we will, of course, bring you coverage of the investigations future hearings when they start up next month. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening, once again, i'm stephanie ruhle. today was a very, very busy day on the hill. the fifth january 6th hearing, and we saw even more revelations of just how far former president donald trump was willing to go to stay in office. front and center. how the former president attempted to strong-arm officials and his own justice department to overturn the 2020 election. the riveting testimony came from trump's former acting attorney general, jeff rosen, his deputy, richard donoghue and white house counsel steven engel. >> how often did president trump contact you or the department to push allegations of election fraud. >> so, between december 23rd and january 3rd, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day.

>> on december 13th, an organization called the allied security group issued a report that alleged that the dominion voting machines in that county had a secret 68% error rate. he was adamant that the report must be accurate, that proof that the election was defective. that he in fact won the election, and that the department should be using that report to basically, tell the american people that the results were not trustworthy. >> one of just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me in the republican congressman. >> the committee also exposed how a low level doj guy, jeffrey clark, was instrumental in trump's plan. clark and another trump loyalist were behind a draft letter to state officials down in georgia, calling joe biden's win into question. >> this letter claims that the u.s. department of justice's investigations have, quote, identified significant concerns

that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states. >> the department recommends that the georgia general assembly should convene a special session, and quote, consider approving a new slate of electors. and it indicates that a separate, quote, fake slate of electors, supporting donald trump, has already been transmitted to washington d. c.. >> clark wanted the acting attorney general and his deputy to sign that letter, and they said absolutely not. but he didn't need them to get to trump. he had his own back channel. and that channel must have been strong. we also learned today that trump wanted to make clark the new attorney general. >> did the president tell you that he would remove you and mr. rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? >> toward the end of the meeting, the president again,

was getting very agitated. people tell me i should just get rid of both of you. i should just remove you. >> mr. clark had told us that the president had asked him to consider whether he would be willing to replace me -- supposedly, on the timetable, by monday, fourth. and so i had told mr. clark, i thought he was making a colossal error in judgment. >> all of this came to a head in an explosive oval office meeting on january 3rd, with trump, the acting attorney general, clark, and a bunch of other staffers. that was when trump said he was ready to appoint clark as attorney general. >> the president turned to me and he said, well, one thing we know is, you, rose and, you aren't going to do anything. you don't even agree with the claims of election fraud. and this other guy, at least,

my to do something. and then i said, mr. president, you are right. but i'm not going to allow the justice department to do anything to try to overturn the election. that's true. but the reason for that is because that is what is consistent with the facts and the law. and that is what is required under the constitution. so, that is the right answer. and a good thing for the country. >> the president said, what do i have to lose? >> and it was actually a good opening. because i said, mr. president, you have a great deal to lose. >> all anyone's going to think is that you went to two attorneys general in two weeks, until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. and so the story is not going to be that the department of justice has found a massive corruption that would've changed the results of the election. it's going to be the disaster of jeff clark. and i think that, point pat cipollone said, yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this

letter. >> and a lot has changed since then, especially for mr. clark. we found out today that federal agents searched clark suburban virginia home yesterday morning. and another bombshell from today's hearing. the committee revealed republican lawmakers who allegedly sought presidential pardons. they were among the most outspoken supporters of his false claims of election fraud. >> are you aware of any members of congress that [inaudible] >> mr. gaetz and mr. brooks, i know, both advocated for there to be a blanket pardon. mr. gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon. and he was doing so since early december. >> you mentioned mr. gaetz and mr. books -- >> mr. biggs did, mr. ask for one as well. >> [inaudible] asked for a pardon to.

>> congress -- tonight, mo brooks said, he did talk to trump about them. he's also open to testify before the committee. but he insists on doing it in public. with that, let's get smarter, with the help of our lead off panel, luke broadwater, pulitzer prize-winning congressional reporter for the new york times. he has the cover story tomorrow. and he was in the room today. also joining, us former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official, chuck rosenberg and frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counter intelligence. mr. rosenberg, i have to go to you first. we learned today -- for anybody who says january 6th is a thing of the past, today we learned that the former president was one decision away from appointing a guy to be the attorney general who would have sent our elections in the chaos. what we have been sued if he had? >> well, stephanie, in a word, chaos. thank goodness that there were adults in the room -- by the way, i want to say something about doing the right thing.

