can only imagine the buildup, if you will. and all of this is leading to cries for help for the biden administration to step in, the national retail federation about an hour ago issuing a press release begging the biden administration to step in to make sure that these negotiations can find a final resolution. >> the biden administration did step in to avert a rail strike, so it would make sense just on the face of it to do the same here. thanks so much for joining us today. appreciate it. that is going to do it for me today. "deadline: white house" starts right now. ♪♪ it's 4:00 in new york. buckle up, things may be coming to a head in special counsel jack smith's classified documents investigation this week with a series of potential developments that suggest that smith could be on the verge of

making some history, perhaps major leaguing donald trump the first former president to be indicted with a federal crime. nbc news is reporting the federal grand jury that has been hearing in evidence the justice department's investigation of former president trump's handling of classified documents is expected to meet again this coming week in washington. that's according to multiple people familiar with the investigation. prosecutors working for special counsel jack smith have been presenting the grand jury with evidence and witness testimony for months, but activity appeared to have slowed in recent weeks. that was based on observations at the courthouse and through sources. another major sign that investigation could be close to wrapping up, trump's legal team was spotted at the justice department today. you can see them leaving shortly before noon. this was weeks after they requested a meeting with merrick garland to discuss this case. it is unclear who nay met with at doj, but the "wall street journal" reports they were there, quote, to argue against any indictment of the former

president over his handling of classified documents at his mar-a-lago resort. as the meeting was under way, our friend, cbs' robert costa, reported this -- "trump's lawyers are expected to raise concerns about how prosecutors have handled attorney/client questions during the grand jury. but there is no sign the special counsel is going toive waver from how he and his team have handled the question." questions of attorney/client privilege are central to this case. earlier this year, jack smith went to a judge and invoked what is known as the crime fraud exception, claiming that there was probable cause to believe that donald trump had used his lawyer to help commit a crime. now, a judge bought it, sided with smith, and compelled trump attorney evan corcoran to testify and provide evidence without a shield of attorney/client privilege preventing him from doing so. and thus providing details about his interactions with the

ex-president. there's brand-new reporting today on what some of that evidence is that corcoran handed over the jack smith, notes that he took of his conversations with his client, the one and only donald trump, from "the new york times" -- "turning on his iphone one day last year, the lawyer, evan corcoran, recorded his reflections about high-profile new job representing former president donald trump. in an investigation into his handling of classified documents. in complete sentences and a narrative tone that sound like it had been ripped from a novel, corcoran recounted in detail the documents investigation." "the new york times" reporting a glimpse into what is in those audio notes explain why they could completely cripple trump's defense and any prosecution, quote, "in an early scene in his account, corcoran describes meeting trump at mar-a-lago last spring to help him handle a

subpoena that had just been issued by a federal grand jury in washington. seeking the return of all classified material in the possession of of his presidential office. after pleasantries, according to a description of the recorded notes, trump asked corcoran if he had to comply with the subpoena. corcoran told him that he did." and this is all on tape. new developments in the final stages perhaps of the investigation into donald trump's handling of classified documents is where we begin today with some of our favorite reporters and friends, politico national correspondent and nbc contributor betsy woodruff swan is back. legal analyst andrew weissmann is back. also joining us, former fbi counterintelligence agent pete struck. anded a the table for the hour, democratic strategist and director of the public policy at hunters college. you issued a tantalizing and nudes worthy tweet in your own

right with your credentials, with your relationships and your expertise. i'm going to read it to our viewers. "a zillion stories about trump case, but bottom line is that he's getting charged and it will be in d.c. and this week. open issues are whether others may be charged and whether they will be in d.c. or florida." please explain. >> sure. first, it is really typical to see what we are seeing in terms of donald trump's counsel going to the department of justice. we saw the same thing looking at the manhattan d.a.'s office that prosecutors in case like this, where there's no need to nab the defendant because they're in the middle of committing a crime or a violent crime or they're fleeing, they give defense counsel an opportunity to be heard and to make any and all legal, factual, discretionary

arguments as to why there should not be charges. here, especially if the reporting is about the attorney/client privilege, that's just never going to stop anyone from finding charges are appropriate, because here a judge has approved what it is that happened here. i should point out the current solicitor general of the united states work tond mueller investigation where the exact same thing was done in front of the exact same judge. i think that's going to be a loser and something they're arguing in order to make a political point here. so we really are seeing what i always view as the harbinger of, you know, cases being brought, so the exact same thing happened in manhattan. you see defense lawyers making an argument and you see charges. the open issue is where the charges will be brought and who, if anyone, may be charged

alongside donald trump, maybe conspirators. those charges may be ones that can only be brought in a different jurisdiction because there's constitutional rules about where charges can be brought. i should say in spite of my tweet, it is conceivable that donald trump would be charged in florida and not d.c. i don't think that will be the case. but i do think the one thing i'm pretty confident of is that we are going to see charges with respect to the classified documents case and it seems by all accounts it's going to be this week because i think that doj will feel that internal pressure to move this along. >> i have 378 follow-up questions, but i'll start with one. what i think you're articulating is that the auspices of the meeting, to battle the peering of attorney/client privilege, may be a trump-driven errand because the matter has been

adjudicated. not something we saw, in secret, evidence has been provided that was strong enough that a judge said oh, yeah, oops, yes, crimes, yes, crimes, and that's why we get to see everything. is that how i understand what you're articulaing? >> yes. and it's really important to remember, there is a model with this having been done with respect to paul manafort and rick gates in the special counsel investigation. before he ruled in that case, manafort and gates and their counsel all had an opportunity to be heard. in other words, this is not ex parte. they all get an opportunity to argue why the government has been wrong. so this has been fully litigated. there's no question that donald trump, as the person who holds the privilege, would have the opportunity to be heard, so this has all been vetted by a federal judge, a respected federal judge, and i'm confident it

follows the -- which it should have, the exact same plan that was done and the reasoning that was done by the judge in the manafort case. this is not one where the doj is going to second-guess what jack smith did or what the judge did because it's all been vetted. so that just seems like a real loser. you know, i think they may have made an argument based on venue. i know that sounds like a really weak tea in terms of, like, i get we're going to get charged but can we please do it in florida and not in d.c. and i think florida would be a better venue for trump than d.c. he may have already made that argument as well. >> what does it mean that a grand jury in florida has heard evidence? does that -- you know, us non-lawyers spitballing, which is always dicey, and wondered if perhaps some of the early reporting about how every single

person at mar-a-lago, including, you know, maintenance staff and including people that work on the grounds has been interviewed that may be a convenience, but maybe that's a crazy stupid way of thinking about it. could that grand jury there have been convened for something else? >> so, just so you know, you shouldn't feel too bad because a lot of lawyers do a lot of spitballing also and we can get it wrong as well. so, you know, it's not unique to nonlawyers to be doing this sort of educated guessing. i think there are two possibilities with respect to what we're hearing about also getting a florida grand jury. one possibility is all of the charges against donald trump will be brought in florida. it seems by all accounts there would be venue for all of the charges. just to be a little bit of a nerd, the constitution requires that a crime be charged where it

occurred, but a lot of times crimes happen in many, many jurisdictions. for instance, if you have a conspiracy charge, that could happen in many, many different locations, and any one of those would satisfy the constitution for being brought in a location where the crime occurred. but there's no question i think that from everything we've heard that florida would be a place where all of the charges could be brought. in d.c., it's not clear in washington, d.c., all of the charges could be brought but i think some could be brought there. the other possibility is that the reason we're hearing about a florida grand jury is that it's not so much with respect to donald trump, but it may be with respect to, for instance, if an underling like mr. noda, somebody who allegedly moved boxes for donald trump at mar-a-lago, if he made false statements to the government in florida, that is something that may be you leekly be charged in

florida so that if the government is thinking i'm going to charge donald trump in d.c., they may at the same time decide that they want to charge him to put more pressure on him and also because he should be held to account if he lied to the government, and that charge may be brought in florida. that might be a second reason for why we're hearing that there may be grand jury activity in that state. >> one more for you. it felt like jim comey's, you know, payout from the political grave, the tapes, as michael cohen before him, and done mcgahn with his copious notes and his note taker, who became the narrator of the mueller report, trump has another lawyer who didn't just take notes but who narrated a novel-like version of his month-long legal service for trump. is that normal? >> no.

