could be dup here and all could actually work together. one, chief justice roberts could take this seriously. >> do you think he's not? >> no, he's not at all. or if he's taken it seriously it hasn't turned into any action yet. second, you've got the judicial conference which is the administrative body that runs the court and these other judges are quite fed up with the court's behavior, and they're in a position to upgrade the ethics and the accountability of the court. and finally we in congress have bills, and chairman durbin announced my bill. >> we have run out of time. we're going to have to leave it there. thank you very much for coming on with us today. and that is going to do it for me today. "deadline white house" starts right now. hi there, everyone.

it's 4:00 in the east. big day of news today. on capitol hill today a brutal collision between reality and delusion, a republican effort to whitewash the ex-president's ties for russia culminating in a veteran prosecutor under oath seemingly unwilling to acknowledge basic facts in service of republican conspiracy theories. just a few weeks after releasing a 300-page report after an investigation that went on for four years, cost the taxpayers $6.5 million, a report "the washington post" described this way as, quote, landing with a thud resulting in no new charges and none of the widespread abuses trump and his allies have alleged for years now. special counsel john durham testified today before the house judiciary committee. now, despite all those facts durham described his findings sobering and it was left to it democrats on the committee to point out the truth of his own investigation, an investigation that trump and his hand picked

attorney general bill barr setup to investigate the investigators. here is ranking member during that. >> it's not correct. >> there were multiple parts of that. >> did it take four years to complete? >> correct. >> and with all these resources and all these people sent to help you investigate the investigators, you only filed three criminal cases. you only brought two cases to trial, correct? >> correct. >> and you lost all the cases you brought to trial, correct? >> correct. >> and in that case the primary investigative steps were all completed by inspector general harowitz. in fact your report repeatedly references recommendations made by inspector general harowitz. again, your investigation lasted four years. four years in untold sums of money and you still obtain only one conviction.

you did produce a 300-page report, though, and that's given my republican counter parts plenty of material to spin. >> the democrats on the house judiciary committee also drilled down on what durham does not mention in his report, namely the undocumented and frankly unavoidable ties everyone knows existed between the 2016 campaign and russia. >> did anything in your report prove false that russians met with trump's family during the campaign at trump tower after an offer of dirt on hillary clinton? anything prove that meeting didn't happen? >> i don't have any evidence that that did not happen. >> anything to prove false in the 2016 campaign donald trump tried and concealed from the public a real estate deal he was seeking in moscow? >> i don't know anything about that. there's nothing in the report about it. it's not something we investigated. >> did you prove -- did donald trump not say at a press conference, russia, if you're

listening, he should get hillary's e-mails? did you prove he didn't say that? >> we didn't investigate that. >> did you prove false trump's campaign manager gave polling data to a spy from russian intelligence services? >> we didn't investigate that. >> are you signing off on the way donald trump acted with russia in 2016? >> our report doesn't address that. >> and you agree russia interfered with the 2016 election? >> i agree there's substantial evidence to show that. >> the hearing today on a report that does not exonerate donald trump in any, way, shape, or form revealed clearly more than anything the character of its witness and the house gop caucus that has completely turned its back and even pretending to care about the rule of law in this country, all seemingly in service of a disgraced twice impeached now twice indicted ex-president and a special counsel who refused to answer the questions swirling around his investigation.

here's zoe lofgren asking durham an eyebrow raising question about traveling to italy with bill barr. >> i thought it was down a rabbit's hole, but you and attorney general barr went to italy to take a look at some allegation about foreign service, and italian officials gave you evidence that they said linked donald trump to certain financial crimes. did the attorney general ask you to investigate that matter that the italians referred to you? and if so, did you take any investigative steps, and did you file charges? and if not, did you file a declaration memo for decision not to charge in this case? >> the question's outside the scope of what i think i'm authorized to talk about. it's not part of the report. i can tell you this, investigative steps were taken. grand jury subpoenas were issued, and it came to nothing. >> a dramatic collision of facts and republican disinformation at

a hearing today about mr. durham's probe into the russia investigation. it's where we begin with some of our favorite reporters and friends. "the new york times" washington correspondent charlie savidge is here. he did the definitive piece of reporting on the durham report earlier this year. also joining us senior capitol hill correspondent garret haake, and former cia director now msnbc senior national security analyst john brennen. i want to start with you. that question from zoe lofgren seems to come from a revelation that the public learned about from your reporting. mr. durham doesn't directly answer it, but he certainly doesn't deny anything you've reported. what did you think of that? >> well, obviously my ears picked up at that point. i should hasten to say adam goldman and katie benner were coauthors on that piece. scattered throughout this hearing which was mostly just republicans railing about the

russia investigation sometimes conflating it with the steele dossier and democrats pointing to episodes in the mueller report and using this occasion to highlight them, there were these questions about some of our findings when we investigated the durham investigation into the russia investigation. people asked why did your number two resign, because we reported it was after a series of ethical disputes culminating in barr pushing them to draft an interim report that was going to come out or could come out before the 2020 election. he wouldn't engage. he praised her but he said that's an internal management issue, i'm not going to talk about it. they asked him about that tip from italian officials about some kind of financial crimes linked in some way to trump that barr had durham investigate and came to nothing. there he did engage, he went beyond the report as you just showed. he acknowledged that happened and said they issued grand jury subpoenas and this time it came to nothing.

more generally that articled seem to be not something he was particularly happy about. at one point he said, well, "the new york times" reported it, it is what it is. which is quite different than saying it's not true. >> correct, there was actually nothing -- and i watched a lot of it. charlie savidge, i want to ask you about durham sitting there as republicans are smearing former senior leaders under the leadership of andy mccabe and the decision he had four years to investigate, found no wrongdoing, found no criminality and let the men in this institution be smeared in a nearly unprecedented manner. that started me almost more than anything that was said. what did we learn about mr. durham today and his comfort with the fbi and doj? >> i was watching the same material you were and i wasn't surprised when he was, you know,

saying negative things about members of the fbi sirka 2016 or allowing others to say it unrebutted. that's john durham at this point. i was actually more surprised by a counter theme to what you were just saying. there was a number of occasions in which he was refusing to be the guy the republicans wanted him to be. you know, he came there and he said, you know, this investigation was open because of this tip from this australian diplomat that suggested a trump campaign aide had advanced knowledge russia was going to dump out e-mails they had hacked, and that the fbi had a duty or obligation to investigate that. totally against the republican narrative it started because of the steele dossier or it should never have been opened. his report only accuses the fbi of confirmation bias. at one point one of the republican congressman was pushing him, kind of goading him to say that was really political

bias, wasn't it? that was why they had to stop with permission bias and he wouldn't go there. outside this particular russia investigation issue towards the end of the hearing he offered a kind of stout defense of "the washington post" post-watergate norm that justice department criminal case decisions have to be independent. white house interference with those matters is inappropriate and wrong. and of course the whole, you know, trump-led, you know, doj reform movement at this point trump is openly saying he's going to direct investigations into his enemies if he gets back into trial. and very few of his rivals for the nomination are willing to openly criticize that. and so durham was an unstable presence here even in this very sort of partisan charged atmosphere. >> garret haake, you covered this today. i want to show you an exchange between adam schiff, which is bubbling and generating a lot of

questions about whether mr. durham, you know, at best misspoke or at worse was less than truthful or candid. let me show you this exchange. >> i mean, i think if you read what's in the cable and what's in the report is what the diplomats reported was there was a suggestion of a suggestion that the russians could help. they have damaging information as to mrs. clinton and -- >> that's exactly what happened, isn't it? >> i don't -- >> you really don't know? >> i'm not sure exactly. when you say exactly what happened -- >> russia released stolen e-mails through cut outs did they not? >> there were e-mails. >> it's a very simple question. did they release information -- stolen information through cut outs, yes or no? >> i'm not sure that -- >> you really don't know the answer to that? the answer is, yes, they did -- >> in your mind it's yes. >> mueller's answer was yes.

