first when stewart rhodes, the head of the oath keepers and another defendant, edward vallejo pleaded not guilty to seditious conspiracy. now, you know these men are two of the 11 suspects accused of plotting to basically try to use force to top congress from carrying out the job of certifying the presidential election. you know, the thing we all assume will happen after a free and fair election. and that same thing that's part of a peaceful transition of power. the kind of thing that stops us from being addict tatership when someone says, you know what, no, i would rather stay right here. the reason the charges are so serious, well, because the stakes are too high not to be and believe me, i know from experience that charges alone won't convince a jury. proving your burden is no cakewalk. why? well, for the same reason i just said, the stakes are too high and it remains to be seen frankly of whether the government can meet its burden of proof on these charges, but i tell you, evidence like this little tidbit right here, if it gets in, well, let's just say it will help their case. you know, on november 10th, after the election was called for biden, rhodes, he was bragging about how men positioned outside, he had them outside of washington, d.c. prepared to engage in violence on trump's command. >> we have men already stationed outside d.c. as a nuclear option in case they attempt to remove the president illegally, we will step in and stop it. we'll be indeed d.c. and armed prepared to go in if the president calls. >> nuclear option. hmm. what did i tell you? the theme was today, well, well, well. because recall that just last night when i was speaking with rhodes' attorney who is his counsel before the committee, well, he said they were just there for protection, you know, to just walk people through and guide them. no nefarious intent. well, well, well. but it doesn't stop there because speaking of potentially damning evidence enter kevin mccarthy. there's pretty interesting audio that further proves why the january 6th committee wants the house minority leader to voluntarily testify. a request that we know he repeatedly has refused to comply with. yesterday he seemed pretty emboldened and today looking a little bit more like a cat that ate the canary so allow me to paint the picture this friday evening because here he is yesterday feigning amnesia about a conversation he had with trump five days after an attack on the capitol. >> did you tell house republicans on the january 11th phone call that president trump told you he agreed that he bore some responsibility for january 6th as chairman thompson's letter indicates? >> i'm not sure what call you're talking about. >> really? now, when that kind of thing would happen in my courtroom, well, this is the moment that we would show, let's call it a receipt, so receipt number one, america. and this is close to my heart as a radio talk show host myself i admit, a radio interview he did the day after the january 11st, 2021 phone call with trump, that's january 12 forth for those keeping score and said himself that trump took partial blame for the insurrection. >> i say he has responsibility. he told me personally he does have some responsibility. i think a lot of people do. >> now, i'm going to admit that i am skeptical about trump being contrite. i mean, do you recall him apologizing, ever? me either. which is exactly the reason why i find it odd that you wouldn't remember something like that particularly an event that followed an attack on the capitol. so my question is and i'm sure yours is, as well, what exactly did he say, i want the words and the committee does, as well and i also want to mention that point about a lot of people bearing responsibility. well, who, pray tell, are you talking about? these might be things that a committee would want to know just like you, and receipt number two, this was the gop leader on the day of the impeachment vote in the house. >> the president bears responsibility for wednesday's attack on congress by mob rioters. >> so not only did he say that trump bore responsibility, he said publicly the day before that trump admitted that he bore some of that responsibility. just try to wrap your head around that. but, wait, as they say, there's more. receipt number three. here's another portion of that radio interview from a week after the insurrection that cnn's team dug up. >> i spoke to the president during the riot. i was the first person to call him. i told him to go on national tv, tell these people to stop it. he said he didn't know what was happening. went to the news and worked through that. >> you were the first person to call trump on january 6th to tell him about an attack? you urged him to call off the mob? what? so trump wasn't watching the news before you called him? you alerted him and notified what was happening on the screen? okay. that somes hard to believe, right? but there's certainly a lot there for the house select committee to ask you about, so i wonder why did you say this yesterday? >> my conversation was very short, advising the president of what was happening here, there is nothing that i can provide the january 6th committee for legislation of them moving forward. >> first note the pregnant pauses, right? i spoke to him, pause. nothing i could actually provide to the committee. i want what's actually right here, this part, the pregnant pause part. does that sound like a man who has nothing to offer the committee who shouldn't they by the way tell you what they want to hear about. that's how investigations work. you don't say, you know, actually, officer, i don't have anything to tell you. i'll let you know. i'll let you know. the self-proclaimed first person to call the then president after the attack broke out, trump later admitted he had a role in it or bore some