so, you know, when i think about the lawyers and the caliber of lawyers who have represents presidents of the united states, whether democrats or republicans, i don't think that is normal. and that's just -- that's not either the caliber of the lawyers that we've seen. usually, these are the people who are the most revered and at the very top of their profession, think david kendall or bower or people who are just at the very top of their legal game. and there's no reason, whether you're representing george bush or barack obama or joe biden to be taking copious notes because you're concerned that your client or that the president of the united states or the former president of the united states is going to be lying about what happened. but we know from starting as you mentioned with done mcgahn, that if you are representing donald

trump, it is a good practice to take notes so that you have a memorialization of what you did do and what you didn't do to protect yourself from these kinds of claims. so, it is really abnormal, and these are lawyers who realize what they need to do in order to protect their bar license with respect to a very difficult client. >> nbc news is reporting that trump's attorneys spotted at the justice department today. i'll read you what we have. james trusty, john hall ran and lindsey halligan met with officials that did not include merrick garland or the deputy attorney general. the team was first spotted by cbs news and was seen emerging from the building just before noon." what do we know about what happened there? >> we know that about a week ago one of the lawyers participated

in this meeting, jim trusty, telegraphed something of an agenda for what he was hoping to talk about with merrick garland himself. obviously, that conversation didn't happen, but he said in a tv interview that he hoped to sort of level accusations of prosecutorial misconduct, that he wants to claim prosecutors work for jack smith's team have engaged in problematic behavior that should shape doj's charging decision in this case. of course certainly it seems like garland, lisa monaco and the other top brass at the justice department did not decide to engage with that overture that trusty made publicly. my sense in general is when defense attorneys are making overtures like this publicly, it's because private outreach has not proven fruitful the way they would hope it to be. that said, of course this meeting also comes at the investigation by all available public evidence appears to be

zooming towards its conclusion. we know therefore one of the things that he's said he wanted to talk about but of course there's no question that trump's lawyers would be trying to glean as much as information as possible from their doj interlock or t utors about a caj could be building against their client. >> let's have that public bluster. let me show that to everybody. >> the angle they're pushing on the obstruction is to try to create some sort of daylight between joe biden's possession of documents and president trump's. and it's not going to work. i mean, they have literally put in everybody in the grand jury you can imagine. they don't respect any privilege that president trump holds. and it's desperately trying to find an obstruction angle that just isn't there. >> president trump from my understanding, declassified everything.

the fbi's withholding other information and lack of transparency is crazy. it's honestly -- it may be the first step to tyranny. they are very selective in terms of what they want out there, and we definitely want to know what they're claiming they have as evidence. so their withholding of information is essentially controlling the flow of information, and that is the first step to tyranny. >> they've got their talking points down. i guess the problem with lindsey and jim's arguments is that their client has already contradicted them in public. the angle on the obstruction case is being argued by donald trump, who said, quote, they're mine, and end quote, we have the presidential act. lind' v see's argument seems to be the declassification by trump, saying i can't show you this, it's classified. how do they contend with their own rear ends being out there contradicted by their own client in high-profile appearances?

>> there's been something of spaghetti noodles against the wall approach from trump compared to his lawyers when it comes to the explanation that he and his team have been trying to give as it pertains to these documents. at least on trump's part, any possible explanation is one he's willing to bring forward and a basket of contradictory explanations he's been making is something doj officials will decide is persuasive or a jury will decide is persuasive. the other thing of course here that's important is that, while trump's lawyers are arguing that there was a violation of an attorney/client privilege as andrew weissmann pointed out, as you pointed out, the attorney/client privilege matter was adjudicated. this was not something that doj did unilaterally or could do unilaterally. trump's lawyer, and trump already got their day in court. it was under seal, but they had that day in court and a judge

sided with doj, at least to a limited extent, as it came to this privilege question. the fact that trump's lawyers are speaking out publicly to raise their concerns about what doj did is not going to have any bearing on the legality at least as far as judge beryl howell ruled when it came to these matters covered by attorney/client privilege, allegedly. >> pete, let me read you more of "the new york times" reporting. "the issue of who moved the boxes into and out of the storage room and why has become one of the central parts of mr. smith's investigation. prosecutors have focused much of their attention on walt nauta, an aide to mr. trump, and a maintenance worker who helped. mr. corcoran's notes provide some details about mr. nauta's involvement in the search. they say he unlocked the storm

room door for mr. corcoran. they say he also brought mr. corcoran some tape so that he could seal in a fold ter classified documents he found in preparation for giving them to prosecutors." what do you make of just the sort of tip of the iceberg that we're learning about? not just written notes but narrated by mr. corcoran. >> it's important for a couple reasons. it points to a set of activities that are beyond one person, that it was not potentially just donald trump who engaged in this potentially illegal activity but he worked with others in the conduct of this illegal activity. that's important because obstruction is a stand-alone criminal count, but it's also important in the context of when the department of justice is charged mishandling cases in the past. for 20 years i investigated dozens upon dozens of mishandling investigations, worked with prosecutors on taking several of those to trial

and obtaining convictions. but every time doj has take an mishandling case to trial, it's usually in the context of there are large amounts of classified information, some indication of disloyalty to the united states, some evidence of obstruction. in this case where you see those actions of nauta, and i agree with andrew i'm curious to see if there is within certainly this florida grand jury potential conspiracy charges that are coming out of florida, incorporating nauta and whether or not he was working with donald trump to obstruct justice, but again, it's important, one, because it informs whether or not doj should charge 793 or mishandling of classified information as they have in the past. i think the facts clearly support doing so given what doj has done for the past 60, 70-plus years. separately it's important to that question of is someone, are

others beyond donald trump facing criminal charges coming down the pike here in the next week or two. i trust andrew's sources. i don't know if it will be this week or in the next two or three weeks ahead, but i do anticipate we'll see charges. >> pete, when you -- you and andrew talk about conspiracy. do you see outward facing signs that they're looking at conspiracy in the obstruction prong, if we can talk about this as a two-pronged probe like the mueller probe? because i remember at the time a lot of reporting from betsy and outlets like "the new york times" and "the washington post" about some of the decisions forced upon white house officials as trump sought to fire mueller and as trump people that -- there was always a little bit of a concern about being part of the conspiracy to obstruct that investigation. or do you see the outlines of a potential conspiracy prosecution on the mishandling as well?

>> well, i think they're tied together. again, we're all guessing a little bit based on what we're seeing reported in the press, and we're not inside jack smith's investigation, seeing the information that he has. but it seems clear from a lot of the reporting about what went on on the day surrounding the issuance of the subpoena by the department of justice that there are things done to get in the way and hinder the inventory first that evan corcoran was doing and secondly to hide things from being potentially turned over to the department of justice. the question is who said what to whom. presumably, what we know about evan corcoran's notes, it was not something he was encouraging the president. you played that snip where trump said do i have to follow the law, essentially, and corcoran said, yeah, boss, you do. the question becomes -- some indication he was waved off from searching other than the base

room storage room. who waved him out? i don't think nauta would do it. but did he play a functionary role in bringing up the boxes and returning them. did he see trump taking material out? did hef conversation with evan corcoran where he told him don't worry about it, it's only the basement stuff. some question about that third person who helped, nauta moving boxes. some question about whether he was trying to help out, had no idea what he was doing other than move these five boxes here to there. i think again, there are two separate things. there's potentially a stand-alone obstruction charge and certainly obstruction, that obstructive actions, those play a role in trying to determine whether or not to bring a mishandling charge. so they're intertwined in my opinion and i would not be surprised to see separate counts, to see a stand-alone likely in my opinion 793 count and then a separate conspiracy obstruction count. >> there's so much more to ask

all of you. we'll sneak in a quick break first. there's a model prosecution memo for trump classified documents that needs translation from the experts. that's next. also, later in the broadcast, we'll get to gop hopeful nikki haley, who last night attempted to out-maga is growing field of competition in the republican presidential primary, trying to blame trans youth in sports as the reason teen girls are contemplating suicide. that really happened. another lie from the right. and later, the twin investigations into the ex-president's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. how both of those probes are today drilling down on just how many people knew that he really, really, really had lost the presidency and told him so.

my a1c was up here; now, it's down with rybelsus®. his a1c? it's down with rybelsus®. my doctor told me rybelsus® lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill and that people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. i got to my a1c goal and lost some weight too. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it.

stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch.