more important than mine mueller's answer was yes. now, that information was helpful to the trump campaign, wasn't it? >> i don't think there's any question the russians intruded into -- hacked into the systems, they released information. >> and that was helpful to the trump campaign, right? >> and the inclusion in the ica and the mueller investigation was that the russians intended to insist -- >> can you answer my question. that was helpful to the trump campaign, right? and trump made use of that as i said by touting the stolen documents on the campaign trail over a hundred times? >> i said i don't really read the newspapers or listen to the news. i'm not reliable so i don't know that. >> are you aware of the stolen e-mails? >> i'm not aware of that. >> so garret haake, durham's mandate is to investigate not

just any investigators, not just investigators who happen to investigate while trump was president, not investigators who may have had one of the pieces of paper that cross their desk into russia, durham's mandate was to investigate the investigators who investigated interference by russia in the 2016 election. and what a lot of people talk about when they revisit the mueller report is the trump figures that were charged that pleaded, mueller also indicted a whole lot of russians. >> yeah, that's true. >> durham was the man in charge of the investigation and he doesn't know basic facts? he either misstates or erroneously recounts the conclusions of the mueller report. what was that? >> the sense i got from watching that exchange is that durham didn't want to get led down a path where he was criticizing the political response to the leaks of those e-mails by donald trump. he was trying to do what robert mueller tried to do in his own

toil, which is stay within the four corners of the document he produced. both parties trying to kind of steer durham one way or the other to fit what they wanted this hearing to be about. the bottom line is durham's report is 300 pages that mostly deals with fbi procedures on opening up a full investigation versus a limited investigation, the start of an investigation. it's an hr document. it gets really fine grained, but it doesn't do any of the things republicans wanted to do, which is sort of throw out the findings mueller and his team ultimately got to. i think what you saw from adam schiff there and other democrats during the course of the hearing was to try to redirect back towards that point. yes, you might have an issue how the investigation begun, yes, you might have an issue with the bias peter struck indicated in his text messages, but weren't these if findings still findings?

were not the in fact the russians trying to get involve in the trump campaign or be involved in the 2016 election in a significant way? and nothing in the durham report undercuts any of those findings by mueller or the team that predated him over jim comey. i think that's why you would two wholly separate conversations wholly dealing with that paper report in front of them going on in that hearing room for five hours today. >> it's such a good description. director brennen, i want to deal with what charlie and garret have both reported. our viewers are down in the weeds with well-versed folks, but i just want to put this out there. this critique that durham has that a full investigation was open instead of a preliminary is the one legitimate -- i don't know if it's even legitimate, but it is the one thing that he finds, it is the difference that he has with how it was done. at the end of the day for both

charlie's reporting and garret's he does not come out and refute the facts that predicated the opening of uninvestigation. it's simply this rather technical dispute about whether it should have been a preliminary instead of the full. but the wreckage, the blast radius, four years of donald trump and sean hannity and everyone on the right building up the durham report is coming. the durham -- i remember being in washington with trump-era justice department officials on the eve of the mueller report coming out, and they said this is nothing, wait until you see what durham's got, and i said, oh, yeah, what does durham have? durham never had anything except a tip to open an investigation into donald trump. and that was something he couldn't even answer for today. what did you think? you were someone whose conduct as a public servant was scrutinized. you were exonerated by everybody, but tell me what you

thought watching today. >> well, when i read the report when it came out, i think my reaction was much like others. i was very -- it was underwhelming. the department of justice inspector general michael harowitz did a good job pointing out some of the misteps, the tactical missteps made. i do think from the standpoint of the rightness of the investigation of 2016 to find out what the russians were doing and what the trump campaign was doing in support of some of those russian efforts i think was critically important. but john durham did not reveal anything new. in fact, my reading of the report particularly the first-hand aspects i have knowledge about, i think he did intentionally misrepresent and skew his findings in order to support the basic premise of his investigation, which was what bill barr and donald trump wanted was to try to discredit the investigation that was

underway into the 2016 presidential election interference. and so i think what we heard from john durham today, he went to great length to try to continue to cast his findings that were basically favorable to the gop talking points and i think were trying to avoid the bottom line, which was that the government and the fbi did its job in terms of trying to understand what the russians were doing. and so, again, the fact he only had two indictments and both of them failed to convict, i think it just shows that they're really grasping for whatever straws they could find. but as you point out the litany of language and arguments over the past several years i think really does leave one to understand just how damaging these types of politicized efforts on the part of the trump administration have been. >> you know, director brennen, i had this -- i've used this

before but this sliding doors experience of watching durham tell us about something that he did for the last four years and think about trump's recent interviews and worry about what he would do with another four years. because all of these people bill barr, mr. durham, the guy that was over at intel, ratcliffe, they are all over the world, they make our people look silly. but the people he bring in next make those people lick churchillian. what is the process like and look should be their ret prubution. >> i think donald trump has said quite clearly he's going to

enact revenge if re-elected. i think it demonstrates the lengths to which they're willing to go. bill barr he just recently has found the truth and now he's criticizing donald trump. but if donald trump were to be re-elected god forbid what he would try to do in using the institutions of law enforcement, intelligence, of justice to be able to twist and turn our government in support of his efforts. unfortunately, when i was listening to the hearing today, listening to a lot of those republican members of congress on the committee, they continued to misrepresent the facts as a way to justify, enable, apologize for what donald trump has done to this country over the past number of years. and unfortunately, jim jordan who's a skilled partisan fighter is using the power of the gavel right now to try to highlight what is, in fact, a low light i think of not only the trump administration but also the durham report, which is that,

again, the fbi did its best to try to understand what is happening to our country as a result of russia's interference in the election. >> garret, there is a piece of this that requires us to stand back, i think, and recognize that before jim jordan there was devon nunez, that casting doubt on the very concern about russia middling in our elections was always a political mission that trump's allies took very, very seriously. >> reporter: yeah, that's right. and there's been this long-term effort to kind of throw sand in the gears not just from russia but from the apparatus as far as back as congress. there's this hype machine i remember i guess it was 2017 when the nunes memo was coming. they were going to shutdown the russia investigation, it was going to be over. there was like a weeks long hype

machine that led up to that, and when the memo came out it was kind of a dud. durham for a time took on that hero status on the right that robert mueller had started to on the left. durham was coming, the report was coming, he was going to blow the lid off all this. that hasn't happened. the next iteration maybe the fbi whistle-blower who he now can't find. this is a repeated cycle on the right and in right-wing media coverage of some of these various investigations both into donald trump and donald trump's perceived enemies where the next big thing is always the one that's going to blow the lid off, you know, the deep state swamp apparatus, and it just hasn't happened. >> yeah, i mean director brennen there's something very cynical, right, about keeping your supporters on a hamster wheel where it never catches the cheese, but it does grave damage. it does a lot of harm to the country if 30 or 40% of its citizens don't trust the fbi.