sort of responsibility. that's a lot to digest on a friday or any day so i want to just do a little recap to run through this time line of all of this so we're all on the same page following along this long like cvs size receipt at this point. mccarthy claims he was on the phone with trump and was the first to call him to kel him to call off the mob, oh, and, by the way, trump had no idea perhaps that it was actually happening? then five days later on january 11th mccarthy said he spoke to trump again and said that trump admitted to him that he bore some blame. and then two days later, january 13th the day i might add of the impeachment vote for trump's alleged incitement of the very thing that mccarthy says he said he admitted to bearing some blame or responsibility for, mccarthy said point blank that trump bears responsibility and should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding and he also said that congress should form a commission to investigate. now, i'm just go to go out on a limb and say it's probably safe to say that mccarthy was in the doghouse with trump and whatever bromance politically existed he was probably on the couch owe after that zoom ahead to two week, january 28th after trump was then gone from office, the house gop leader then flies -- there they are. flies down to mar-a-lago to have a little chitchat and voila, his whole position on january 6th noticeably shifts after that. now, i just want to you fast forward to the day before yesterday. that's wince on this friday night when he asked to voluntarily provide information, when he was asked to voluntarily provide information to the panel and what did he say? nope. so the question is, what are they going to do about it? with all these receipts and questions still lingering and skepticism, frankly, at the forefront of a nonamnesiaed mind. let's put it to congressman pete aguilar, vice chair of the house democratic caucus. nice to see you on this friday evening. >> good to see you, laura. >> now, i've just provided some receipts and context for the viewing audience who was following along thinking about all the moments and head scratching things and just wonder given all of this, the committee has asked kevin mccarthy to voluntarily provide information and i'm just wondering, why is this courtesy being extended? is it because he is a colleague? i would probably assume so, but is there another strategy or reason as to why not just go into the subpoena and then still handling it in a professional way? >> well, as you mentioned, look, we just want to get to the truth and we think this is -- we think that our colleagues who take the same oath to the constitution that we do, we think that they would want to help us get to the truth on why mob rioters, kevin mccarthy's own words, entered into the capitol and why the president just stood there in his study, public reporting indicate, watching tv, while kevin mccarthy and who knows who else called him. those are questions that we want answered and it's important that the public knows those, why didn't the president -- the then president walk 25 feet to the press room to tell those folks not to be at the capitol. those are important questions and what we are asking is any member of congress including leader mccarthy, including someone who says they're a leader should want to give us that information. they should want to protect the capitol building and the constitution. >> i understand that and i agree. that's one of the invcredulous parts. we felt the afront. i get you want to attract more bees with honey but given the gravitas, given the need to get those answers why not just draw a straight line from "a" to "b" and we tried to ask you, is the next step then to actually subpoena because, you know, unfortunately, there's a damocles over your head with the subpoena power not being effective in the long run if you're not in the majority any longer. >> well chairman thompson has said we're not taking any tools out of the tool belt. we're not taking them off the table yet. so we will continue to have discussions, we will weigh the options and the equities of the decisions we want to make. if our colleagues choose not to participate, that's something that we'll have to weigh and consider moving forward. but i will just say broadly, look, for every kevin mccarthy or scott perry or these individuals who aren't talking to us, there are dozens of individuals who are. we've had almost 400 interviews so far. we continue to piece this puzzle together and to make significant investigative progress. >> that's really good to hear and reassuring because the american public does deserve transparency and members of congress should obviously endeavor to provide that. you know, part of the people who have cooperated and glad to think about the compliance but of those members who have chosen not to, it's notable that those three congressmen, i'm talking about perry and jordan and mccarthy, they haven't given you a privileged base reason as to why, just talking the closest you can get is this request rye separates core constitutional principles. what do you make of that excuse? is it pretextual and fishing and hope you run out the clock? >> it's just political. when you think of the cast of characters that we're talking to here, you know, these are folks who are going to do the president -- the former president's bidding and so i don't think we're surprised by it. you know, we're hopeful they would be bound to the constitution and to the rule of law and to the truth and to understand that this was a legitimate select committee that was stood up in congress just like other select committees in congress have, but if they choose to go down that path, we will deal with it. we have other tools that we can use and so we will weigh those equities and move forward. >> well, i