if you will. the other concern that i have is that not only is, does it seem like he's trying to extend this sort of shadow presidency, but that he will also, in my view, carry this not just in terms of, into personal interactions but online. the destabilizing effect of that is something we really do need to pay more attention to. >> nick, your thoughts? >> you know, i saw this story, and i thought of countries like
greece, former kings and queens with fancy titles but spend most time in monaco or the hamptons. as a president trying to do his greatest hits, former president, doing his greatest hits reel from mar-a-lago. he did manage to bring a spot of peace to did manage to bring a f peace to the kosovo border in 2020. it is no small thing for that region. i think he is trying to relive that. what is funny, if rick grinnell had gone there and just had a press elise or a luncheon with the officials there, i am not sure it would matter to anyone or anyone would care. it is the press release and the bestowing of the title "ambassador on voi" that's so trumpian. and even as president he sent the former mayor of new york city, a private citizen at that time to ukraine to negotiate for a deal to get joe biden in trouble in 2020. he was impeached for it.
so it does kind of bring us back to the darker parts of the trump presidency, as well as some of the higher notes. >> let me read the white house statement on this. outside his very active imagination, donald trump is no longer president, and doesn't have any envoy ambassadors representing the united states. basil, there isn't anything wrong with sending again your former officials out. it's that everything has to be wrapped in lie. >> well, yeah. i mean, that's the way he does business, right? it is that there is no -- there is no authority that he is -- that he will acknowledge other than himself. and so the notion that he will send out people as nick says, and give them titles, and give the impression to leaders around the world that, that he's still in charge is extremely dangerous.
it's also dangerous that we don't know exactly where he's sending these people, right? for all that we do know, there might be ten, 20, 30 other trips that these individuals are making on his behalf that we don't know about and that aren't getting reported. and so that's the -- you know, that's something that i don't think we are going to ever get rid of, frankly, because that's just how he does business. but it puts the pressure on the current administration to make sure that they are solidifying the relationships that he destroyed, for all intents and purposes. >> nick confessore, bass ill smil kyi, thank you for joining us on this. we will take a quick break, we'll be right back. ck break, we'll be right back.
wondering what actually goes into your multi-vitamin. at new chapter. its innovation organic ingredients and fermentation. fermentation? yes, formulated to help your body really truly absorb the natural goodness. new chapter. wellness well done. (jackie) i've made progress with my mental health. so when i started having unintentional body movements called tardive dyskinesia... i ignored them. but when the twitching and jerking in my face and hands affected my day to day... i finally had to say, 'it's not ok.' it was time to talk to my doctor about austedo. she said that austedo helps reduce td movements in adults... while i continue with most of my mental health medications.
(vo) austedo can cause depression, suicidal thoughts, or actions in patients with huntington's disease. pay close attention to and call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden changes in mood, behaviors, feelings, or have suicidal thoughts. common side effects include inflammation of the nose and throat, insomnia and sleepiness. don't take austedo if you have liver problems, are taking reserpine, tetrabenazine, or valbenazine. austedo may cause irregular or fast heartbeat, restlessness, movements mimicking parkinson's disease, fever, stiff muscles, problems thinking, and sweating. (jackie) talk to your doctor about austedo...it's time to treat td. td is not ok. visit askforaustedo.com. ♪ ♪ ♪ hey google. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
there is another bit of breaking news to tell you about on what has turned out to be a very busy friday of news. britney is finally free. a judge in los angeles has put an end to britney spears' conservator ship which has been in place since 2008. last june she alleged the conservatorship controlled every lass aspect of her life describing years of trauma and abuse in detail. now a judge has ruled in favor of britney spears who asked for the whole conservatorship to come to an end for good. it has happened. quick break for us. we'll be right back. ht back. drf vicks sinex. instantly clear everyday congestion.
and try vicks sinex children's saline. safe and gentle relief for children's noses. will is saving big, holiday shopping at amazon. so now, he's free to become, wonderland will. deck the halls with printer paper! recycled of course. i booked our hotel on kayak. it's flexible if we need to cancel. cancel. i haven't left the house in a year. nothing will stop me from vacation. no canceling. flexible cancellation. kayak. search one and done. it's another day. flexible cancellation. and anything could happen. it could be the day you welcome 1,200 guests and all their devices. or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutions give you the power of sd-wan and advanced security integrated on our activecore platform so you can control your network from anywhere, anytime. it's network management redefined. every day in business is a big day.
we'll keep you ready for what's next. comcast business powering possibilities. as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪ ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪
thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. we are grateful. "the beat" with jason johnson in for ari starts right now. hi, friend. >> hi, nicole. thank you so much. welcome to the beat. it is an interesting day. i'm jansen johnson in for ari melber. we begin with breaking news. trump ally, steve bannon, indicted on two counts of contempt of congress. nbc news reporting bannon will surrender and turn himself in on monday and appear in court that afternoon. bannon faces one year in prison for stonewalling the january 6th committee,