what are your concerns if this cycle as garret points out continues? >> i was listening to a lot of the representatives, the republicans on the committee today, they just badly, badly misrepresent the facts and the truth. and i'm sure a lot of people across this country who were listening to that hearing. and if the continued lies come out, it really does skew and then change the views of americans towards our institution of government. and i feel, you know, the responsibility of our public officials really is to try to at least discern the truth, bu there was no effort on the part of republicans today to try to get to the truth. they just wanted to twist words and twist facts as a way to allow their talking points to continue i think to give donald trump a pass, which is really, really concerning given that he continues to pursue the office of the presidency of the united states. >> and his mishandling of classified documents and his

being under investigation as well in a coup doesn't pump the brakes on any of it is truly remarkable as well. charlie savidge to you and katie benner thank you so much for being here today, garret haake who informs just about everything we do around here, thank you so much. and director brennen who knows just about anyone on all this, thank you for starting us off today. when we come back we'll have an opportunity to speak with congressman adam schiff himself. we'll get his thoughts on the exchange we played for you and the rest of today's hearing and the special counsel's testimony. plus justice for officer michael fanone, the man who brutally assaulted him at the surrection at january 6th at sentence him today. the judge called him a one-man army of hate. the reaction from officer fanone as he was led away to prison. and later in the show what is it with billionaires and their supreme court besties? the very latest ethics scandal

out of the high court this time involving a luxury private flight to go fishing. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. a quick break. don't go anywhere.

♪ ♪ ♪ [typing] ♪ you were made to act spontaneously.

we were made to help plan accordingly. ♪ with respect to understanding, he had the greatest respect for her. she's a friend of mine, well educated, an honest person who i had some disagreement withes. i'm not going to discuss internal management. i'll tell you this every agent who worked on this project had a full voice on the decisions

going forward. i made the final decision. >> it was a dramatic inflection point in the durham investigation when his long-time partner left the probe. that question was posed by our next guest, congressman adam schiff of california. congressman, thank you for being here. >> good to be with you. >> what did you think of that response? he wasn't particularlyforth coming, but he didn't deny she leftover a difference of strategy or opinion. >> yeah, he clearly didn't want to talk about why she left. and i asked him did it have to do with disagreements about whether he should make a public statement during the penancy of his investigation, something that violates doj policy. initially he feigned ignorance about whether he knew it was a violation, maybe it wasn't, maybe it wasn't, said something along those lines. and i asked him was this one of the reasons why she left. i asked him about his pursuit of

communications related to a private party, being turned down by a judge, he wouldn't talk about that. i asked whether he sought to do an end run around the judge and get the same information from a grand jury. he want answer that. i asked if this was the cause of why she left your team, and he wouldn't answer that. so this was clearly something he could have answered. he certainly knows the answers but refused to discuss. >> you had that affect own him, either stumping him or eliciting a lot of i don't recalls. i think maybe cassidy hutchinson made it look easier than it is to remember the details of one's time as a public servant. but one of the more striking examples of that is when you were questioning him about whether or not it is illegal to take campaign assistance from a foreign hostile power to the candidates's son. what did you make of his

exchange? and his responses are in direct contradiction to the mueller report. >> he was really trying to down-play the significance of the president's son, being offered dirt on hillary clinton something represented of don junior as part of the russian government's effort to try and help the trump campaign, taking that information to a secret meeting he wanted to down-play it. he wanted to suggest this happens all the time. and in that answer and so many others what it really betrayed is what exactly he accused the fbi of, and that is confirmation bias. you could really see his bias into thinking what the trump campaign did was fine or he wasn't going to call it collusion even though there is no other name for what the trump campaign tried to do. but he clearly didn't want to provide any answer that he thought belittling of the former president and really in doing so

betrayed the bias that he had. >> what was startling to watch even reading "the new york times" investigation about his work and following the failure of the cases he did bring was his silence when long time former leaders of the fbi and others were smeared and defamed and maligned by republican members of the committee. what did you make of those moments? they were almost chilling. >> yes, well, this has been a tragedy over the last administration, which is so many people came into that administration like durham with a good reputation, and i don't know what happened while they were there, but they ended up throwing it away and for what? i just don't understand time after time people join that administration and found themselves compromising their ethics to do so. you know, i asked about

admonishments from district court judge or at least one judge when he tried to get these public records. this has been something publicly reported. if he did that as it's been rorred, that doesn't seem consistent with what he was doing as a prosecutor previously. or maybe i just don't know his record that well. but, yes, the failure to defend others and the willingness to do things you wouldn't ordinarily do is characteristic of that administration. >> there was also something weird. i mean he wasn't just investigating any investigators. he was investigating the investigators of russia's attack on u.s. democracy in 2016, and he knew very little about it. was that a -- do you think that was just performative, i'm only going to talk about what i wrote about? hoar what did you make of that? it came up in your questioning. >> you know, it was very shocking. i asked him, for example, about trump making a public rush, hey, if you're listening hack hillary's e-mails and you'll be rewarded by the press.

and how hours later, in fact, the russians did try to hack servers affiliated with hillary clinton and he either feigned ignorance or didn't know. he seemed also either unaware or unwilling to confirm very basic things. i think i even began asking him about the central conclusion mueller made that russia intervened in a systemic way to disparage hillary clinton, to promote donald trump. and even the most general conclusions he seemed to acknowledge again for me confirming the bias. and as a special counsel you don't want someone going in with the kind of bias he displayed today. >> i mean what's amazing is that mueller indicted a whole bunch of russians, and apart from whatever you think about whether a fuller preliminary investigation should have been opened into the trump campaign for certainly not turning away

their participation in the 2016 election, it was bizarre to see a current employee of merrick garland's justice department say nothing. i mean there wasn't even a note of it would be very serious for a hostile foreign power to intervene. i mean how -- how daunting is that ahead of another presidential election that republicans and john durham whatever party he's in these days, are all interested in fogging up the lens around russia's role in meddling in an election? >> i mean it is really alarming because, of course, there's no question that russia may try to do exactly this again. that is decide donald trump would be really good for them and they're going to intervene. and now with a.i. they have more powerful tools to be able to do that. but it is shocking. some very basic questions we asked him about the wrongfulness trying to get dirt from a hostile foreign power in that trump tower meeting, heole really shied away from giving

any kind of acknowledgement about the wrongfulness of that. i asked him about the fact what papadopoulos had relayed that started this investigation was that the russians informed the trump campaign through papadopoulos they could help by anonymously releasing dirt or information about hillary clinton. and when i asked him, that's exactly what they did. he seemed befuddled by the question, and it wasn't a difficult question. apparently for him it was a difficult answer. >> yeah, it's amazing that republicans are so hell bent all these years later and ahead of another contest about muddying the waters on whether that's a good thing. in that vein i have to ask you what they're going to do tonight. the republican controlled house is set to vote for the second time in just two weeks t

censure you. you articulated the distinction being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a criminal conspiracy took place. that is very different from what mueller does find, which is a shared vision and welcoming of russia's interference in the 2016 election. why do you think they're so obsessed with bringing this up and punishing you? >> well, look, i think they go after people they feel are a threat or effective in holding them accountable or holding donald trump accountable. and i don't expect this to be the last attack on me for doing that because they're going to continue to serve this disgraced former president. they have essentially decided they're going to be fully subservient to his wishes, and trump put out the word that if any of them like last week when