i listened carefully to what mr. engel and mr. rosen and mr. donoghue said today. i'm proud of the department of justice they help lead. this may sound corny to some of your viewers. but that's what you are supposed to do. you are supposed to do the right thing, even when it is hard. they did that, good for them. but that is the job. but had they not intervened, had there been weaker people, had there been spineless people in their seats rather than them, chaos, stephanie. because it would have given the imprimatur of the department of justice to anybody in georgia who wanted to submit a false slate of electors or who wanted to claim that even the justice department believed that the election in georgia and elsewhere was fraudulent. so, a very important moment, when that we should not overlook. and i'm very glad that smart people --

courageous people -- did the right thing. again, that's the job. that is what you were supposed to do, even when it is hard. >> where they able to do the right thing, luke, by appealing to trump's narcissism? they stopped him, not because they convinced him that the letter was a bad idea or that clark was the wrong guy. listen to what they said. the story is going to be bad. what are people going to say about you? everyone is going to quit. it will look terrible. they weren't talking at all about election fraud. is this about how this would appear for trump? is that why he didn't appoint clark? because clark would have given him what he wanted. >> yeah, i thought that today's testimony was just shocking, to hear from those witnesses, firsthand. we knew a lot of this reported out in the new york times and other publications. but to hear these men on the stand, put forward this evidence, was very breathtaking, in my opinion. and you are right -- only mass reservations -- the threat of mass resignations got donald trump to back off these extreme plans.

he was talking in this meeting about seizing voting machines, having the justice department seize voting machines. he was pushing forward just the most absurd and ridiculous allegations of voter fraud. i mean, contractors, in italy flipping a machine, flipping votes easing satellites. it's almost hilarious when you hear it talked about, that anyone took this seriously at all. but this was the kind of nonsense that was being pushed around in this desperate time. and i do think that -- when i talk to jamie raskin about this and i said, congressman raskin, how was it that donald trump so many times trying to do these things,legal. he wanted to push them up toon t line. so in the justice department

said, you are going to have mass resignations, trump did then go to a different strategy. but it really did take people standing up to him, forcefully. >> frank, does that mean -- it's such a good point -- does that mean that we are going to see that happen again. right? we are seeing fake electors being subpoenaed. all different men and lower level people, prosecuted. think about all the actual rioters from january 6th, had gotten. but nobody has touched trump. is that his mo? think about the oath keepers. he is helping them find lawyers. sydney powell's group is paying for their lawyers. trump got devin nunez a big job. but he doesn't sign anything. because of that, are they never going to be able to get to him? >> this is a case of the knock offs as presidents and a teflon don. but stephanie, i've got to tell you, with both the committee hearings and now simultaneously

would appears to be warp speed rapid approach going into the overt phase of the criminal investigation at the doj, i do think we are going to see a minimum, people very close to trump held accountable, if not trump himself. and we also will hear from the committee -- eventually, a likely long list of things that need to get fixed, to plug the holes in our election system, so that this is less likely to happen in the future. so, accountability comes in many forms, stephanie. one of those forms could well be that the public has become so resolved, from what's happening now, that they choose not to elect someone like trump, or with their name trump. [inaudible] other form of accountability could certainly be criminal prosecution. >> luke, i want to go back to this conspiracy theory, that trump grabbed onto, he found it on the internet.

he was disappointed that he didn't think that the department of justice did the good research that he did. how did he find this wacky, wacky theory coming from italy? that the department of justice then had to do some work on? >> he had almost a hilarious quote about this. he said, it's not the top of my mind right now, but i spend more time on the internet than you guys do. and he was saying that is sort of a point of pride. so, he had been scouring sort of another regions of the internet, for more and more absurd and fanciful allegations of fraud. and what stuck out to me at this hearing today is, how many people he wasted their time investigating this stuff. i mean, he had mark meadows sending the italy gate thing, around two top people at the justice department. he had the secretary of defense call italy about it and see if they could investigate it.