hope that toolbox is as transparent because talking about hope they keep it alive. congressman pete aguilar, thank you for your time. appreciate it. >> thank you. there are two simultaneous investigations we're talking about the one on the congressional side. they're trying to get to the bottom of who may be, well, at the top of this alleged conspiracy. the congressional one. we talked to congressman aguilar about, you know well and the criminal side. let's take it to someone who can help analyze where both are acted, now representing the january 6th committee in a suit brought by trump. that's up next. ♪ smooth like butter, like a criminal undercover ♪ ♪ gon' pop like trouble ♪ ♪ breaking into your heart like that ♪ ♪ do the boogie, like ♪ ♪ side step, right-left, to my beat ♪ ♪ high like the moon, rock with me, baby ♪ ♪ know that i got that heat ♪ ♪ let me show you 'cause talk is cheap ♪ ♪ side step, right ♪ ♪ get it, let it roll ♪ as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪ ♪making your way in the world today♪ ♪takes everything you've got♪ ♪ ♪taking a break from all your worries ♪ ♪sure would help a lot ♪ ♪wouldn't you like to get away? ♪ ♪ ♪ sometimes you want to go ♪ ♪where everybody knows your name ♪ ♪ ♪and they're always glad you came ♪ ♪ get a head start in investing with the new schwab starter kit™. new investors can open an account and get $50 to split across the top five stocks in the s&p 500®. you can also unlock short videos, step-by-step guides, and other easy-to-use tools designed for people just getting started. plus, investment professionals are on standby 24/7 if you ever have a question. it's the smarter way to start investing. ♪ why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate to severe eczema or atopic dermatitis under control? hide my skin? not me. by hitting eczema where it counts, dupixent helps heal your skin from within keeping you one step ahead of eczema. hide my skin? not me. and that means long-lasting clearer skin... and fast itch relief for adults. with dupixent, you can show more skin with less eczema. hide my skin? not me. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. when you help heal your skin from within you can change how your skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment. [ chantell ] when my teeth started to deteriorate, i stopped hanging out socially. it was a easy decision -- clearchoice. [ awada ] the health of our teeth plays a significant role in our overall health. chantell was suffering, and we had to put an end to that. the absolute best way to do that was through dental implants. [ chantell ] clearchoice dental implants changed everything. my digestive health is much better now. i feel more energetic. the person that i've always been has shown up to the party again. so we've all seen the video of last january 6th. you might think, god, i can't imagine having this happen and it really did but when you read the words of the people who are now charged with seditious conspiracy you now see where the investigation might be headed next like when they say, quote, we have been issued a call to action for d.c. or when one of the few names missing in the doj documents is that of an unknown operation leader, well, at this point the key question is like it so often is, exactly who ordered the code red? i can't help myself by bringing that in and we'll be better from hearing from the georgetown law professor mary mccord who we should mention is representing the house select committee in the lawsuit over the former president's claim of executive privilege. we worked together at the department of justice as well. good to see you, mary. how are you? >> good to see you, as well. good to see you, laura. >> you know, unfortunate we're here because in the greater picture of things, i know we won't talk about the case you're representing and talking about the issues but in the grand scheme of things what does it tell you to know that seditious conspiracy is the next direction? i mean, these are kind of analogous to cases where you have the minions carrying things out, maybe drug pushers then the kingpins who are actually directing traffic. is that where we're going? >> well, i think, you know, ever since january 6th i have been wondering whether this is a charge that would be returned because it seems to fit so completely with the actions that we saw and the preparation and the organization and the conspiracy to commit this attack on the capitol in order to prevent and delay the counting of the electoral college votes so i think what this shows it takes time to build the case just as the attorney general said last week and just as you and i know from our previous experience as prosecutors you do start with the most readily provable cases, the people on the ground who are on videos, you know, committing the attack and then you work your way from there and investigators pull evidence, they pull phone records, they pull digital media, they see where the connections are and here, of course, the speaking indictment shows the many communications organize specific logistical details about the attack and it takes a while to build that but the department has now built that case. >> you know, you mentioned the idea that concept of low hanging truth and part of the reason of that, of concern, charges not brought very often and with good cause, we're comforted this is not a ready available and widely used thing because that would require conspiracy and sedition charges to be filed but the idea of trying to build the case, can you reflect on what you think the considerations are? is it about -- there was a case a few years ago out of michigan where the charges were not able to stick because the evidence was about conversations, they thought the first amendment applied out of michigan. is the concern