1 out of 10, almost 1 out of 10 republicans voted against this resolution, if any of them do that again he wants them primary challenged. if there's any consistency to the gop and the house it is they do trump's will and mccarthy does trump's will. but what it means also is they're trying to discourage any accountability. they're trying to silence and intimidate people by these bogus counter resolutions. it's not going to work on me, but i do worry that other people will be deterred from speaking up, standing up and holding them to account because they'll think, well, if i do that will i get censured. >> let me ask you one final question. can one of the two political parties in this country protect democracy from another foreign attack, from another foreign effort, foreign interference in our elections? >> it really takes two parties,

otherwise they will seek to discredit foreign involvement if it helps their candidate. and that's -- that's ruin for our democracy. and this was a point i made during the first impeachment trial that essentially if they look the other way, if they don't hold the president accountable that we can expect him to go onto do worse. and sadly that's exactly what happened. and equally sadly it didn't need any impression on my part. he invited ukrainian interference in the next election, when that didn't work he invited an insurrection. and this shows the peril of elevating your party leader above your oath and above the constitution. >> right, he called zelenskyy the day after mueller testified on capitol hill. what do you think that means for the importance of merrick garland's justice department

regardless of any delay that's happened so far in the january 6th probe moving expeditiously in their criminal investigation into trump sph. >> i think the potential counsel jack smith increased the sense of urgency, and that was very important because i think as "the washington post" reports revealed for almost a year the department really didn't investigate those who were responsible for inciting the insurrection. they went after the foot soldiers only. they didn't really investigate donald trump's actions in georgia, that phone call, the efforts to call legislatures back into session and certify the loser to be the winner of the fake elector plot. they waited at least a year to really in earnest begin investigating those things. it was never going to be the case that the foot soldiers were going to be able to rollover and give information on those

various other plot elements. so valuable time is wasted, but i hope that they bring that investigation to a conclusion soon, and i hope they consider the recommendations the january 6th committee made that we believe donald trump likely violated multiple laws in that insurrection. >> congressman adam schiff, you're at the center of all the stories we talk about. it's great to get to talk to you today. thank you so much for so much of your time. >> thank you. up next for us, speaking of those foot soldiers a trump supporter who traveled to washington on january 6th calling for revolution today received one of the harshest and longest prison sentences to date to come out of the capitol insurrection prosecutions. we'll bring you that story next. . we'll bring you that story next. when you're a small-business owner, your to-do list can be... a lot. ♪♪ [ buttons clicking ]

that's why progressive makes it easy to save with a commercial auto quote online, so you can take on all your other to-dos. already did. see if you could save at progressivecommercial.com. i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. already did. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are looking up ♪ ♪ i've got symptom relief ♪ ♪ control of my crohn's means everything to me. ♪ ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ feel significant symptom relief with skyrizi, including less abdominal pain

and fewer bowel movements at 4 weeks. skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor for crohn's that can deliver both clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. the majority of people on skyrizi achieved long lasting remission at 1 year. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. ask your gastroenterologist how you can take control of your crohn's with skyrizi. ♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save.

(vo) this is sadie, she's on verizon. the network she can count on. and now she has myplan, the game-changing new plan that lets her get exactly what she wants and save on every perk. sadie is moving to the big city and making moves on her plan, too. apple one, on. now she's got plenty of entertainment for the whole ride. finally there! hot spot, on.

and she's fully connected before her internet is even installed. (sadie) hi, mom! (mom) how's the apartment? (vo) introducing myplan. get exactly what you want, only pay for what you need. act now and get it for $25 when you bring your phones. it's your verizon. at one point i came face-to-face with an attacker who repeatedly lunged for me and attempted to remove my firearm. i heard chanting for some in the crowd, "get his gun," and "kill him with his own gun." i was aware enough to recognize i was at risk of being stripped of and killed with my own firearm. i was electrocuted again and again and again with a taser. i'm sure i was screaming but i don't think i could even hear my own voice. >> the man who did that, who drove the stun gun into the neck

of washington, d.c. police officer michael fanone was today sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison, that was after pleading guilty to related charges in february of this year. daniel rodriguez was charged with eight federal counts and pleaded guilty to four of them, conspiracy, obstructing an official proceeding, tampering with documents, and inflicting bodily injury on an officer using a dangerous weapon. lawyers for the justice department had sought 14 years in prison as well as a $98,000 fine saying rodriguez committed acts of terrorism. as tod reegz was led away from court today after sentencing he reportedly shouted, quote, trump won. nbc's ryan riley caught up with officer fanone after that and asked him how he felt about today's sentencing. >> seeing him say trump won, what does that tay to you that he's still that sort of deluded about it? >> i've said and i think it's been clear by the defendant's

own behavior that there is no remorse at least for the individuals in which i came in contact with on january 6th who were criminally charged. >> joining our coverage is nbc news justice correspondent ryan riley, also joining former deputy assistant attorney general and former u.s. attorney harry litman. ryan, that's your interview. you've been covering these prosecutions and sentencings. take us inside what happened today. >> this is the third time i went through this process with michael fanone, and i think he went through the court there and said, judge, you know who i am. this is a proceeding he's used to at this point. he was someone i identified with along with a colleague about a month before he was arrested by the fbi thanks to the efforts of online sleuths including one individual, an american who was

living in germany who was going through frame-by-frame this footage and determined it was this individual in a maga hat that drove that stun gun or electric shock weapon into fanone emphasis neck. some activists in california recognized him for some trump rallies there. and this was in the early days when it was pretty chaotic and the fbi was having a lot of trouble catching up, so it took about a month when our story identified him until he was actually arrested. since then, since late march 2021, he's been behind bars. i think what you saw as indicated by danny rodriguez's he went in kicking and screaming. the evidence on him was overwhelming. taking a plea probably was his best bet because when he was first interviewed by the fbi in addition to calling himself

stupid and, you know, sort of crying to himself, he was saying he was going to fight this. he was going to take this to trial. but this really was the best outcome for him because had he taken this to trial of course he would have been looking at a lot more time. but under this plea deal he's still getting one of the most significant sentence. i believe it's the third longest sentence we've seen in connection with the january 6th case to date. >> bryan, i sometimes forget when we're talking to you about all offense your investigative work, but the fruits of it are in the actual indictment. i want to read from some of the other maybe crowd sourced investigations into him and the other insurrectionists. this is what he posted in the patriot's 45 group chat. quote, omg, i did so much f-ing "s," tell you later.