(vo) this is sadie. she's on verizon, and she has the new myplan where she gets exactly what she wants a literal ton. and only pays for what she needs. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one! all with an incredible new iphone. get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon.

we're back with betsy, pete, andrew and basel. basel, as you can imagine, trump was active today on his social media platform. >> yeah. >> i'll read you part of it. it was in all caps which i think at this point signals the degree of agitation. "how can doj possibly charge me, who did nothing wrong?" i don't know what he means there. "when no other presidents, oddly placed punctuation, were charged." i'll spare our viewers the rest of the rant. but he clearly got some readout

of this meeting at doj that he didn't likey-like. >> and you've heard and you're talking about the bluster of his team, what is his team trying to do, push blame on to joe biden? joe biden did the same thing a couple weeks ago on your set. i said be prepared to hear his name more often because i could see the team shifting blame there as well. i always go back to the reporting from last week, got to go to the glasses again, from that white house article that said the details suggested greater breadth and specificity to the instances of possible obstruction. what that shows me that is that -- literally, the breath of this incident, it makes it more and more unlikely that you can easily dismiss it from the point of view of the voter, for example. it makes it less likely that he can do the same, although he'll try, it makes it less likely he can do the same because there are too many people involved, too much activity that went too

far too long. and, you know, as we think about this, as i think about this, i wonder are we going to see a comey-like moment, a moment where the potential indictment being brought out in handcuffs like what we may have seen before, not in the new york case, but is there going to be a point where all of this really does impact how the voter sees donald trump, that is already sort of bought into him. will this sully their view of him as we are approaching a debate in august and the primaries starting in february of next year. >> i don't think that's a static answer. i think most republicans and some pundits will say there's nothing he can do. we don't know that, because this has never happened before. >> never happened. >> and there are still a lot of self-fashioned national security whatever they call themselves in the republican party who, if trump is charged with violating the espionage act, may think tim scott or nikki haley or ron

desantis are just as authoritarian without the violation of the espionage act. >> exactly. and the challenge, can i stay in long enough and raise enough to be able to -- >> we want it to go fast too. >> can i add him on the debate stage in enough time to make a difference. >> i'm fixated on your tweet. tell me if there is something at a process level that is like the whistle only a dog hears, like is there something you've seen or this meeting with the meeting at doj that makes you confident. you choose your words pretty carefully on this show. >> so, for the bragg case, i had said to everyone, pay attention for and listen for any information that defense lawyers were being called in to have

their opportunity to be heard, because a sign of the very last thing that will happen. if you are not opposing charges, there is no reason for defense counsel to come in and make a presentation. you've internally decided not to go forward. it is conceivable that defense counsel says something, something new, something you haven't understood, some fact that is going to change your view. i just think in this case, that is so unlikely for somebody as experienced as jack smith where also the mar-a-lago case, as you noted, and the facts are so overwhelming, that this is something that defense lawyers have an obligation to make these arguments, but it's very unlikely to change anything. so, again, there would be no reason to have the meeting if there weren't going to be potential charges. it's extremely unlikely that defense counsel is going to say

something that is new or novel that will cause somebody to essentially overrule jack smith. remember, the standard for the department of justice to overrule jack smith is that essentially it's so beyond the pale. and here i actually think when you look at what the facts are, it would actually be a violation of the rule of law for donald trump not to be charged. i mean, just last week, an air force officer was sentenced to three years in prison for doing far less than what donald trump appears to have done. so that's the reason why i think that if you believe in the rule of law and you're the department of justice there are going to be charges here. >> pete, there is something i think even more granular if you talk to national security folks, especially on the intelligence side, that if you would like to preserve the prerogative to stay on offense and prosecuting classified documents cases and

to protect state secrets and some of those prosecutions are very, very difficult. you know better than me. you can't create a second standard. >> no. that's absolutely right. i can tell you several instances where we're investigating and prosecuting people and attorneys would come in and plead to doj, i want the petraeus deal. they looked at what the department did in other cases. you created a precedence. i want that deal for my client. andrew is 100% right. the fact wegs know, and there may be a dozen plus things we have no idea about, but just simply the things that have been reported out clearly place this into the category of what doj has prosecuted in the past. no question about it. it's not close. so, you know, all this crap that trump's attorneys are throwing against the wall, the things that he's tweeting about, fly in the face of the precedent, and the responsible course of action is to bring charges. regardless of when it comes, i

would expect much like willis has announced the end of july, beginning of august, local law enforcement to be aware, i suspect if an indictment is coming at some point doj or the fbi will reach out to the secret service, will reach out to local law enforcement because simply the announcement of charges might bring, you know, try lent protests or any protesters and you'd want to give law enforcement a heads up about that. i don't suspect doj will do that prior to a grand jury returning a true bill, but i think there is some chance that the very first things with e may here from, if and when there are charges, sort of leaks out from the sort of administrative security coordination that is going to go on in the context of an indictment. >> there's such a remarkable body of evidence in public view now. there's the months and months and months of correspondence between naura and trump. then the extraordinary release of the application for

court-approved search of mar-a-lago. then all that was released during whatever we call it, special master process of last fall. i know that feels like 11 years ago, but it was just last fall. then there's the tapes. i mean, so much of what we're learning has been put before the grand jury is what just persuaded another jury in a different case in a civil instance to say, oh, yeah, liable. and that's trump in his own voice, you know, ruffling papers, a chick-fil-a menu or classified documents, i think none of us know the status. but he expressed clear knowledge of a declassification process and he articulated the document he was ruffling hadn't been declassified. he was signaling things he took that were classified and thing he is took that were not declassified. he's also on tape over and over and over again, even when given the opportunity by his closest media allies, sean hannity, you

would never take things out of secured storm, yeah i did, yeah i would, yeah. there's been no denial of the criminal conduct under scrutiny. >> what i always think about as reporter, sort of the job of report sers to think about what we don't know. there's this enormous body of reporting documents, known, unassailable facts about what happened in the months after trump left the white house as it involves these highly sensitive, highly important documents. and then the next question is what about all the information we don't yet know? we haven't seen a transcript yet of the recording of that conversation that trump had where he refers to u.s. military plans related to iran. we haven't seen the language that he used specifically to talk about what he knew regarding the way the declassification process was supposed to work. and just as importantly, why that process mattered, why it

wasn't just sort of a ticky-tacky box checking process, but how it related to keeping people in this country safe. those are all pieces of information, all details that jack smith and his investigators have that we in the public don't have yet despite tons and tons of excellent reporting on what jack smith himself has gotten as well as what report verse learned independently of jack smith and his grand jury just hoovering up information. that's the next big question -- how much of this known unknowns are we going to learn about in the coming weeks and months? and of course how much of that information in context could change the way we think about the criminal exposure trump as well as any of his allies could have. and what's beyond questioning is that we're getting closer to having a lot more daylight in terms of that whole known, unknown space.

>> i had this flashback to the republican convention in '16 and the chant led by indicted, admitted, hardened felon mike flynn, lock her up. remember what that was about? >> absolutely. >> crazy. that's where we are. >> the comey moment, you know, think about that letter and the impact it had on the election, is an indictment of donald trump going to have the same impact on not just the republican party but on the election. there are a lot of differences. but the question is digging into andrew's point a little bit, it's not politics if you charge him. it's playing politics if you don't. >> correct. >> and if the voter feels that we're at a point where all of this is in front of us and you still cannot hold this man accountable, i'm sure it will gin up his base, but my fear is that it will dampen any other voter that wants to -- you know, engage their civil right to participate in the process.

then he will have won. >> again. >> again. and whether he wins the election or not, he would still be winning. that's my fear in all of this. >> thank you all so much for starting us off on all of these threads. we're so grateful. up next, republican around the country are racing to enact laws and spread misinformation targeting the lgbtq community, creating fear among millions of families. what can be done about it? e wans and only pays for what she needs. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one! all with an incredible new iphone. get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon. i was stuck. unresolved depression symptoms were in my way. i needed more from my antidepressant. vraylar helped give it a lift. adding vraylar to an antidepressant... ...is clinically proven to help relieve overall depression symptoms...

...better than an antidepressant alone. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrolled muscle movements, which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain, and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. stomach and sleep issues, dizziness, increased appetite, and fatigue are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. i didn't have to change my treatment. i just gave it a lift. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save. [ tires screeching ] jordana, easy on the gas. i gotta wrap this commercial, i think i'm late on my payment. it's okay, the general gives you a break. yeah, we let you pick your own due date. good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general.

♪ shelves. shelves smart enough to see, sense, react, restock. so caramel swirl is always there for the taking.

♪ this is not just delivery. ♪ this is knowing even superheroes... can use a sidekick. ♪ walgreens. (vo) if you've had thyroid eye disease for years and you can't get any shut eye ♪ because you can't shut your eyes, it's not too late for another treatment option. to learn more visit treatted.com. that's treatt-e-d.com.

at a town hall last night when she was given an opportunity to talk to voters about issues front and center, republican presidential candidate nikki haley opted to attack transgender women in sports. she was asked to define the term "woke." she falsely and rather bizarrely blames transgender women in sports for the increased rates of suicidal thoughts among teen girls. >> the idea that we have biological plays playing in girls sports, it is the women's issue of our time. my daughter ran track in high school. i don't even know how i would have that conversation with her. how are we supposed to get our girls used to the fact that biological boys are in their

locker rooms, and we wonder why a third of our teenage girls seriously contemplated suicide last year? we should be growing strong girls, confident girls. >> fact check here. transwomen playing sports is not the cdc or any pediatric association that covers teenage girls and studies their suicidal thoughts has ascribed that rise. the cdc has found no evidence of that. two things don't have anything to do with one another, at least as far as the science and the data shows. and for people that nikki haley is blaming for society's problem, the actual number she's talking about is minuscule. this is reporting from "newsweek." "privacy laws make it tough to identify the exact number of transgender athletes competing in public school sports, but researcher and medical physicist joanna harper estimates the number cannot exceed 100

nationwide." 100 people. 100 transgenders. and while the threat of transgender people is a real thing on the right, it is a real thing, they are really making it something that matters to all republicans. it's a narrative that is being ginned up and turbocharged by republicans. in florida, a new law signed by republican governor and presidential candidate ron desantis that ban gender for minors is cutting off access to that care for adults as well. joining our conversation and coverage is kelly robinson, president of the human rights campaign. basel is still with us. share anything that i missed. >> look, if we want to talk about women's sports, let's talk about the real issues, right, like pay equity. if we want to talk about the mental health crisis, then let's talk about the real issues like 40% of trans teens considering suicide, 1 in 5 attempting it.