about, look, if it didn't stick there even if we have the low hanging fruit we'll have to go to the root and have enough substantive tree trunk to really make this stick? >> yes, so the department, you know, will not bring a case unless it believes it has admissible evidence to prove every element of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. in cases of seditious conspiracy the government proceeds with caution because the nature of the crime necessarily means you're going to be relying on communications to determine whether a conspiracy existed and there's an inherently political nature to it which means that there will sometimes be a first amendment defense and in that michigan case you're talking about from back in 2010 that involved the militia, the judge determined this was really just braggadocio, the members of that alleged conspiracy just, you know, talking about their goals and their ideologies but not -- the judge was not convinced that they really intended to carry out their attacks. what's very different about this case is they did carry out the attacks, right? we don't have an incoate. the government can thwart an attack and still have that charge but we don't have to wonder whether this was fantasy or braggadocio, they actually committed that attack and see it on the video. not every person charged was on that video but their communications show the planning, the logistical details down to things you were talking about at the top of the hour, where the guns would be stored just outside of washington, d.c. with a quick reaction force that could be transported into the city quickly including in one of the allegations by boat as needed and, you know, on and on and on, details about where to meet and who would be where and who would be carrying what? where they would be staying? that's not fantasy. that's detailed planning and we can see with our own eyes on videos it then took place. >> we absolutely can. their own words have been used as you talk about, mary, the idea of, you mentioned inherently the political nature, not to suggest this is a partisan endeavor but just the idea of having to overcome the hurdles of the perception of this and have, think of all the things showing and demonstrating. it wasn't just chitchat. we saw it over a period of hours and mary, thank you for your time. nice talking to you. >> nice being here, laura, thank you. you know, talking about brag do doesh, novak djokovic has been detained again. will he play monday or will he get booted out? patrick mcenroe is here to look at tonight's developments and the tennis world's reaction to this extraordinary legal saga unfolding. that's next. nicorette knows, quitting smoking is freaking hard. you get advice like: try hypnosis... or... quit cold turkey. kidding me?! instead, start small. with nicorette. which can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette the pandemic made teaching and learning really hard. but instead of working to help students safely return to the classroom, the san francisco school board focused on renaming schools and playing politics. and they've even saddled our district with a $125 million deficit. our children can't wait for new leadership. here's our chance for a fresh start. on february 15th, please recall school board members collins, lópez and moliga before our kids fall even further behind. when you have xfinity, you have entertainment built in. which is kind of nice. ah, what is happening. binge-watching is in the bag, when you find all your apps, all in one place. find live sports faster just by using your voice... sports on now. touchdown irish! [cheering] that was awesome. and, the hits won't quit, with peacock premium included at no additional cost. all that entertainment built in. xfinity. a way better way to watch. so as you know tennis fans are waiting to see whether novak djokovic will be playing in the australian open after all. but the 34-year-old tennis star likely has his focus, well, on a different court right now. djokovic is being detained by australian authorities as he awaits a hearing. we have immigration officials who revoked his veisa for now because he hasn't gotten the covid vaccine required apparently to play and also is accused of providing false information on his visa. he's appealing the decision and a hearing is expected tomorrow. but if his appeal fails, he could be deported and even barred from even entering the country again. let's discuss with a new member of the cnn family, cnn contributor and former professional tennis player patrick mcenroe. good to see you, patrick. i'm glad to have you on a night like this. how are you doing? >> i'm doing well, thanks for mentioning that. i'm very proud to be joining the team so thank you and thanks for having me. >> i'm glad you're here because you can help us especially break down not only what's happening but what the reaction really is to this because we're days away from the australian open. it is no secret he is the number one men's tennis player but wondering with all the hoopla and conversation and hasn't been practicing, waiting to have a hearing, what is the reaction from other tennis players who are already in the open and did follow the rules? >> well, quite frankly, laura, the rest of the players are getting a little fed up with this whole novak saga that's continued for the last week. they've had enough and heard from multiple players over the last couple of days that they want to get on with the tournament. novak made his decision as nadal said to not get vaccinated a long time ago and knew this was coming down the road meaning rules in australia and suffering consequences now. you said something that was interesting in the two points you made as to why potentially the government is trying to deport him but here's the problem with the case and i