taz you out of the blue. so he spoke about tasing cops. this seems to be a case, but it's the lack of intelligence, the brazenness, and the lack of remorse as well as the belief in the lie itself that seems to make him a particularly dangerous example of what doj is prosecuting. >> that's exactly right. and i think it also is reminder this case is a reminder that there are just little things we're going to be learning about january 6th for forever, right? because, you know, we got a lot of these details early on but it was only a few months ago when danny rodriguez pleaded guilty we found out lo and behold that hideaway office he was smashingw on video, actually belonged to a republican senator, who had stayed quiet about the fact his office his trashed. i think it's remarkable to see

just where we've gotten, and we're not even at the halfway point. i think that's important to keep in mind. there have been 1,000 arrests thus far, but another 2 and a half years for the justice department to bring forward additional charges against future defendants who have not yet been charged. >> future defendants who are now a cause of the twice impeached, twice indicted president. harry, just talk about this collision, again -- it's sort of been the theme today -- brazen confessions in group chats, and the lie they still believe, and some federal judges have written and spoken about it, but the lie that endangers all of us that somehow the 2020 election was not free, fair and determined that joe biden was the president. >> as ryan says, the guy when he

was first arrested that fits and checks the rubric of a not very talented defendant, calls himself a piece of --, and then he walks out after a 12 1/2 year, that's an upward adjustment, about two thirds of what stewart rhodes got, he screams out "trump won." as the lawyers tried to reduce the sentence, it's clear what is an impressionable and dangerous guy he is. no father, high school dropout, went all in on this stuff. his crime is as about as violent and vicious and unrepentant as it comes. he was no leader, but it was an interesting call that will doj and the judge agreed, that this guy is a terrorist, go harsh on him, but he's a very good

example and has the chilling social media to go with it that you would predict of someone who is totally all in for trump to this day. >> unbelievable. ryan riley and harry litman, thank you for joining us. another break for us. we'll be right back. r us we'll be right back. no heavy perfumes, and no dyes. finally, a light scent that lasts all day. downy light! - the company goes to the firstborn, audrey. the model train set is entrusted to todd. mr. marbles will receive recurring deliveries for all of his needs in perpetuity, thanks to autoship from chewy. - i always loved that old man. - what's it say about the summer house? - yeah, the beach house- - the summer residence goes to mr. marbles. (mr. marbles chuckles) - plot twist! - i'm sorry, what? - doesn't make logistical sense. - unbelievable. - pets aren't just pets. they're more. - you got a train set, todd. - [announcer] save more on what they love and never run out with autoship from chewy. for too long, big pharmaceutical companies

have bought off politicians so they can get away with ripping us off. that's changing now. joe biden just capped the price of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. gave medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. and prices are already starting to go down. the out-of-pocket cost is dropping for 27 drugs. [narrator] learn how the inflation reduction act will save you money. [city ambience sounds] [car screech] [car door slam] [camera shutter sfx] introducing ned's plaque psoriasis. [camera shutter sfx] he thinks his flaky, red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. [ned?] it can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing it for nearly a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis.

don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. [crowd gasp] ♪♪ with clearer skin, movie night is a groovy night. [ting] ♪♪ live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ get 2.9% apr for 36 months plus $1,500 purchase allowance on a 2023 xt5 and xt6 when you finance through cadillac financial.

cut! another health insurance commercial, another aqua-aerobics scene. yup. most health insurance companies see us all the same: smiley seniors golfing, hiking... don't forget antiquing. that's why i chose humana. they see me, not a stereotypical senior. i'm pre-diabetic, so i talked one-on-one with a humana health educator who really helped me. now i'm taking free cooking and meditation classes. not aqua-aerobics? better care begins with listening. humana. a more human way to healthcare. we're following breaking news today a former fbi analyst

was sentenced for nearly four years for taking home classified documents. he pleaded guilty late last year. kingsbury who worked for the fbi for more than 12 years held a top secret security clearance. she admitted she kept sensitive documents in her personal residence. it is, of course, another instance of the federal government prosecuting the serious crime of mishandleding sensitive government documents. we will bring you any updates on the case as we have them. when we come back, more luxury gifts and really fancy travel being doled out to supreme court justices. we'll be back with all the details after a quick break. don't go anywhere.

jackie: community schools are so important to us. this is truly what students need. cecily: no two community schools are alike because it goes by what is happening in the community. rafael: we want this to be a one-stop shop for our families that puts parents and students first. kenny: the health and wellness center is a part of our holistic approach. terry: medical, dental, vision, and mental health services. we're addressing the students' everyday needs. kenny: what we do allows them to be the best version of themselves. narrator: california's community schools: reimagining public education.

♪♪ my view is, he broke the law. he ought to be held accountable. justice alito violated the plain meaning and spirit of the law in failing to report the trip, and his denight now of any possibility wrongdoing just shows how the supreme court and justice alito think they don't have to answer to anyone. they're accountable to no one. that's intolerable in a democracy. hi again, everybody. oops, they did it again. it's becoming a pattern, a frequent and troubling theme. revelations about conservative supreme court justices going on really fancy and expensive trips, paid no by really rich

gop donors. we have covered extensively the reporting of conflicts of interest when it comes to justice clarence thomas and his relationship with harlen groh, and this time justice alito. according to new explosive reporting, alito took a luxury fishing trip with paul singer, a hedge fund billionaire. singer flew alito to alaska on a private jet. if he chartered the plane himself, it could have been as much as $1700,000 one way. u and then there was a case,

alito did not rye could you tell us himself and voted in singer's favor. the hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion. just like his colleague justice thomas, justice alito did not disclose the trip. what makes this story even crazier is what justice alito good before the bombshell reporting was published. instead of answering propublica's questions when he called for an explanation, instead he sat down and banged out a pre-buttal to be published in the "wall street journal." in it he argues he doesn't haven't -- a man who he admits he spoke to on a handful of occasion. he did not have to include the fishing trip on a private jet. in his piece, alito makes the ludicrous justification that in this case, wait for it, the private jet was cheaper than

flying commercial. he actually write this is. as for the flight, mr. singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to alaska, i was asked whether i would like to fly will in a seat that, as far as i'm aware, would have otherwise been vacant. it was my understanding this would not impose any extra cost on mr. singer. had i taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy u.s. marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me. alito's defense is ludicrous to anyone who has been tried to take a seat in first class. the flight is going there anyway, why can't i sit there? ethics concerns about another justice is where we begin the hour yet again. propublica senior editor and reporter jesse eisenger is here.

also joining us executive director of demand justice brian fallon, and msnbc contributor tim miller is here. jesse, they seems to be raw about the revelations and the revelations seems to be so indisputable that all they know to do is to go sort of blast their silly defenses in the pages of the "wall street journal." take me inside this reporting, which is not disputed at all by a very defensive justice alito. >> my reporters have been reporting on this. you referenced the clarence thomas stories. i hope your readers have read every word, and today we

published actually at -- i think it was about 12:30 this morning the alito story. we hastened -- we rushed our publication out ahead of schedule, because there was this pre-buttal, very unusual. you should usual year no surprises journalist. we seek comments from people and give them fair and adequate time to respond. we really do want to hear what they have to say. we run every single fact we're about to present by the subject of the story. we do this for justice alito. we did it for mr. singer. we did it for leonard leo, and everyone else mentioned in the story. we gave them days for a deadline. the deadline was noon. we were told alito was not going to comment. we were asked when we would published. we said it might be as early as

wednesday, and tuesday night we saw the op-ed from the journal, and we spent a long several hours fact checking and putting the final touches on the edit before we published the story. >> what's amazing is that he doesn't dispute anything that you have reported. he doesn't dispute a seat on a private jet. i've done it, and i think i first tried that with the first-class. everyone knows an empty seat isn't a free seat. what do you make of his silliness? we haven't found an ethics expert or lawyer that sets either this shouldn't have been disclosed or that he shouldn't have been recuserecused.