what that does is uses troeb to attack the community. she's leading an attack for political purposes only. this is not what the majority of americans care about or what they want. they are creating a false crisis when there are real crises to address. >> kelly, do you think that when people react or clap, i imagine for all republicans heading down this path, they have to think it works or see evidence of that, do you think any of them know we're talking about maybe 100 student-athletes? >> we're only talking about a small group of folks, and at the end of the day, we're talking about kids, children, and what we're seeing play out is this playbook of using political attacks to target children. i also want to really draw the connections here because the attack that nikki haley said out loud in that town hall is

directly connected to the hundreds of anti-lgbtq-plus bills enacted across the country, corporations like target, the place wes shop and live, and is directly connected to the increase of physical threats and violence against a community. right now 1 in 5 of every hate crime is perpetrated on the basis of anti-lgbtq-plus bias. they are sowing fear and hate against our people when we need aspirations and hope to address what's at hand. >> basel, it is a kitchen table issue and i think it's specific to teen girls. there's a lot of research of what they see on their phones, specifically algorithms that put them in a constant loop of eating disorder contact or what not. 0 minute has reporting on this. if you're going to be on a platform, talk about not just teen suicide, which is a

horrific thing we should talk about and come to the table, to lie about what is the greatest correlation is a real disservice. we should be talking about online content. >> absolutely right. i work with a lot of students who are very, very concerned about that. they're the generation that you would expect to engage more on social media, but they're starting to pull back because of those same concerns. i want to focus on another point that was made about danger. because one of the things that i sense from a lot of young people in the lgbt community is isolation. that isolation has manifested in so many ways that there are students i've worked with that came out to their parents and their parents don't attend their college graduation. then step in and essentially be their support system in addition to what they should be getting from family members or friends. so -- >> and the attacks don't make it easier on the family either. >> that's exactly right. those attacks don't make it easier, that isolation becomes

deeper, and we should be in the business of supporting these young people and not pushing them into harm's way. and just very quickly, 1992 here in new york city after some attacks against african americans, in a time when the highest -- the death rate among men from 25 to 44 was mainly caused by aids, and at that point we were talking about more inclusive curriculum. rainbow curriculum, if you will. and look what's happened since then. we've gotten to -- the pharmaceutical community, health care community, there's been so much protest to try to make change. so anyone now looking to thwart all of that progress is only looking to sow anger, isolation and fear and danger. >> it just feels like we've come back to this, we're moving in the wrong direction. we have to sneak in a quick break. no one's going anywhere. we will all be right back. anyw. we will all be right back. eds. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one!

all with an incredible new iphone. get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon. when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis keeps flaring, put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable, i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. and left bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc got in my way, i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when my gastro saw damage, rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq.

ask your gastro about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save. moving forward with node- positive breast cancer is overwhelming. but i never just found my way; i made it. and did all i could to prevent recurrence. verzenio reduces the risk of recurrence of hr-positive, her2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer with a high chance of returning, as determined by your doctor when added to hormone therapy. hormone therapy works outside the cell... while verzenio works inside to help stop the growth of cancer cells. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an antidiarrheal, and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain,

and rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. i'm making my own way forward. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. ♪ ♪ - why are these so bad? - if i would've used kayak to book our car, we could have saved on our trip instead of during our trip. ughh - kayak. search one and done. (vo) if you've had thyroid eye disease for years and your eyes feel like they're getting kicked in the backside, ughh it's not too late for another treatment option. to learn more visit treatted.com. that's treatt-e-d.com. we've stripped all over this mountain. i love it when he strips for me. i strip on sick days. breathe right instantly relieves nighttime nasal congestion. daytime, too. helping you breathe easier for up to 12 hours. breathe right. strip on. ♪ the thought of getting screened ♪ ♪ for colon cancer made me queasy. ♪ ♪ but now i've found a way that's right for me. ♪

♪ feels more easy. ♪ ♪ my doc and i agreed. ♪ ♪ i pick the time. ♪ ♪ today's a good day. ♪ ♪ i screened with cologuard and did it my way! ♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ i did it my way! ♪ we're back with kelley robinson and basil smikle. kelley, my question for you is about the facts. i saw the coverage of nikki haley and i got online this morning and was reading about the size of the trans population. i think it's about 1.2 million according to two newspaper sources, "the new york times" and the "washington post." and then i dug into the student athlete population. it's about 100. and then i looked to see if republicans were upset about all trans athletes and they're not. the only public statements i read about are student athletes

that identify as women, as girls, and compete. so i wonder what you think can be done on the fact piece of this. that they're obsessing, that they're endangering, that they're pumping up and turbo charging with vitriol a political fight with the facts getting so far left behind from the political rhetoric. how do we sort of shrink that gap? >> i mean, it's sad really. we have to name it for what it is. mf these laws, these trans sports bans when they've gone into place, are impacting less than a handful of students, of young people, of children in that state. is that really where our politicians should be focusing their energies when there are real crises at hand like gun violence impacting kids every day, like real mental health crises are impacting our kids? we have to name this for what it is. we also have to be clear that the emergent generation, generation z, they get it. they get it more than we do. one in five of gen z identifies as a member of the lgbtq plus

community. this is a trend that is not going to stop. we have to create welcoming schools and welcoming environments for these kids to thrive. that's all of our responsibilities. >> right. and that is -- i think people will look at us when the history is written and say what did you do? what did you do to protect the trans kid? and not just the kid but to basil's point to support the family trying to support their kids. a really important conversation. kelley and basil, thank you so much. we have been juggling some breaking news in the break, and there is some of it, of the jack smith variety, straight ahead. don't go anywhere. we will all be right back. t go . we will all be right back. xactls and only pays for what she needs. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one! all with an incredible new iphone. get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon. the chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that... ...i need a breakthrough card... like ours!

with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas... ...a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. (vo) if you've had thyroid eye disease for years and the pain in the back of your eye chase for business. is forcing bad words from your mouth, it's not too late for another treatment option. to learn more visit treatted.com. that's treatt-e-d.com.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the l'or barista coffee and espresso system. a masterpiece in taste

rafael: they're called community schools. cecily: it's the hub of the neighborhood. grant: in addition to academic services, we look at serving the whole family. cecily: no two community schools are alike. john: many of our classes are designed around our own students' cultures. kenny: it's about working with the parents. david: the educators, the parents, the students. rafael: we all come together to better meet the needs of our kids and our families. jackie: it's been really powerful. terry: i'm excited to go to work every day. narrator: california's community schools: reimagining public education. hi again, everyone.

it's now 5:00 in new york. we come on the air with some breaking news. that meeting we told you about last hour between donald trump's defense attorneys and doj officials, well, guess who was in there. special counsel jack smith was among those in the meeting. this comes as nbc news is reporting that the grand jury investigating the former president's handling of classified documents is expected to meet again this week. that tweet in conversation with our friend andrew weissman in a whole new light. reminder, he told us, bottom line, trump is getting charged and it will be in d.c. and this week. it's where we begin the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. former lead investigator for the january 6th select committee tim hagy is back at the table. also joining us former acting solicitor general and msnbc legal analyst neal katyal is making his way to a camera. i think he will be here in a second. the editor of the bulwark and msnbc contributor charlie sykes is here. and "washington post" congressional investigations correspondent jackie alemany

joins us. i hate to come on with the big bluster of breaking news and say jack smith was breaking news what does that mean to a prosecutor because i'm sure your answer is of course he was there. >> exactly. he's leading the investigation. he naturally would be there for a meeting with lawyers for the principal target of that investigation. i don't see his personal presence as significant. the fact, though, that he's meeting with counsel to the former president suggests they're right at the very end, as andrew's tweet suggests. that there may have been a prosecutive decision. but they're just giving the trump lawyers one opportunity to try to raise issues that might change that decision. >> and one of the issues that the trump legal team has raised in television interviews is this complaint about attorney-client privilege, that as betsy woodruff swann and others have explained that has been adjudicated. it didn't happen in public but evidence has already been presented secretly to a judge who said oh yeah, that is adequate evidence that a crime was committed. >> exactly right. i mean, the judge -- chief judge

for the d.c. district court found that there was a crime fraud exception, which allowed the grand jury to hear evidence from evan corcoran, a lawyer for the former president, that trumps, so to speak, the attorney-client privilege. and that's very important evidence because again, as we talked about this before, the whole ball game for jack smith's is the president's intent. did he know that this information was classified? did he possess it nonetheless? that getting inside his head requires information from people with whom he spoke including his lawyers. >> i mean, you guys got as close as anyone has to trump's attorneys in the white house. and even without saying much of anything he said it all, right? pat cipollone in that interview i think with congresswoman liz cheney -- >> very demonstrative, yes. >> how impactful is it for a prosecutor to be completely behind that privilege? >> it's really unusual. it almost never happens. because it's really unusual that lawyers facilitate criminal

conduct by their clients. i think pat cipollone was trying to prevent criminal conduct. pat cipollone is also an institutionalist who respects the office and was trying his best to protect the integrity of the white house counsel's office and not provide confidential communications. the grand jury and the special counsel have means that we did not have to push through that, to overcome that, to adjudicate those objections to privilege claims quickly, which jack smith and his team have done successfully. that's why they're getting stuff that we didn't get. >> when you see what is public facing and it now includes this "new york times" describes it as a narrative that sounds like it was a draft of a novel. this is evan corcoran describing his month -- a month of representing donald trump in the documents investigation. and if i'm right about when he came in, it was not when they were haggling with nara. it was once the fbi was involved and there was a subpoena. >> yeah. >> what do you think they have in that trove of audio notes?