know you're a lawyer and can probably help out. they're not arguing the government that this is the reason they're trying to deport him from the country. i'll read this note. i want to get it right since i'm talking to the lawyer. the government is essentially going to argue in court that djokovic should be deported from australia because and i'm quoting now, he may risk lives and civil order by eroding regard for covid rules and vaccinations. now, i'm sorry, i'm not a lawyer but are you kidding me? that's the reason they want to deport him? and all novak djokovic has to do from my understanding of the legality of this situation is present that he has a serious case to be tried and that he could get a temporary injunction. that's all he needs and it soups pretty likely he will get that and that means he's going to be able to stay and he's going to be able to play in the australian open. >> interesting thing about that and don't pretend to be a ba barrister. they're trying to stop the perception of an antivaxxer. and if you have a legitimate reason as you articulate, legitimate reason that somebody has not followed the rules that were set for everyone else, you know, i mean you have to actually do what you're supposed to do, if you offer this sort of public policy based argument then you're going to have the perception in the public you are trying to push a particular agenda but i will say that agenda and where we are right now, the idea of not wanting to risk people's lives or perpetuate say infection as opposed to the viewpoint, i mean, that is actually a legitimate basis by which they've held every other person going to australia so the question for me and the public oftentimes is, is it right that this athlete in particular, even though he is a star, maybe because he is a star is getting this sort of separate treatment and consideration or is it in line with other players? a woman had to leave australia supposed to play in the open. she didn't get the same attention and consideration. >> no, she certainly did not. she was from the czech republic. already back in her home country and four police officers came to her hotel when she was taking a swim and escorted her out of the country. she didn't have the wherewithal to hire the legal team djokovic has. i'll point out to the viewers out there, if novak djokovic actually plays in the australian open, he'll be the only unvaccinated player in either draw, male or female. that's got the whole australian public in an uproar. what has become a political firestorm in australia. there's so much going on behind the scenes politically that is playing into this decision but from a legal standpoint it sounds like novak djokovic is going to be able to get that temporary injunction, get out on one court and on to another which he's dominated for many years. >> something tells me in an otherwise and normally silent tennis match you might hear boos if he does take that position. you can't well complain about the circus if you're a seal with a bouncing ball on your nose. he brought a lot on his himself. everything about this notion as in dall talked about. nice talking to you. i knew you would be the right person to have the conversation with. >> thanks a lot, laura. the question again talking about the rules and who has to follow them and who doesn't, forget tennis. let's talk about the supreme court because the question now is who gets to ignore the united states supreme court? well, florida's governor ron desantis seems think he can. how he's vowing to fight the one smaller part of the biden administration vaccine mandate the justices did keep in place and why hospitals could suffer. that's next. with clean, fresh ingredients, panera's new chicken sausage and pepperoni flatbread is a mouthwatering explosion of yes. craft? yes! heartiness? yes! living life to the flavor-fullest? heck yes. panera. live your yes. now $1 delivery. what can i du with less asthma? with dupixent i can du more... yardwork... teamwork... long walks.... that's how you du more, with dupixent, which helps prevent asthma attacks. dupixent is not for sudden breathing problems. it's an add-on-treatment for specific types of moderate-to-severe asthma that can improve lung function for better breathing in as little as two weeks. and can reduce, or even eliminate, oral steroids. and here's something important. dupixent can cause serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. get help right away if you have rash, shortness of breath, chest pain, tingling or numbness in your limbs. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, and don't change or stop your asthma treatments, including steroids, without talking to your doctor. are you ready to du more with less asthma? just ask your asthma specialist about dupixent. well, would you look at that? jerry, you gotta see this. seen it. trust me, after 15 walks... gets a little old. i really should be retired by now. wish i'd invested when i had the chance... to the moon! ugh. unbelievable. so two of america's most high-profile governors are now going, well, head to head after ron desantis made this declaration in his state of the state address. >> together we have made florida the freest state in these united states. florida has become the escape hatch for those chafing under authoritarian arbitrary and seemingly never ending mandates and restrictions. >> prompted california's democratic governor, gavin newsom to respond. this in an interview with yahoo! news, he said is desantis referring reflexively to himself. with respect we'd have 40,000 more california's dead if we took his approach. arguably even more with the density in population of this state and it wouldn't have been -- would have been much, much worse in florida about they didn't get the blowback from all the local folks. and by threatening