if this was a very good friend, you should recuse. if paul singer wasn't a good friend with you, why are you taking this private jet flight there's a potential violation of the law. this real question of recusal. there's a large issue, an issue of judicial behavior. judges that i know, they won't -- i'll take them to lunch. they won't accept my paying for lunch. they want to avoid. they're so skrup his they don't want to be seen with any conflict. now, harlen crowe didn't have any direct interests in any case that is clarence thomas weighed in on. you rough to him earlier and his long-standing 20-year

relationship can thomas where he's lavished him with trips and gifts. but paul singer did have multipare case in front of the court where billions of dollars was at stake. this was a breathtaking conflict that when we presented to experts, who just thought this was an intolerable mistake to have not recused. alito said who could have known that paul singer, who i barely knew, but i did take the flight from, i was on a lavish alaska fishing trip, but it was only three dales and not that lavish, trust me, it's accommodations were not that swank, and who would have known that paul singer would have had this case. it was reported in several areas that everyone understeed he was in a multiyear on multiconsequentially fight with

argentina. >> what is amazing about the reporting is that none of the facts are in dispute, there are documents and investigations that bolster everything, and alito is worried so much that he went to the "wall street journal." no effort to defend himself in a mainstream -- he went to a safe harbor. i wonder if you get a sense from the crushing body of reporting -- you're right. ethics advisers, and nonpartisan institutions, no one is saying that everything they did was peachy keen from an ethics standpoint. they have no defenders on the ethics. they're trying to steamroll the behavior because they can. what do you think it portends of what you haven't discovered yet.

>> we'd like it to be known that we are available. we got a lot of tips about these vacations and travels and gifts in the first round of reporting on clarence thomas, and we're fielding tips today. we're going to run them through. just to be clear, we will run down a credible tip on any judge or any justice who -- whether they were appointed by democrats or republicans. we they that these ethics issues really transcend partisanship, transcend party, and are about keeping the courts clean and above reproach. the justices, especially need to be held to the highest standard. they just can't be held to the letter and spirit of the law,

but something higher, and many do hold themselves to that standard. going to the "wall street journal" editorial page, when you're talking about trying to avoid the appearance of partisanship? the journal editorial page is not known in journalism circles. i used to work on the "wall street journal" on the news side, which is a really respectable news organ on the news side. we did hard reporting, accountability reporting that was, you know, free of bias. the journal editorial page, you can't say the same. >> i want to read one of the paragraph that leapt out at me. alita's pr responsesh let me read this -- on another day the group flew on one of the lodge's bush planes to a waterfall where bears snatch salmon from the water with their teeth.

at night, the lodge's chef serve multicourse meals. on the last evening, a member of alito's group bragged that the wine they were drinking cost $1,000 a bottle. he described the lodge as comfortable bus rustic. the justice says he does not remember if he was served wine, but if he was, it wouldn't have been $1,000. i -- i imagine as a journalist, you feel pretty good about his response to the specifics of the reporting. >> well, i am really proud of these reporters. they have done extraordinary work unit trying circumstances

at extraordinary speed. so far, god willing, we haven't had any factual errors. no one has disputed the facts. in fact, what they are doing is arguing around the edges. as you say, no one has even provided an affirmative defense that it's perfectly okay for justices to have secret trips with billionaires and accept lavish gifts. now, they're just basically arguing the definition of lavish. also, to be clear, alita is arguing the definition of when a private jet is a facility. he provided the black's law dictionary definition and webster's definition of facility to argue that a private jet is one. i don't know about you, but i haven't entaken that facility from jfk myself. so we're in a though kind of stage in the debate about these stories.

what alito didn't cite in his op-ed was any language from the disclosure law or the ethics rules. the disclosure law and the ethics rule both write about how you can take lodging, food and entertainment from people and don't have to disclose that, but it's clear that that doesn't include private jet travel. ethics experts have never excluded that. that's always been something that should be disclosed. you're right, we're not really disputing the facts. there's no affirmative defense of this behavior. >> brian fallon, alito is really mad. we know that from alito. alito, who was george w. bush's second choice after harriet miers said, as the court has

grown -- stepped up attacks on the legitimacy, including character assassination of individual justices with little observation -- objection from -- we're being hammered daily, and i think quite unfairly in a lot of instances, and practically nobody is defending us. the idea has been that judges are not supposed to respond to criticisms, but the organized bar will come to their defense. so, alito -- the alito standard is no one is defending him. part of the reason the legitimacy of the court is in question is because the court operates as if they're above the law. they appear to be an assassination leak of the dobbs decision, and they don't include anyone with expertise to figure out who did it, which is weird, right? but alito, before a story drops,

alito writes a preemptive op ed in the "wall street journal." who is advising him on trials should be fired and outed by alito and the "wall street journal." it's the dumbest press strategy i have ever seen in my life. i worked in republican politics. i've seen a lot. >> i suspect he ace his own media adviser, he's indignant and not -- lashing out. when you can't argue the facts, you resort to excuse making and process arguments at the conews coming up fire unfairly. and i just want to pause to credit jesse and his colleagues.

there's no shortage, nicolle of watch dog groups that have spent the last decade trying to confirm details of those trips, the fact of which has been largely been a well-known secret in d.c., but nailing down who went on what trips with whom is somebody that's bedeviled watch dog groups for year. none of this is disclosed. so credit to propublica, who did old-fashioned shoe leather reporting, human source investigation, and talked to one of the guides to confirm that detail about the bottle of wine costing $1,000. they found somebody from 15 years ago who remembered that trip and was able to talk about the cost of a bottle of wine. that's amazing reporting. i home they get a pulitzer for

this. if the propublica's reporting is building on previous reporting with clarence thomas. alito's arguments look even flimsier. cleric thomas said it was okay, because it was my friend, and alito said it's okay because they weren't friends. bloomberg subsequently supported that yes, he did. now it's well known that sam alito's sponsor, benefactor here, mr. singer, did have multiple cases before the court where he was a direct litigant and stood to gain a windfall of $2.5 billion, thanks to a ruling that alito joined in 2014. so sam alito's arguments don't

even hold up with the arguments that clarence thomas is trying to use, which shows there's no defense for either of their actions, and makes an ethics case, or reform at the athletes. >> it's never a liberal donor or bin onnair flying alito around to alaska or buying houses for clarence thomas and his mother, and the where's waldo in all of this reporting is leonard leo. the longtime leader of the federalist society, attended and helped to organize the vacation. he invited singer to join, according to a person familiar with the trip, and leo had recently played an important role in the justice's confirmation to the court. they were both major donors. they are all in the same boat, rows in the same direction from

a legal and policy standpoint. the notion that any of this is happening stance -- i happened to get an extra seat that was cheaper than commercial, is ludicrous. >> not only did a liberal go in there, it's not like a non-political watt billionaire. it was my high school buddy who was selling widgets. that's not what this is. it also goes to the ludicrousness of the defense, he wasn't sure about what paul singer was doing before the courts. for people in politics, in republican politics, paul singer is very well known. he may not be known among average america, but once you get past the kochs and adelson's, paul singer is one of the biggest supporters to politics.