>> it sounds to me like they have pretty strong evidence of intent. right? they have evidence from president trump's lawyer and now evidently from a recording where the president is acknowledging that he possesses information, documents that were not turned over to nara that are classified. and even intends to show them to people. might intend to actually use them. motive is not an element of a crime that a prosecutor has to prove but it certainly helps juries understand motivation and intent. it's always been curious here, like why would the former president want to hold on to this stuff? what's the motive? he's trying to monetize it? is he trying to show off? is it just hubris? conversations that he had with his lawyer and particularly this recording may provide some window into the president's motivation for holding onto this stuff. >> you're about as close as we can get to someone who thinks like jack smith. i'm just asking for your expert analysis and for what you see that we don't see. but when you see that jack smith

has that tape you're talking about where he's rustling papers and then says on the tape to an autobiographer of mark meadows, can't show you, it's classified, it seems that no more can trump say oh, everything i took was declassified because i thought it and i took it. that's gone, right? >> yes. exactly right, nicolle. prosecutors often are not just trying to affirmatively satisfy the elements of their case but they're trying to simultaneously rebut possible defenses. so some defense that i declassified all this stuff seems pretty directly rebutted by something on tape where he says himself i can't show you that, it's classified. right? again, he's consciously playing offense and defense. wants to move the ball down the field by showing evidence that establishes the offense but he also wants to try to anticipate defenses, advice of counsel, i can declassify anything, by providing evidence that would anticipatorily rebut that defense. >> you also watched him as you investigated him and his contact on january 6th move the goalposts. right? i mean, it was, you know, when

the insurrection was bad all around i didn't do it. i told them to go home. as it became his calling card politically, as his position is now to pardon the insurrectionists, his story changed. right? and he owns parts of it. it seems that the documents case and frankly the russia investigation was the same thing. in the beginning it was i don't know vladimir putin. by the end it was it wasn't illegal. how do you see his shifting public pronouncements bolstering jack smith's case? >> i think that is probably partly why they gave him an opportunity through counsel to come in and provide finally to the extent it exists a coherent articulated possible defense. he has made contrary public statements. i can declassify anything. i didn't have anything. hard to tell from his social media posts or his public statements or his speeches what the facts are from him. so they're giving an opportunity to jim trusty and whomever else is representing the former

president to articulate once and for all what is your version of what occurred? we want to hear you before a final prosecutorial decision is made. that's pretty common that you give a defendant an opportunity in a white-collar case, an opportunity to make that presentation before an indictment decision is made. >> i am told that neal katyal has made his way to a camera. neal, we want your take on everything that has transpired today. news of this audio memo, a month of audio diaries from donald trump's criminal defense attorney, as well as the news that just broke in the last ten minutes that jack smith was in the meeting today with trump's defense counsel. >> yeah. so i'm sorry, i had some connections difficulty. so i haven't heard what -- >> you're always worth the wait. you can start at the beginning. we want to hear your fresh take on all of it. >> i'm holding my iphone and trying to talk to you, nicolle. >> i think in the pandemic i did seth myers that way. just to hear you and see you is all we need.

>> well, you're a hundred seth meyers. look, i think that what this meeting indicates to me is we are at the end of the mar-a-lago piece of the jack smith investigation. this is the kind of thing defense attorneys will try and do as a last-ditch effort, to try and meet with the prosecutor, try and talk them out of it, try and say oh, you abused my client's rights and so on. but i think, you know, those kinds of claims, we've heard them before, are pretty much going to fall on deaf ears. the idea that the attorney-client privilege was violated here is exactly what was litigated before the district judge and then going up to our nationtion second highest court, the d.c. circuit, which rebuked that kind of idea. so it pierced attorney-client privilege. for those really highly respected judges to have done that in the mar-a-lago investigation tells me that they

believed a serious crime had been committed and that the attorney was part of that situation. and so they needed to get that information to the prosecutors of what that attorney knew and what that attorney did and what that attorney saw. that is a rare, rare thing. you almost never see it in the law. but it occurs only in really grave circumstances. here all of those judges said this meets that criteria. so what i think we are looking at is really truly, nicolle, a situation where all signs are indicating donald trump will be indicted by jack smith for the mishandling of classified information at mar-a-lago as well as the obstruction of evidence -- the obstruction of the investigation afterwards, hiding the boxes, dress rehearsals, all that kind of stuff. >> you know, that's such a declarative statement, especially coming from you, and it syncs up with what tim and andrew have said today. and again, short of jack smith sitting down at this table, you are the most trusted and expert

people. so i'm just going to push a little more and try to understand again what's obvious to you that may not be obvious to me or some of our viewers. when you see that the "wall street journal" is reporting that some evidence has been before a grand jury convened in florida, what does that indicate to you? >> well, i think that there's -- that makes sense, that you have parts of the investigation that are florida centered around mar-a-lago. the retention of the documents, the -- you know, the initial arrival of the documents. what trump did with those documents when he heard the federal authorities were looking for them. that's all a florida-centric thing. but you also have a d.c. grand jury looking into this as well. and that of course i think is underscored by donald trump's own admission at the cnn town hall last week which was that he made the decision to declassify these documents in washington, d.c. and why is that relevant, nicolle? it's relevant because prosecutors care a lot about

venue. where are you going to indict? if you're going to indict. and here there are two possible places. florida or d.c. with trump saying that he made the decision in d.c., that makes the case for d.c. look stronger. of course those d.c. judges have already had aspects of this case including the attorney-client privilege aspects of this case already. so they're familiar with it. you know, look, i don't think it's impossible to say donald trump isn't going to be indicted. but i think all the signs are indicating that he will be. and that squares with i think the experience that those of us who served in the justice department in national security positions have had, which is you can't take this classified information and this national defense information, mishandle it, lie about it, and then expect not to be indicted. it's one thing if you've made an innocent mistake about a document or something like that. it's an entirely different thing when as it looks there's been an orchestrated campaign to keep

those materials away from federal investigators and the national archives. that's what makes it so grave. >> yeah. i don't consume a ton of right-wing media content for my own mental health but i consume enough to know that the most dangerous place to be is between bill barr and a camera when he's asked about trump's criminal exposure on the mar-a-lago probe. it almost isn't even a purely partisan analysis, that his grave legal exposure is squarely on the two prongs of the mar-a-lago case, both the mishandling of classified documents and the new public-facing evidence about his knowledge that things he had weren't declassified, his sort of intent to share it by rustling the papers around, as well as the obstructive acts have all been quite public. we have heard him say in interview after interview they're mine. there's been investigative reporting about him wanting to swap this for that, all of it classified. i mean, what do you -- how do

you assess as we sit here today the strength of both prongs, the sort of underlying crime, if you will, of the mishandling of the classified documents, perhaps violations of the espionage act, as well as the incredibly brazen obstruction of that investigation? >> yeah. so even before donald trump opened his mouth really about this investigation, even before we knew about the dress rehearsals of moving the boxes of evidence and even before we knew about the iran tape that came out last week about the classified information and the ways in which it maintained classification after trump brought it out of the oval office, even before all of that bill barr was saying, as you point out, nicolle, this is a crime, this is a really serious threat to donald trump. and every piece of additional evidence i think makes that case stronger and stronger, which is why again, national security professionals, i don't care if you're republican or democrat or some other party. people who've handled this, they

know this is not the way -- that this would be an indictment if it were anyone else but donald trump. and that's why i think jack smith, who's such a by the boong book prosecutor, is going to see it that way. i think the mishandling of the information in the first place, maybe trump's going to have a defense like i wasn't involved, i was out of the loop, someone else packed the stuff up and so on. but it's not the finding of the documents itself that to me is the most significant thing. it's that trump's lying about it and obstruction of the investigation both before, during, and after it. that's where i think the prosecutors are going to have such a difficulty. it would be one thing if you made an innocent mistake, you owned up to the mistake, you got the materials returned and so on. you know, for heaven's sakes this is some of our most serious national security information. people, you know, very well may have died or put their lives on the line to get this, both americans and our allies around the world. who generate this as part of five eyes and other intelligence programs. and we can't just kind of just