it was -- of course it was fake. as soon as you heard it, you know those nonsense. but this is how desperate these people are getting. and honestly, how foolish it all was. i was being interviewed by an australian radio station today. and they were watching the hearing and they said, isn't this embarrassing for your country? to hear this stuff playing out? that this is what the top people in government were doing? and of course it was embarrassing. anybody who listens to that stuff would be embarrassed by. and they [inaudible] hearing today when it almost turned into a boast of jeffrey clark. when donoghue the, number two at the justice department, tells them to go back to the office and, we will call you when it's time to investigate an oil spill, because you are unqualified and an environmental lawyer. people were laughing at that. and it would be funny. the whole thing was absurd. an unqualified person leaving the justice department, except that it wasn't funny in the fact that we were trying to overturn an election. and the president didn't win. and ultimately this kind of

nonsense led to the violent attack on the capitol. so it is hilarious how stupid it all was. but it's deadly serious at the end of the. day >> hilarious, i don't know, humiliating. we actually have a bit of that content from earlier today. jeffrey clark just getting annihilated. watch this. >> jeff clark was proposing that jeff rosen be replaced by jeff clark. and i thought the proposal was asinine. >> i said, that's right, you are the environmental lawyer, how about you go back to your office and we will call you when there is an oil spill. >> i thought jeff's proposal -- clarks for puzzle -- was nuts. this is a guy, at certain points -- the best i could tell was, the only thing you know about environmental and election challenges is they both start with e. and basically -- i'm not even sure that you know that. >> frank, if you thought today

was horrible for jeffrey clark you weren't paying attention to what happened yesterday, when his home got searched. tell us what's could they have been looking for, what does this mean for him? >> so, i think it's very important to take the careful approach that nbc news is taking, which is, number one, we're using -- the phrase federal agents with regard to what happened at clarks house yesterday. we are not really certain that this was the fbi, and nor has he actually disclosed which agency it was. that's interesting. others have said it's a doj -- entity. that limits, for example, the agencies that could be there but let's understand one thing clear, no matter which agency it was, if it was an executed search warrant, it was signed by u. s. federal judge or magistrate. what does this mean? it means that judge or magistrate found that there was a reason to believe, probable cause to believe, that there is evidence of a crime in that house. it gets more specific, you can't just say, it's a crime is

around the house, and they tore the house apart. you have to, specificity, designate, this is what we need to look at and why. the judge needs to sign off on that. when you hear the word raid, i don't like the word, it's lawful, law enforcement activity, execution of a sign warrant, i hear the -- phrase i don't know where people get predawn. i don't know where people get that from but that's not how it works. it's early in the morning, yes, people are taking out a of bed. they're not doing it a 4:00 in the morning, that's not how that works. so, who is? it is a postal inspectors, no. is it doj? is it the marshals, no, probably not. is it the doj ig inspector general trying to retrieve documents that clark squirrel the way, data that he squirrel the way. we heard that there were electronics sniffing dogs used, so clearly they're looking for devices thumb, drives, u. usps. we don't know yet. we will get to the bottom of

it. but he's in -- they decided, subpoenas not going to cut it, can sense not going to happen, we gotta go in before he destroy something, before he understands what's happening and get what we need. >> if you think that pre--- john is seven or 8:00 in the morning. i invite you to come to work in television news. chuck, i want to ask you about these pardons. members of congress asking trump to pardon them. help us understand why he wouldn't do it. he's been willing to pardon all sorts of people, and he is 100% power to do so, but if he pardoned any of these people who are helping, covering up, or tied to something directly associated with him, wouldn't they then be in a position where they might have to testify against him? and if they did, well, they wouldn't be able to plead the fifth like jeffrey clark did 105 times today. >> so, stephanie, if you're asking me to clear all inside the former president's brain, i have two responses. it's not a place i want to be and it's not an easy thing to do. that said, you may well be

right. when folks come and ask for pardons, in connection with something that he orchestrated, maybe that casts a shadow on his own conduct. it's hard to know, but i will say this. [inaudible] >> but would it be dangerous for him? would it increase the risk for him, if you pardons them? >> think about it this way. anybody who has information about what he knew, what he did, what he intended could increase the risk for him. if there are pardoned, then they no longer have a fifth amendment privilege to withhold information, if questioned. by the department of justice or the fbi. there's a way around that. the department of justice could simply immunize somebody, who otherwise has the fifth amendment privilege and compel that testimony. if all he's trying to do a shot down an investigation of himself, he's not going to