so, i think that's an important element to this. the leonard leo is something. brian knows me, hey, buddy, the idea that sam alito is coming to his defense, alito has a nine-figure political operation that is dedicated to electing conservative judges, besmirching, supporting and being cover for conservative judges when they're getting confirmed, getting them into confirmation processes. there's an entire, extremely well-funded apparatus of support around samuel alito. so this idea that, you know, he's under fire and it's unfair, you know, is just, you know, i think what happens when you're in this tiny bubble of rich conservative activists, you know, who apparently are sitting around drinking very expensive

wine -- >> in alaska. >> -- complaining you don't like a newspaper article saying something not nice about you. this is a tale of time. the idea that these people are under assault and don't have a defense is the height of absurdity. >> jesse, i want to add my phrase to what propublica reporting has done. you guys have cracked the code. and brian, we can't have the conversations with you. tim sticks arrange for the hour with us. when we come back, these new revelations about justice alito are once again ratcheting up the pressure on the supreme court, to at least act serious about ethics reform. we'll talk about what congress could do, after a quick break. later in the program, a federal judge? arkansas strikes down the state of arkansas's ban on transition

care for minors in the state. it's a rule that could set in motion other trans-legislation. and as we approach the one-year of the dobbs decision, a clearest picture of dismantling health care in america. don't go anywhere. dismantling health care in america. don't go anywhere. ing new plan that lets her get exactly what she wants and save on every perk. sadie is moving to the big city and making moves on her plan, too. apple one, on. now she's got plenty of entertainment for the whole ride. finally there! hot spot, on. and she's fully connected before her internet is even installed. (sadie) hi, mom! (mom) how's the apartment? (vo) introducing myplan. get exactly what you want, only pay for what you need. act now and get it for $25 when you bring your phones. it's your verizon.

♪ ♪

♪ [typing] ♪ you were made to act spontaneously. we were made to help plan accordingly. ♪ so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. we were made to help plan accordingly. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only 30 bucks a line per month. that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. no wonder xfinity mobile is one of the fastest growing mobile services. you really shouldn't walk out the front door without it. switch today at xfinitymobile.com.

let me state the obvious. there is something going rotten. there is one person that can solve it and do something,

that's chief justice roberts. if he steps up and finally they have a code of ettics, it would be a new days. the defense offered by justice alito is laughable. laughable. i took that seat and didn't feel i had to report it, because it was going to be empty anyway. give me a break. >> so it isn't just me. politico report this -- even if durbin can round up democratic votes on his committee, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell made clear he will try to sink anything brought to the floor.

let's bring in senator alex padilla from california. good to see you, nicolle. it's a bipartisan issue, actually always become a 65% issue to enact bigger reforms like term limits. what kind of wind at the back do you feel on issues about reforming the supreme court, as democrats on the committee? >> yeah, look, i think that's part of the significance of what we learned today about justice alito. as egregious as this story is, it's not in isolation. it's on top of chief justice roberts' refusal to talk to the committee to enforce a code of ethics. it's onop of what we've been airing about justice reporting,

recusal, lack of everything else. i couldn't help but think of that old adage. if there's no such thing as a free lunch, there's certainly no such thing as a free charter flight, free lodging at a resort and free king salmon fishing? to quote chairman durbin, give me a break. i thought of power krups and absolute power corrupts absolutely. the idea -- it's about overseeing the largest, fastest more deterioration of public trust is undeniable, regardless of the party you're in. since quinnipiac has asked the

question, it's the lowest ever. that's a bipartisan group of americans who disapprove of the supreme court. what is your resistance of justice roberts not being a part of the solution. >> this is no a disagreement about -- we're talking about the legitimacy of the it's past time that congress takes action. that's how i like forward to doing when we return in july. chairman durbin said we'll take up legislation, if the supreme court won't adopt a enforceable code of ethics, the congress will do it. we have the power to do so.

we have the authority to enforce this upon the supreme court. senate republicans or republicans in both chambers stand in the way? we shall see. >> will you subpoena or seek to interview paul singer to firn on you if he talked to justice alito? >> i think that's more than in order for people who have won'test whether it's justice alito or justice thomas or any other players. i think we should bring that forward, ask our questions, demand answers, and bring about accountability. again, if the supreme court is not willing to do this themselves. >> senator padilla, thank you for your time on a busy day. >> thank you. when we come back, how a

federal judge's ruling striking noun arkansas's bans a transition care for minors could affect other legislation across the country. could affect other legislation across the country. and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d. was beyond help... but then i asked my doctor about tepezza. (vo) tepezza is the only medicine that treats t.e.d. at the source not just the symptoms. in a clinical study more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion. patients taking tepezza may have infusion reactions. tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure, fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before getting tepezza, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar even if you don't have diabetes and may worsen ibd such as crohn's disease

or ulcerative colitis. now, i'm ready to be seen again. visit mytepezza.com to find a ted eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos. oh booking.com, ♪ i'm going to somewhere, anywhere. ♪ ♪ a beach house, a treehouse, ♪ ♪ honestly i don't care ♪ find the perfect vacation rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah. progressive makes it easy to save with a quick commercial auto quote online.

so you can get back to your monster to-do list. really? get a quote at progressivecommercial.com. and there he is. chaz. the rec league's self-crowned pickleball king. do you just bow down? no you de-thrown the king. pedialyte. 3x the electrolytes. hey all, so i just downloaded the experian app because i wanted to check my fico® score, but it does so much more. this thing shows you your fico® score, you can get your credit card recommendations, and it shows you ways to save money. do so much more than get your fico® score. download the experian app now.

in arkansas, we're following an important victory.

a judge struck down a law, a measure backed by governor sarah huckaby sanders. just james moody in little rock said the ban violated the constitutional rights of both transgender minors and doctors in the state. rather than protecting children, the ed showed the prohibited medical care improves the mental health and well-being of patients. by prohibiting it, the state undermines the interests that it claims to be advancing. it only applying to the state of arkansas. his decision could be seen as precedent for nearly two den states across the country. joining our conversation, our friend mara gaye. tim miller is still along with

us. i read the whole opinion. what's remarkable is now you have a judge, an impartial judge yule on the hollowness of the harm arguments. the judge looks at the evidence presented, and says, no, the evidence is really denying medical care recommended by a doctor and family is what does the mental and physical harm. do we think that this opinion in deep-red arkansas will have the impact that i think probably some on that side of the debate would like it to have, mara? >> first of all, the opinion is worth a read. it really to me was gratifies, as somebody who has been horrified -- i know you have as well, nicolle -- to see transgender youth especially singled out and discriminated. the judge said essentially this is capricious, this is a

violation of the rights of not only these children, but of medical professionals, of doctors, and also that it violates the equal protection clause. the judge also said that there's no argument that the state made that he bought that was officially made, that this care should be singled out, but that this care is no different than any other mel care. on the argued that this is experimental treatment is also not factual or science based. it really was a reality check for some of the arguments and legislation we see across the country, really trying to, i think, just punish transgender children and families for the sake of political points. it's a really disturbing trend. it was nice to see some checks and balances on some of those laws. i mean, it should have a

chilling effect on state legislatures across the country considering taking up this legislation. of course, we know that not every judge may rule as this judge did. this judge was appointed by barack obama. so we'll have to do. this is a good day for children in arkansas, for doctors in arc sauce, and for transgender families across the country who have been really under attack. >> you know, tim, i come across people in my life making some of the argument, repeating right-wing arguments. i always stop them and say, do you have the facts? do you know how many minors seek transition care? it's a very small number. what this judge did, as like a warm knife through cold butter, cut through some of the disinformation, some of the hysteria and nonsense.