excuse that. particularly in some ways because it's so visible. it would be one thing if nobody knew about it. but what kind of signal are we sending to our allies, to our spies around the world if we don't prosecute this? that's how i think jack smith will look at it. >> yeah, to neal's point, it always struck me as completely implausible that for the number of classified documents that they found that he had with him and the excuse being i declassified them all when i took them, that there was -- clearly that was never true. and no one ever thought it was true because there would have been an outcry from america's allies, from the intelligence agencies themselves. just based on the volume of stuff he had. >> look, there's a process that's in place to declassify information. >> right. even with the power you still have to go through a process. >> exactly right. and people weigh in as to how damaging it might be to national security. there's the substance of the information. there's also the sources and methods by which the information was obtained that puts people in danger if something goes forth

and a foreign adversary says oh, that must have come from mr. x who now they think might be an asset or a spy. it's really fraught to do this. the former president has said that he can declassify things just by thinking about it. again, there's just no authority for that assertion. he can't think about something and declassify it. it goes through and it has to go through as neal points out a process to evaluate the danger of declassification. none of that happened here. >> jackie ail many, i am told you have broken some new news under the headline lawyers ask doj not to charge donald trump. tell us what you're reporting. >> yeah, nicolle. i just want to say quickly, though, on the heels of what tim just said another bit of new reporting that we had this morning was actually it's not just that tape that makes up the body of evidence that jack smith has collected in terms of the classification practices but the department of justice in really what is the latest sign that

they're nearing the end of wrapping up their investigation has also subpoenaed the national archives for any and all documents over the course of the four years of the trump white house related to classification, anything classification-related. so that involves how to safeguard documents, any training logs that show that these are the people that attended these seminars on how to declassify information, or anything pertaining to the policies or lack thereof in the white house that can show these people including former president trump knew the difference between classified things and declassified things and that not everything in the white house was declassified by the power of trump's mind. that being said -- >> that is so interesting. let me just follow up with you. i mean, that seems to get at the same thing that tim and the select committee sought to get at. just because trump asserted that he thought he won, you had his campaign manager, you had his

campaign data guy, you had his campaign pollster, all his campaign allies saying he lost and we told him he lost, we went and investigated his lies and we found his lies were just that, lies. it seems that there is a pattern emerging that he says i declassified it by thinking it and one of the things jack smith is doing is trying to put some reporting or some evidence behind this idea that you're articulating, that he was briefed on this date, this person was in the room, mark meadows who walked up to the residence had been briefed 11 times including on these six days, that they all knew there was a process for declassification. is that right? >> yeah. and there is -- like there has been with so many things, there is a paper trail there. you know, the national archives has so far according to our sources produced thousands of documents and continued to produce those documents on a rolling basis to the justice department although they've been told to hurry things up and wrap it up because, you know, what at

least we have deduced that signifies is it is again the latest sign that jack smith is trying to wrap up all of the evidence and make a decision. but as of today as everyone has laid out, the trump lawyers went into the justice department and we have also confirmed that they did meet with jack smith and a handful of other top officials at the justice department and essentially laid out the case for why their client, trump, shouldn't be indicted. but i do want to caution -- i know it seems like all signs that, you know, are pointing to the fact that an indictment is imminent. i'm not necessarily sure that the grand jury being paneled this week means that it's happening this week. there are a number of things that the grand jury could be doing. the lawyers can speak to this better. but we could be hearing from a new witness. we could be hearing from a witness who has now been immunized and compelled to testify. we could -- the grand jury could be potentially seeing a new body

of evidence, new material that smith and his investigators have found. so there are really a number of things that could happen today. you know, not just -- you know, happen this week and the it not just the grand jury's going to vote on charges against the former president. >> jackie, do we know anything about how the lawyers felt when they left the meeting with jack smith? and again, my only evidence was that they may not have felt great was that we are all students of trump's responses and reactions and his all caps, you know, grammatically incoherent tweet suggests it wasn't a great readout. >> that is right, nicolle. we did a little bit of reporting on that as well, that advisers to the former president do think that their client is ultimately going to be charged. it is just a matter of when, and that there wasn't any success

necessarily that was had during this meeting. >> charlie sykes, let me bring you in on this. a million different ways to say it, but you know, the bleep just got real, right? donald trump knows it. we all know it. it seems to be a matter of when at this point, not if there is sufficient evidence should jack smith and merrick garland decide to indict donald trump for mishandling of classified documents potentially and obstruction of that investigation. >> well, and i think that's been made very clear by what andrew said, what tim said, and what neal said, that it is in fact imminent. there are a lot of things that we don't know about this investigation. there are a lot of things that are, you know, still shrouded. but there are four things that we do know. we do know the federal judge has pierced the attorney-client privilege which is extremely rare because she believed that evidence had suggested that there was a crime. that is a very, very big deal.

that is a huge tell. we know that jack smith sat in on this meeting today. that is obviously as significant as the fact that number three, the grand jury is meeting and number four, as you just pointed out, what we also know is that donald trump is losing his mind on social media. i mean, all of these are scraps of evidence. we don't know what the prosecutors are going to do. we don't know what the charges will be, what the headline will be, but we do know that it's gotten very, very real and all you need to do is track what's going on with those all-caps screeds from mar-a-lago because that's probably as good an indication of whether or not the meeting went well or not. and i think we know what the answer is there. >> you know, again, i think everyone is being careful to nod to what we don't know. i think after covering mueller for 23 months it was incredibly opaque. your investigation was opaque until you decided to show us

your work. what are you looking for when this becomes more public facing? what are your questions? >> i mean, look, i think we have a lot of speculation about what was in the president's mind. we spend a lot of our time on the select committee trying to uncover evidence of whether the president was specifically aware of the lack of evidence of election fraud. specific awareness in an indictment that alleges specific knowledge that the stuff was declassified. and again, intent maybe to do something with it. that's hard for a prosecutor to prove. evidence of state of mind. a prosecutor could issue a one-paragraph indictment with the elements of the statute. or he could issue a speaking indictment, which lays out in some detail some of the evidence or some of the facts that give rise to those charges. i think it would be very interesting to see what the special counsel if they do proceed with an indictment, do they do a speaking indictment that gives america a little bit more sort of meat on the bones

of sorts or do they issue a very cursory elements of the statute indictment which just says he violated this statute and these are the elements of that statute? >> do you have a sense of which is more likely? >> i mean, i think you could argue that there's a public interest to getting more information -- >> i mean, mueller did the second. >> exactly right. prosecutors are mindful of the magnitude of cases, that certain cases are more significant. there's a greater degree of public interest. that sort of suggests maybe a peaking indictment, a little bit more meat on the bones than you'd normally see in an indictment might make sense in a case like this. >> neal, you get the last word. what are you looking to be revealed if this goes to the next level, to a potential indictment of donald trump? >> yeah, i think the indictment will come in two parts and i think it will be -- it will have more detail rather than less. i don't think they'll do what bragg did in new york and kind of leave a lot for later, in part because of the public interest. and the two parts are number one the mishandling side, which i

think is very straightforward, just about how the documents were picked up, discovered and so on. but it's number two, the obstruction side, that i think i'm really going to be looking at because it's the obstruction side in which this case appears not to be an ordinary mishandling of classified information case but this is about thumbing your nose at the law, thumbing your nose at the national security apparatus, numbing your nose at our intelligence professionals around the world, thumbing your nose at our allies. and when someone behaves in that way, if you know, these reports about what trump did are accurate, that's what to me will be the strength of the indictment and that's where the ball game will be and where trump will face the most serious consequences. >> that's so interesting. i think, neal, we talk so much about how trump running for president makes this investigation more challenging. what you just articulated, the fact that trump is running to be not just president but the nation's commander in chief,

makes this investigation the most important and central question to ask and answer ahead of that run. neal, thank you for overcoming technical issues and otherwise. we can't have these conversations without you. thank you, my friend. >> thank you. >> tim, jackie and charlie are sticking around. when we come back, we're going to turn to the story we were going to start the hour with before that breaking news. the other investigation being led by special counsel jack smith. this one even more opaque. the one concerning january 6th and the plot by the disgraced ex-president and his allies to plan a coup to overturn the results of his 2020 election defeat. we'll get to that new reporting after a quick break. also ahead, they've done it to block voting rights. now they're doing it to block reproductive rights. how republicans are subverting the democratic process all over the country in an extreme and i should add unpopular bid to stop the right to access abortion health care and keep voters from having their say about it. "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ere.