succeed, whether or not he pardons these people. what's interesting to me, stephanie -- look, i've never asked for a pardon, i don't that guy ever had to, i don't intend to, i'm pretty sure you haven't done that either. they must have had some consciousness of guilt. asking for a pardon doesn't mean they committed a crime. but it sure means they are worried about having been perceived as committing a crime. >> well, he's basically got a blank check and he can pardon anyone he wants -- i certainly know want to know why he didn't. thanks so much luke broadwater, frankfurt lucy, chuck, i'm not letting you go, you're gonna stay with us and we'll see you in a minute right after the break. when we come back, one of our next guests calls this much, much worse in the watergate. we're going to discuss if trump or anyone close to him might face serious consequences. later, today's ruling from the supreme expanding gun rights, and the breaking news tonight from the senate on gun safety. we'll be speaking to a former

gun industry executive about all of it and what more guns on the street means for security. the 11th hour just getting underway on a very busy thursday night.

we've been streaming all day from every room. the power and speed of this super-sonic wifi from xfinity is incredible. mom! mass speeds was my idea, remember? get minion net, with speeds of up to one minion bite per hour. [ low screaming ] but that was an epic fail. with xfi we can stream, share, swipe, like... impress your mom with super-sonic wifi. it's unbeatable internet for a more unbeatable gru. i mean, you. psst. girl. you can do better. ok. wow. i'm right here. and you can do better, too. at least with your big name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile, you can get unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill, over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. wow. i can do better. yes, you can. i can do better, too.

break free from the big three and switch to xfinity mobile. >> when he finish discussing what he planned on doing, i said, good -- bleep congratulations, -- you just submitted a first [inaudible] step as attorney general, committing a felony and violating rule 6a.

>> well, there you have it. the question that is still top of mind for anyone watching this hearing, will there be consequences and what that could look like. chuck rosenberg still with us to answer those questions, along with matt miller, former spokesperson for the department of justice. welcome to you both. chuck, i welcome you back, matt, let's let's do this thing. do you think a crime was committed, based on what you've heard and if so, do you think we're gonna see anybody pay consequences? >> it's a really difficult question to answer, stephanie. i think the department has enough to write an indictment, they probably have enough to win a conviction. i think the reason you see them acting so carefully enacting so cautiously is -- they would have to sustain a conviction -- this is a court that has been very deferential to claims of executive power. it's a court that has been skeptical in the past of applying the criminal statutes to acts piloted officials that can be defined or argued are political acts or part of the normal political process.

there are things that are hard to argue on criminal acts, by the president. his pressure on the justice department is a difficult one. his pressure on vice president pence could be a difficult one. i do think his interference with the state, with state election officials, his involvement -- in a scheme to appoint alternate slates of electors, i think those do get much closer into the areas where it's more likely to see him charged. >> what kind of dog do you have? it looked like a mini pony just walked behind you, how much does that dog weigh? >> it weighs 80 pounds. that's elvis, my old the yellow lab. >> that's a big 80. what happens if the justice department makes the decision that they don't want to indict trump, they don't want to indict the republicans to help them? this is gonna go along with their duty? matt? >> there's already intense pressure on merrick garland, the attorney general. there would be even more pressure if he was to declined

to bring a case. i will say, i think the step that you saw taken yesterday against jeffrey clark, the justice department wouldn't move lightly to execute a search warrant against a former senior justice department official. that tells me that, first, they have probable cause to believe a crime was committed, but i think it tells me that they are fairly far along in that investigation of jeffrey clark. unless they're investigating him for some crime completely disconnected to this investigation, which is hard to believe, given that the timing of the search warrant was executed the same time as other search warrants were executed, i suspect they have gotten fairly far along with the case against him. if you're gonna build a case against him, it does seem unlikely, to me, that you would one against him and not other coconspirators who would we involved in this case, including the president. >> why is it okay, chuck, that the president and his inner circle can help the oath keepers find lawyers? sydney powell's group is paying for the oath keepers lawyers. why is all that okay?