quote -- there's no evidence that the arkansas healthcare community is throwing caution to the wind when they're treating minors with sdwrernd -- gender dysforia. someone forced to sort of look at the facts of this saw that the right's arguments are not rooted in any facts. i don't have any hope that it will abate the number of attacks on trans kids, their families and doctors, but it did feel like an important ruling worth pulling out and talking about today. >> i'm maybe pessimistic on how much of a chilling effect it has in other states. here there wasn't a sing the republican legislator who had a

medical background who stood in the way of the super majority they needed to pass a similar bill to arkansas, because the governor here is currently a democrat. there's a few of these green shoots, but republicans see this as a political winner. there's two areas that they fall the shortest, and we really are not talking about the widespread cases. they make it seem like it's happening everywhere. you know, there's transkids that are wanting surgeries everywhere. there are a few cases where, you know, overwhelmingly there are doctors and parents and young people that are trying to decide what is best for, you know, for the minor in their life. this is where it gets me, you know, is that the whole impetus for an of this anti-lgbt stuff

is until the guys of parents' rights. it's really or wellian, right? other whying from make a law that would supersede the choice of the parents. a parent, a minor, a doctor come together and deciding they need treatment. the state of arkansas, no, you can't do that, i know better than you, the parent and the doctor do. yet, they have been so virulent and -- it's something they feel like is a winner in certain parts of the country, in florida most particularly. so i think you'll continue to see that and, you know, the push back will have to happen both on the legislative level and in the courts. >> well, tim, that's such an

important point. it extends to everything. don't say gay has the effect of mall lining the kids with same-sex parents. not teaching history has the effect of maligning -- understanding the true history of this country. parents' rights really is a new coded language on the right. >> what about my parent's rights, with a teacher who can speak about our marriage or have other questions in the class, you know, why does a student have two moms or two dads, right? if the state is banning teachers

from being able to talk about that, banning doctors from being able to do that, that is super ceding the rights of parents. certainly democrats have done a good job of taking that message back. this isn't freedom. this isn't parents rights when a couple yahoo legislators are trying to tell us what we should be able to do. when we come back, the most clear picture yet that we have seen in a year of the devastating impact of the dobbs decision has had on maternal health and mortality in america. we'll tell you about it, next.

the reality is people making these decisions are not doctors. >> they're a bunch of politicians in state capitals in washington, d.c. >> many of them don't know how a woman's body works, by the way. this is fundamentally about freedom, the right to make decisions about your own life, your own body. this is a foundational principle for our country. we were founded on the notion that government should at some point stay out of people's business, you know, to say it in an academic way. [ laughter ] that was a bit more from our friend and college joy reid's

fantastic interview. she's the biden administration's leader on making these arguments, and now just three days before the anniversary of the supreme court ruling that stripped away that constitutional right to abortion health care, we now have one of the clearest pictures yesterday of the cruel, deadly, arbitrary, manufactured, republican-led crisis that the crisis that th of 469 board certified obgyns is overwhelming and scary. 68% say the bill worsened their ability to -- mara, anyone with

a womb could have told you this is what's come, and frankly a lot of people without one. but to see it transpire in our countryan based on the extreme d ideological pursuit by republicans over many, many years to ban abortion is so upsetting. >> yeah, you know, nicolle, i am one of the majority of american who is believes fundamentally iu a woman's right to choose, that the government shouldn't be able to tell me what to do with my uterus, my body. that is the majority of americans. but i think the issue here is something, you know, that has kind of almost rubbed salt in the wound, because we knew, many of us, that this was really not about life for many politicians. i think for some voters it is, but ultimately, a lot of this movement has been unfortunately about control over women's bodies rather than actually providing health care,ll rather

than creating a culture of life. and i think it's just really insulting, because the united states already had an extremely high maternal mortality rate before the dobbs decision, one of the highest in the western world, actually, and it's even higher for black women, for women who livee in poverty as well. i i think the question becomes, if you really care about life, if you really care about women and children whyou aren't you focusg on that, when in fact the dobbs decision has only made it worse? and the numbers back that up, unfortunately. >> we will stay on it, as we head into and out of this anniversary. mara gay and tim miller, thank you so much for your time today. quick breakur for us. we'll be right back.ea we'll be . . sadie is getting her plan ready for a big trip. travel pass, on. nice iphone. cute couple. trips don't last forever, neither does summer love.

so, sadie is moving on. apple music, check! introducing myplan. the first and only unlimited plan to give you exactly what you want, so you only pay for what you need. act now and get iphone 14 pro max on us when you switch. it's your verizon. i think this is it guys? when the martins booked their vrbo vacation home, they really weren't looking for much: a patch of grass for bruno, a pool for first-timers, don't worry, i've got you. and time with each other.

and when they needed support, someone was right there. i got you. because what's unique about a vrbo is you can reach a real person in about a minute. ♪ we see you. athletes. investment bankers. doctors. business leaders. we see your ambition. your desire to succeed. which is why we are investing in your future. ...empowering the next generation to reach the c-suite and elevating women's golf. because you may not always see yourself in the world, but we see you. (vo) crabfest is back at red lobster.

when you can choose your crab, and one of three new flavors like honey sriracha... ...this is not your grandpa's crabfest... ...unless grandpa's got flavor. dayumm! crabfest is here for a limited time. welcome to fun dining. if you have moderate to severe crohn's disease skyrizi is the first and only il-23 inhibitor that can deliver clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. liver problems may occur in crohn's disease. control of crohn's means everything to me. ask your gastroenterologist about skyrizi. ♪ control is everything to me ♪ learn how abbvie could help you save. 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. now it is my privilege to invite the official party to unveil the stamp, if you want to come up. hakeem, former speaker nancy pelosi, you want to come see this, postmaster. one, two, three. [ applause ] >> a rare bipartisan moment on capitol hill today. house speaker kevin mccarthy and democratic leader hakeem jeffries came together to unveil what you just saw, a stamp honoring the late john lewis, who served in the house from 1987 until his death in july of

2020. he was often referred to as the conscious of the congress. fellow georgian and his intern jon ossoff wrote, fully deserving of this honor. his courage serves as an extraordinary example of civic leadership, he wrote, and continues to inspire young americans to build their communities and a better world. indeed it discuss. thanks to you for letting us into your homes. "the beat" with ari melber starts after a quick break. stay with us. don't go anywhere. h us don't go anywhere.

(bridget) with thyroid eye disease and i wanted to hide from the world. for years, i thought my t.e.d. was beyond help... but then i asked my doctor about tepezza. (vo) tepezza is the only medicine that treats t.e.d. at the source not just the symptoms. in a clinical study more than 8 out of 10 patients taking tepezza

had less eye bulging. tepezza is an infusion. patients taking tepezza may have infusion reactions. tell your doctor right away if you experience high blood pressure, fast heartbeat, shortness of breath or muscle pain. before getting tepezza, tell your doctor if you have diabetes, ibd, or are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant. tepezza may raise blood sugar even if you don't have diabetes and may worsen ibd such as crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. now, i'm ready to be seen again. visit mytepezza.com to find a ted eye specialist and to see bridget's before and after photos.