it's not too late to show summer's who's boss. and wayfair's got just what you need. they have all the top grills and gear. with smoking fast shipping. and wayfair deals so epic... you'll feel like a big deal. yes! so get outdoorsy for way less at wayfair. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ (vo) this is sadie. she's on verizon, and she has the new myplan where she gets exactly what she wants and only pays for what she needs. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one! all with an incredible new iphone. get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon. (jennifer) the reason why golo customers have such long term success

is because we focus on real foods in the right balance so you get the results you want. when i tell people how easy it was for me to lose weight on golo, they don't believe me. they don't believe i can eat real food and lose this much weight. the release supplement makes losing weight easy. release sets you up for successful weight loss because it supports your blood sugar levels between meals so you aren't hungry or fatigued. after i started taking release, the weight just started falling off. since starting golo and taking release, i've gone from a size 12 to a 4. before golo, i was hungry all the time and constantly thinking about food. after taking release, that stopped. with release, i didn't feel that hunger that comes with dieting. which made the golo plan really easy to stick to. since starting golo and release, i have dropped seven pant sizes and i've kept it off. golo is real, our customers are real, and our success stories are real. why not give it a try?

there is some other really significant new news in the second criminal investigation being conducted by special counsel jack smith. according to brand new reporting in the "washington post," in november and december of 2020 the trump campaign spent over a million dollars paying two firms, berkeley research group and simpatico software systems, to study whether fraud had occurred in the presidential election. those two firms hired by the trump campaign couldn't find any, could not verify donald trump and the campaign's claims.

and when they couldn't find any evidence, they shared that conclusion with the trump campaign. today the "washington post" is reporting that according to people familiar with the matter those two studies performed by those companies have become, quote, an increasing focus of federal and state investigators in recent weeks. "washington post" stating this, quote, on the federal level justice department special counsel jack smith is questioning witnesses about the company's work and has obtained hundreds of pages of e-mails and research. what prosecutors have sought to show according to people who've been questioned is that trump and his aides willfully ignored evidence in their push to raise money and overturn the election and that a panoply of advisers had access to the data. the evidence is compelling to prosecutors because it is not neutral or third-party groups saying that trump lost but instead analysts whose work trump's own team commissioned and funded. wow. we're back with tim heaphy, charlie sykes and jackie alemany.

did you have access to these two reports? >> we did not. we only knew about one of the two. the simpatico report came up with an interview we did with alex cannon, who was a campaign lawyer. and when he was asked about it he asserted attorney-client privilege, said i can't share with you the results of that because it was a commissioned report by counsel. it's an example of a lot of things where we would come up against assertions of privilege with people that knew that we did not have what jack smith has, is the ability to quickly adjudicate that assertion and potentially overcome that claim of privilege. so we were aware of one of the two, not the berkeley research group one. but we never got access to either report. >> tell me why they matter. >> they matter because they go directly to the president's state of mind. we developed a lot of evidence, very similar to the conclusions that are being reported in those reports, that people looked hard inside the justice department, inside the trump campaign at allegations of election fraud and found that they were meritless. and that was conveyed directly to the president. we also, really importantly, we

interviewed -- i think jared kushner actually produced a document that said the campaign, the same campaign that commissioned these independent reports, didn't just rebut the claims of fraud but actually explained to the president why he lost. there was actually a state by state accounting in this document that kushner produced to us which posited that it was turnout in exurban areas, or outer suburbs. the president really underperformed in 2020 in those areas compared to how he had done in 2016. so they didn't just say you lost because there's no evidence of fraud. they said you lost because you didn't perform in those exurban areas vis-a-vis your opponent like you did in 2016. so the affirmative explanation for the loss to me is just as compelling as the lack of evidence that would suggest voter fraud. all of that very developed. but we did not have, to be clear, those two independently commissioned research reports. >> and did you know about them from your interviews with jared

kushner and bill stepien and other campaign officials? >> no. we knew alex cannon, the campaign lawyer, told us, confirmed that there had been a simpatico report. jared kushner was asked about efforts to look into allegations of election fraud and he claimed not to be aware. jason miller, directly involved in this all the way from the beginning, claimed not to be aware. now, was that, you know, completely truthful or were they aware of these reports and did not provide that to the select committee? arguably yes. i can't prove that. but there are a lot of witnesses, nicolle, that didn't recall things that were hard for us to imagine they actually didn't recall. >> let me show you some of what -- i mean, it's an incredible dual realities, right? before your committee people like bill barr and others were quick to say that they were standing over here on earth one, they knew trump lost and they told him. but facing questioning, it sounds like at least individuals

you mentioned were not particularly forthcoming. >> yeah. there were people that were directly involved in the campaign all the way through january 6th who didn't share with us the existence of this work. you have to be clear, though, that the initial campaign leadership, bill stepien and others, were essentially jettisoned. it was pretty early -- >> right, it became a different campaign. they were trying to win in early november. and then when he was claiming fraud -- i think the campaign does the first report. >> yes. >> i think jackie had that reporting. the campaign does the first report to see if giuliani's claims are true. and the campaign comes back with the coms department, i believe. >> exactly right. yes. >> and they say no, this is not true. >> no. and bill stepien says that. he's present at that meeting where the state by state accounting, hey, you didn't perform in the exurban areas, is presented to the president. he's jettisoned. and he describes this as team normal vs. team crazy. it's team crazy that rushes in and is telling the president oh, there's evidence of fraud and we have to look into this. and it's at that point that it looks like these reports were commissioned, let's get the

berkeley research group or let's get simpatico systems in to look at it. according to the "post's" reporting they did that and just like bill barr, just like bill stepien, just like everyone who to this day in 2023 has looked at these claims, found that they are meritless. that was conveyed to the president. that's why it's important to jack smith. >> is it possible that jack smith is as far along -- or farther along than we know from the outside in revealing trump's intent in the coup plot? as he is in the mar-a-lago. >> it's hard to say. in a case like this you want to leave no stone untender. you want to go to every possible source of information regardless of whether it might be favorable or unfavorable. you want to scour the universe to get everything. he's pretty far along. i mean, when mike pence was in the grand jury. that's not a witness that you call early in an investigation. that's arguably the last person that you call before you invite the lawyers to the justice department to say why should we not indict you. so i think absolutely, on the jan 6 case as well as the

mar-a-lago case he's pretty far along. we gave him a pretty good head start, candidly, by disclosing all of the transcripts and all of the documents that we -- and we articulated a multipart plan to overturn the election which shows a lot of evidence of trump's intent to obstruct that official proceeding. so he wasn't starting from 0. he was starting from the 50 yard line or even further. but my guess is he's made substantial progress and he's also closing in on the end of the fact gathering phase of that investigation. >> mark milley figures into what has become public in the documents case because it is a grudge match between mark milley, which is some of the i guess context for why he's waving around a plan for an attack on iran. mark milley plays into the intent piece squarely on the coup as well. there's a transcript you guys released that -- zero minus two hours at the very end. and chairman milley is talking about a conversation with trump. i believe it's about iran but i could have that wrong. it's clear trump knows he lost

and he's leaving. >> yeah. >> how central is someone like that who was simply kind of walking the line for u.s. national security in those final days? >> yeah. very important. every time there's evidence of the president directly uttering something, it's important. and what you're referring to is that general milley says he was in the white house after the election had been called for president biden talking about a substantial foreign policy issue. i think it was iran. and trump turns to him and says this is not up to me, this is up to the next guy. sort of an acknowledgment that he will not be the decision maker for very much -- >> because he lost. >> -- longer because he lost. so again, evidence of the president's awareness being conveyed again and again by bill barr, by bill stepien and others and statements like he made to mark milley suggests that everything he says thereafter is a lie and an intent to mislead, is an intent to obstruct the official proceeding. again, that's why the special counsel's so interested in that. >> jackie, it seems that what you and your colleagues are reporting is moving questions that we have, again, as a public

on the outside about the january 6th investigation and its seriousness and the amount of evidence amassed and the places where it builds on or pierces, places where the congressional investigation wasn't able to get. but it's at that point, right? where it's pushing through some of those doors that were slammed shut by trump's insiders including these two reports that the congressional committee didn't have access to. what are you guys reporting in terms of both the significance and the maturity of the january 6th probe on jack smith's part? >> i have to be a little cheeky and note that we obtained these reports without a subpoena or -- >> touche. >> but i mean jack smith has a lot of evidence. it's point blank. something i found really interesting, some of these nuggets that my colleague josh dawsey brought up in his reporting about both of these reports that have been of interest not just to special counsel jack smith but also to

fani willis in fulton county, georgia is that some of the asks around these reports, that they were clearly circulated amongst top trump officials. they were e-mailed about. one extremely telling and illuminating anecdote to me is that federal prosecutors had obtained evidence from some of the employees who were working for the berkeley study that mark meadows berated employees at the firm after they said there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the election results and encouraged them to find fraud. so those are the kinds of details, these ones that josh scrounged up, that smith is getting to bring all of this to life and to tell a story in order to potentially land charges. but where we are in that january 6th process is still as tim noted a pretty opaque but they

certainly at least publicly have been able to penetrate some more walls in part due to the length of time, the amount of staff, the manpower in addition to their subpoena power and some of their legal powers that the congressional committee did not have. >> you know, charlie, the power of all of the evidence that the congressional committee presented, and i won't do it today because i feel my control room reach for the tums every time i quote bill barr calling it b.s. but it was b.s., bill barr, over and over. alex cannon, a campaign lawyer, yes, we knew we lost. bill stepien, the campaign manager, yes, we lost. some of them kind of look like they were admitting that under duress. but in these interviews, in these taped depositions they all knew they lost. now you have the data that shows how they all knew that they lost. they didn't trust us. they didn't trust fox news. they it trusted these two