>> well, i mean, -- as illegal -- >> the doj believes this is happening. that seems so foul. the american people watching this. >> the legal matter, i don't think it crosses a criminal line, stephanie. but the reason the department of justice raised this to a federal judge, there were concerns that it might cross an ethical line. if the defendant is having his or her case paid for, his or her attorneys paid for, by an outside third party, then, obviously, it raises concerns. the department of justice, appropriately, properly, raised the issue to a federal judge. then, it's up to the defendant to be informed of where the money is coming from and what conflicts that might the. and i'm wave and a conflict on the record in front of the judge. this is something the justice department always wants to do because, in addition to prosecuting meritorious cases, they want to sustain them on appeal and they don't want to

have conflict issues arrive that could undermine their good work. >> a lot of ethics lines may have been crossed, or for anyone who is watching the hearing today or earlier this week. across the wire we go. chuck rosenberg, matt miller, elvis the dog, thank you all for joining us. i mean, that dog was massive. >> he's a big boy. >> we are going to take a closer look at the politics surrounding these requests for the pardons when the 11th hour continues.

>> the only reason the i know to ask for a pardon is because you think you have committed a crime. >> let's bring in pulitzer prize-winning journalists vanished jonathan capehart, anchor of the sunday show right here on msnbc. and msnbc political contributor, matthew dowd, also a former george w. bush's strategist and founder of country over party. jonathan, walk me through this. it sounds like a member of congress is saying, hey, president trump, did this bad thing maybe to help you and i might need a pardon for it. that sounds pretty bad, no? >> yes, that is very bad, also because -- well, one, i think congressman swalwell had the best tweet earlier this evening, where he said, remember, something like, who doesn't ask for a pardon? innocent people. another key point is, if you

ask for a pardon, that is almost a, you know, hey, i've done something wrong. but in order to take the pardon, you have to admit to have done something wrong. so, the idea that you have sitting members of congress who are asking the outgoing president of the united states for pardons before he leaves -- i don't know -- i'm not a lawyer. but that tells me, you are saying you did something wrong, that you are guilty, that you broke the law. >> matt, we saw liz cheney earlier today, speaking directly to trump supporters, which -- she's got a lot of them in her state. watch this. >> it can be difficult to accept that president trump abused your trust. that he deceived you. many will invent excuses to ignore that fact. but that is a fact. i wish it weren't true. but it is. >> is this a fools errand, to try to change the minds of trump supporters who are so dug

in. there are plenty more americans out there to inform about this, rather than just the trumpsters. does it make sense to continue to talk to them? >> i think for two reasons -- i think it makes sense. the first one is, there's about 20 or 25% of republicans out there who are available to break from that attachment they have, to the former president and the republican party. >> why do you think that? >> you just look at the polls. 20% of the folks -- 20% of republicans think that the president did something wrong and think prosecutions should be considered when you look at all the polls. that's unavailable group out there which, not a majority, is a sizable enough group to make a difference. the second part is, when liz cheney does that, this is why i think the january 6th committee has been very smart. it's when you make this about speaking to republicans, by republicans, who pays attention to that? democrats and independents.

because it makes it less partisan. it makes it, we are just going to tell you the facts. and we want to do what is right for the country and our democracy. and i'm going to do it and i'm going to do it as a republican, which is why seven of the last, eight people that have testified before the hearings have been republicans. and so i think from that vantage point, there's a sizable enough minority of republicans that can be swayed. but even more important, it's a message that goes to independents and democrats saying, we are just doing the right thing, as republicans, as democrats or independents. jonathan, he's right. with almost every witness we have seen, it's either a trump employee, or a trump appointee, but in conservative media circles. are they actually covering this and talking about it? >> no, not in the evening, they are not covering it. they are not talking about it. in fact, they are covering other things. but it is important to also remember that these republicans who are testifying at this hearing --

who else is going to testify but republican members of the trump administration who pushed back against this? quite frankly, i have stripped away whatever political affiliations people might have, not thinking about democrats or republicans. i'm thinking about americans who are coming forward, testifying under oath, before the american people about what happened in the days leading up to january 6th and on january 6th. and in the last few days, we have seen people who, behind the scenes, unbeknownst to us but now we are getting the details -- who were holding the line. people can criticize them for not coming forward in realtime. but to hear the stories in detail, from the people who were involved, using their own language about what happened in those rooms is, like, the little bit of solace i get in just understanding how close we came to losing everything and how it was individual americans

who stood in the breach and said no to a president of the united states. and i think that the other hearings we are going to see going forward are extremely important. and i hope that the other half of the country, republicans, those who are dug in and say they aren't watching, i hope that [inaudible] of information, the torrents of information we are getting from these hearings gets to them, so that a colonel, a seed is planted that lets them know, that what was done in their name by people they followed, sometimes blindly -- what was done was against this country. i can't remember the name of the arizona house speaker with tears -- >> rusty bowers. >> rusty bowers, tears in his eyes, talking about how, he was

-- for the president, he was this, and he's that. but there was no way he was going to violate his oath of office to steal an election for president of the united states. i probably wouldn't agree with him on who 99. 99% of the policies, but on that one, i'm 100% behind him. >> and tonight, arizona's gop chair, kelly ward, has been subpoenaed for her ties to the fake elector scam. what's going to happen to all of these republicans, matt, who stood up for the -- stood up to trump, right after january 6th? and came and testified now? what is going to happen to republican circles? heroes or ostracized? >> persona non grata is probably the best term for them.

you can always tell what's happening to them. liz cheney is in an uphill fight. i mean, she's a republican trying to hold other republicans accountable. she's in an uphill fight to win reelection. we saw another member who was defeated last week, because he voted for impeachment of donald trump, to hold him accountable. we are going to see a number of other candidates who voted for impeachment, probably lose their elections in this. but the part of this process, to carry on with something that jonathan said is, is that this is part of the process to clean the soil that's been infected now by this virus. in my worry, as much as we want to hold accountable looking in the rearview mirror, my biggest worry is looking forward and the effect this could have on a democracy. because what the republicans who are interested in taking power at all costs -- and they don't clear care if they were all over the democracy or not. they figured out that the only thing that got in their way were good men and women in key positions of authority. and they are systematically trying to figure out how to be secretaries of state in places like arizona, nevada, michigan, by electing a governor who was part of the january 6th, who gets to appoint the secretary of state --

can you imagine who he would appoint if he got elected? they are figuring out, the only thing that kept us from losing our democracy with these good men and women who stood up, even if we disagreed them, they stood up in the moment, and this years they are systematically trying to remove them from office. one point i would take up, extending something jonathan can said, -- quit saying vote blue, vote blue, vote. what democrats need to do is vote democracy, vote democracy. we don't care if you are republican, democrat or independent. get rid of the colors and say vote for democracy. that may be overwhelmingly democratic but start with the vote blue and make this a race about democracy versus autocracy. and the law and order versus corruption. that's what they ought to make this about. >> tonight's nightmare brought to you by matthew dowd. matthew, jonathan, thanks so much, we are going to leave there. >> thanks. >> one of the days other very significant story. is supreme court tossing out restrictions on concealed guns.

what it means for your safety from a former gun company executive, when the 11th hour continues. sleep per ni ght. and now, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. this matters -- only for a limited time.

restricting the carrying of concealed guns and hours later, the senate passed bipartisan gun safety legislation,

breaking nearly three decades of inaction. with us tonight to discuss, ryan bossie, a former firearms executive who helped build one of the world's most iconic gun companies. he's also senior adviser at giffords, and author of gunfight, my battle against the industry that radicalized america. ryan, two very significant things happened today. you're a former gun executive, you're a gun safety advocate. what do you make of today's supreme court decision? >> i think the supreme court decision is evident of how detached this court is from where the mainstream of american public is. just a couple hours ago, we had 65 senators vote yes on gun safety bill, something we haven't seen for almost 30 years. i mean, let's face it, you couldn't get 65 senators to vote yes about whether or not ice cream is delicious and yet they came together on guns. i think that tells you the sort of bubbling up from the base of the american public about how

fed up everyone is with the lack of gun safety and how gun radicalization has taken over the country. i think the supreme court case is pretty reckless. >> what the senate is doing is a very, very big deal, but since it's moving forward on this bipartisan legislation, while the scotus is going the opposite direction, is that one step forward and two steps back? >> i think the scotus decisions going to complicate things for sure. in heller, or the previous case, decided or written by scalia, authored by scalia, he denotes that guns can and should be regulated in sensitive places. now, i think you're gonna have a lot of deciphering about what they're sensitive places are. we've already heard new york governor mention that she is going to tear into and try to decide that. i think reasonable, responsible gun owners across the country understand and are calling for a good, reasonable legislation. we don't want -- i'm a responsible gun owner, i