private firms that commissioned reports that showed them that they lost. it feels like a question that maybe jack smith is going to help us understand and answer, is the role that the violence played when they all knew that there wasn't a state where you could go use your fake electors and overturn it because he hadn't lost by just one state. and there wasn't a court case because there were 61 and he lost all 60. all he had was the mob. that was it. and i wonder as the evidence piles up on the intent and the knowledge of his defeat and it's really weeks and weeks and weeks now that they all knew they lost. what was the intent of the december 19th tweet and what did he really want to do by going to the capitol on january 6th? >> well, that goes to the heart of the whole case, doesn't it? that he'd exhausted all of his other alternatives. he tried to get the legislatures to overturn. they wouldn't do it. he went to the courts. the courts recognized that he had no case. and he wasn't persuading even

members of his own party and his own vice president to go along. so he was left with the mob. but to your point, the amount of evidence that is being compiled here is truly extraordinary. i mean, this is a cascade of evidence. there are tapes. there are videotapes, there's the reports. there's testimony. and as tip pointed out we don't know what the status of the january 6th investigation is but it's certainly relevant that the special committee did give the grand jury a huge head start and that they did bring the former vice president in to testify, which is something you wouldn't do until the end. so i'm certainly hoping that it's advanced. i'm certainly hoping that they're able to tell the narrative. nicolle, you are a novelist. it strikes me as this is a story that is going to require perhaps many skilled novelists to tell this story because it is so extraordinary when you tie together all of the different threads, when you link together and connect the dots of mark milley and the role that he

played in all of this, sitting with the former president and discussing what these war plans are. this is an extraordinary story. and i'm hoping that when all this comes out that jack smith or who's ever working with jack smith will tell this story. because you asked the question before about the kinds of indictments. this cries out for the talking indictment. tell the story to the american people. why this is taking place, what happens r happened. the january 6th committee did an outstanding job and now it's in jack smith's hands. >> you get the last word. >> totally agree. we found a compelling story. he's going beyond what we found and is only seemingly adding chapters to the story that are really compelling. look, just on the record that we developed we recommended criminal charges. obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the united states, false statements. from what i'm reading, and i don't know anything more than you do, that showing, that

evidentiary predicate is only getting stronger. and therefore, as charlie said, i think that this criminal process can flush out the story even more and ultimately might result in accountability. and that's hugely important for the preservation of democracy. >> especially ahead of another election in which he's running. >> right. >> it's amazing. it's great to have you here today of all days. thank you so much. jackie alemany, thank you for spending so much of this hour with us and for sharing your reporting on both of our big lead stories. charlie sykes, can't do any of these conversations without you. thank you, my friend, for spending 45 minutes with us. it's too much to ask but we're grateful. when we come back, we will turn to republicans because they keep losing when voters go to the polls to have their say on the issue of access to reproductive health care abortion rights. so now they're doing something else. whatever they can to stop those elections from taking place. we'll explain after a short break. don't go anywhere. k. don't go anywhere. needs. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one!

all with an incredible new iphone. get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon. ♪ shelves. shelves that know what taste buds want. shelves smart enough to see, sense, react, restock. ♪ so caramel swirl is always there for the taking. the chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that... ...i need a breakthrough card... like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas...

...a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. trying to control my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ enough was enough. i talked to an asthma specialist and found out my severe asthma is driven by eosinophils, a type of asthma nucala can help control. now, fewer asthma attacks and less oral steroids that's my nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. nucala is not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. talk to your asthma specialist to see if once-monthly nucala may be right for you. and learn about savings at nucala.com

there's more to your life than asthma. find your nunormal with nucala. one prilosec otc each morning blocks heartburn all day and all night. prilosec otc reduces excess acid for 24 hours, blocking heartburn before it starts. one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

in election after election after election since the supreme court stripped away the constitutional right to an abortion nearly one year ago now voters have made it abundantly clear that they don't like this, they don't want the government infringing on their right to access reproductive healthcare. well, so what do republicans do? what do you think? gop state legislatures are now working overtime to prevent voters from having that say. in the latest attempt, andrew

bailey is being accused of overstepping his authority when he demanded changes to the cost estimate of an abortion rights petition from the $51,000 a year to 51 billion. i'm not good at math, but that happens to be one million times higher. it matters because it comes that republicans are making it clear that they're willing to lie and subvert democracy to keep women from accessing basic health care and to keep from losing elections in south dakota. abortion rights advocates are in a court battle after being prevented from collecting signatures for county buildings from the state initiative. in ohio republicans are trying to change from simple majority to 60% after an abortion rights initiative was proposed. in a closed-door meeting supporters pushed the measure saying out loud again reportedly describing their campaign this way, you don't say abortion.

you don't say 60% and you don't bring up social issues that divide republicans. the focus will be on protecting the constitution from special interests. joining us on conversation is mini timarajio. minnie, we get to a lot of parts of the story because there isn't a lot of public-facing evidence that one, they know what they're doing is deeply unpopular even with republican voters and two, they are rigging the rules in a way that is unconstitutional, immoral, and i think, i guess courts will have the final say, illegal. >> courts having the final say is a challenge for us, as well because we've seen they are completely willing -- courts are completely unwilling to rig that as well as we're seeing in high-profile cases. at the end of the day, you nailed it. this is a clear example of how when they cannot win they rig or change the game and the

republican party is masters at projection. they have been rigging the system for so long they're doing it with total disregard as they said to their own base and their own party. we've seen poll after poll including their own research saying that the majority of trump-supporting republicans are with the bans and the best we can do is continue to mobilize and continue with the elections and we're feeling pretty good with that. >> these numbers just blow my mind. the bands that eliminate exceptions by the life of the mother oppose by 93% of benefits and they're imposed by 83% by all americans and there's not a ton of polling on the bands that make it harder to pursue ivf or infertility and that is the real life experience and of course, they're the faces of overturning roe now. the country has gotten to know

amanda sewrowski. >> the longer the bans are in place the more stories like a hand we'll see penetrate public consciousness thanks to great reporting like yours and many other outlets we see an egregious case breaking through the news on a week by week basis and that will only continue and make this issue more salient in upcoming elections. the other thing i want to point out on the polling on bans and what's important to understand is a ban is a ban. we've talked about that on the show. a ban is a ban. these exceptions don't work for a host of reasons because they're subject to so much interpretation and there's not enough jurisdiction or standards for how they can be enforced and doctors for providers and for patients to make decisions unfettered by these biases created by these bans and the chilling effect it has on proper health care. the other piece of it is in the

states where we're seeing hospital closures we're seeing providers. so even if you're not moved by the abortion argument which most americans are, you can get access to care in the state because of the way the bans have impacted health care delivery in your state and in your region because of these bans. >> right. i think the notion that doctors and physicians are making plans for the occasion that they're arrested, people to take care of their kids that women, you know, there now is a politician as dr. oz threatened in the hospital room or in the doctor's office with a woman and her doctor is something that is deeply, deeply unpopular. mini, i'm sorry this conversation got cut short byic breaking news, but i am so glad we talked. we'll take a short break. we'll be right back. we'll take a short break we'll be right back. we talked. we'll take a short break. we'll be right back. hort break

we'll be right back.

(vo) this is sadie. she's on verizon, and she has the new myplan where she gets exactly what she wants and only pays for what she needs. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one! all with an incredible new iphone. get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon. >> finally today, president biden welcomed the super bowl champs the caps as city chiefs to the white house today. the chiefs beat the philadelphia eagles in super bowl lvii earlier in the year and that's the reason the president joked, jill biden, a philadelphia native was not in attendance for the ceremony. our thanks to you for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. we are grateful. "the beat" with ari melber starts after a short break. switch.

it's your verizon. i want my daughter riley to know about her ancestors and how important it is to know who you are and to know where you came from. we're discovering together... it's been an amazing gift. my husband and i have never been more active. we'r shingles doesn't care... i go to spin classes with my coworkers. good for you, shingles doesn't care. because no matter how healthy you feel, your risk of shingles sharply increases after age 50. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site,

muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care but, shingrix protects. shingrix is now zero dollars for almost everyone. ask your doctor about shingrix today. if we want a more viable future for our kids, we need to find more sustainable ways of doing things. america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars in new technologies and creating plastic products that are more recyclable. durable. and dependable. our goal is a cleaner, healthier planet for generations to come. for a better tomorrow, we're focused on making plastics better today. so... i know you and george were struggling for a better tomorrow, with the possibility of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath. a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure, spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home.

a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces, convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage™ to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day. they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself. stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to receive $1000 off your kohler® walk-in bath. and take advantage of our low monthly payment financing. happy monday. welcome to "the beat." i'm ari melber. we have quite a story leading off