don't want this black mark of unfettered gun violence on my record. i know responsible gun owners don't want that either. >> explain that to us. when somebody like me here's a hears bit the scotus decision, i think, man, nra people must love this, but i know, at a bar, after an nra event, you asked a bunch of industry people if they would be okay if everyone was armed in a grocery store and every person you asked said no. take us inside the mind of a gun insider because i assumed they'd be high-fiving at the scotus decision. >> i think that's indicative of how the right wing politics in this country is -- has sort of caught the car. i was in the industry, back when people understood that decency and responsibility were part of it. it's almost as if trump is -- trumpism the republican party thought the could -- with racism in extremism and

radicalism -- and it would never come to pass. well, it's come to pass, right? the same thing happened years earlier in the firearms industry. i wanted to build a company, so many other people did, but nobody thought that this unfettered right to have guns anywhere and everywhere, an 18 18-year-old kid, buying ar-15s, nobody thought that was okay. those were times when responsibility govern our actions and we have to figure out a way to get back to those norms. >> we certainly do. well, we know you're doing your part. thank you for joining us, ryan. i appreciate it. >> thanks, stephanie. i appreciate it. >> don't go anywhere. when we come back, it is almost too cliché to say it. profiles in courage. but why that phrase still fits. and a call to action when the 11th hour continues. fits and a call to action when th

11th hour continues. do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.

♪ ♪ the last thing before we go

tonight, stand for the truth and reject the lies. as the new york times pointed out last year, six term illinois republican congressman, adam kinzinger, has been censured by his party and sean by his own family members after urging his fellow republicans to leave donald trump behind. as we learned this week, he and his family are now getting death threats because of it. in his closing statement in today hearing, kinzinger once again urged others to open their eyes and stand for the truth. >> we're here today because the

facts were irrelevant to president trump. it was about protecting his very real power and very fragile ego, even if it required recklessly undermining our entire electoral system, by wildly casting baseless doubt upon it. in short, he was willing to sacrifice our republic to prolong his presidency. i can imagine no more dishonourable act by a president. as it's said, the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is good men to do nothing. thankfully, there were good people in the department of justice. you heard from other good people on tuesday, they too defended us. but, i'm still worried that not enough has changed to prevent this from happening again. the oath that we take has to mean something. it has to cut to the core of who we are and be the driving force of our service to this

nation. we, on this committee, we may be able to shine light on the darkness, but that is not enough. it's now up to every american, now and in the future, to stand for truth and reject the lies -- wherever we confront them. in our towns, in our capitals, in our friendships, in our families and at the ballot box, within our own minds and hearts. >> stand for the truth and reject the lies. while millions of americans heard that powerful plea, fox news viewers did not. the far-right network didn't show today's testimony, but fox yanked the hearing off the air before it was over, long before kinzinger and the committees other republican committee member, liz cheney, made their closing remarks. they chose to return to regular programming to talk about liberals, guns, inflation, women's sports. the hearing which is clearly

national news, of national importance, an event that, again, as one of our guests put it, is bigger than watergate. and it was pushed aside. as we often like to say here on the 11th hour, the truth matters but only if you hear it. and it is now up to all of us, no matter what network you watch, no matter who you vote for, to stand for the truth and reject the lies. and on that note, i wish you all a very good and safe night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, i want to thank you for staying up late with us. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. the january 6th investigation makes its case, day five. how the former president tried to use the justice department to help him overthrow the government and stay in power --

>> the president either called me or met with me virtually every day. >> the president, throughout all these meetings and telephone conversations, was adamant that he had one and that we were not doing our job. >> the president said, just say the election is corrupt and leave the rest to me and republican congressman. >> we will wear that any members of congress had [inaudible] >> mr. gaetz and mr. brooks -- mr. gaetz was the first to ask for a pardon. [inaudible] i'm sorry. >> the only reason i know to ask for a pardon is because you think you have committed a crime. >> the president is getting very agitated and he said, people tell me i should just get rid of both of you and change the leadership, put jeff clarke in, maybe something will finally get done. >> i thought that it was [inaudible] >> how does the president even knowla