businesses and cities schools with fines, the same now, this time with hospitals. even though as you recall the supreme court just yesterday ruled that president biden's vaccine mandate on some health care workers could actually stand. joining me now to discuss is fellow legal blind -- mind jeffrey toobin. the concern was with texas. they would look at the idea of ignoring supreme court precedent and a that's going to be confined to that particular space. this is the different type of blueprint that we didn't expect or did you? >> well, good evening, counselor. it is -- well, it remains to be seen somewhat what exactly desantis plans to do. i notice something interesting about what his press secretary said today. the press secretary said i will not -- or we, florida, will not enforce the ban that biden has insisted on -- on hospitals. enforce was an interesting word because florida doesn't have to enforce that. that's a rule for medicare and medicaid. medicare and medicaid are saying we will not pay you hospital if you allow people who are unvaccinated to work in your hospital, you know, in dealing with patients. florida has nothing to do with that. that is a transaction between florida -- between the federal government and the health care providers. so -- >> jeff, for that reason, i mean, it feels a lot like sort of if you tell someone to get out and they said i wanted to leave anyway. they have no ability to enforce because the power of the purse is very closely held by congress, medicare, the ability to do so so is it just the whole point, jeffrey, if you're saying, i won't enforce it, you couldn't anyway. it's just bravado >> that's right although the question is, he has -- they have threatened fines on businesses and certain institutions that insist on mandates internally and the question is, will they try to fine the hospitals that comply with the federal government? that would create a direct conflict but i think florida loses in that case, because, you know, the law seems pretty clear that, you know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. if the federal government can insist that if you take their money, you better wear -- you better have a mask mandate, i don't think florida has any right to interfere with that. i think it's the preemptionary of the law, federal supremacy so i think this is a lot of showmanship from desantis but i don't think he can do anything about it. >> the preemption, the supremacy clause, all ways of saying, look, if there is a perception of being caught teen a rock and hard place, between the federal government and the state governments, we already win if it's the federal government. we already have the ability to say we trump it in these respects provided you have the authority to do so and you do here. so if that's the case and i do wonder about that, if that's the case what does this is a about them ignoring the supreme court ruling even publicly trying to pretend they can because i remember a time, i guess i'm old enough and, jeffrey, i'm also young enough to remember a time when supreme court precedent actually meant you didn't mess with the supreme court. but i'm thinking back just months ago when you could thumb your nose and say, oh, i guess roe v. wade was optional to follow along so this is a indication where has the supreme court in its own behavior essentially invited people to challenge at least on a public level the respect that normally is given to their authority, as they say? >> well, i do think the court has become such a deeply politicized institution, i know the justices hate it when we always point out that there are six republican and three democratic appointees but when you look at how often they split on that basis in major cases, interestingly, the medicare mandate case was not one you had chief justice roberts and justice kavanaugh sided with the democrats there but by and large it is a deeply politicized institution in high-profile cases and i think that does tend to affect the -- its reputation. also, i mean, you know, desantis is now running for president 4 hours a day and, you know, he's running to win the fox news primary and in the fox news primary, the more you can be against vaccine mandates, the more you can be against testing, the more you can be against masks, the more attention you'll get, and, you know, that seems to be how he's playing. as governor newsom pointed out that may be costing people their lives in florida. >> it is worth pointing out too there is an element of richness to hear governor newsom talk about people following the protocols when he himself was almost recalled to doing so and admitted to such. let's give him a clean slate and happy new year to you. >> to you as well. >> i want to say the battles we see playing out right now, well, they may feel unprecedented given all of our talk about precedence but many aren't so new. that's why we need to take a step back and think about the larger issues that demand action and i'll make my case next. it's beautiful out here. it sure is. and i earn 5% cash back on travel purchased through chase with chase freedom unlimited. that means that i earn 5% on our rental car, i earn 5% on our cabin. i mean, c'mon! hello cashback! hello, kevin hart! i'm scared. in a good way. i'm lying. let's get inside. earn big time with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours. some of my best memories growing up, were cooking with mom. she always said, “food is love.” so when she moved in with us, a new kitchen became part of our financial plan. ♪ i want to make the most of every meal we have together. ♪ at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm.com ♪ limu emu and doug.♪ and it's easy to customize your insurance at libertymutual.com so you only pay for what you need. isn't that right limu? limu? limu? sorry, one sec. doug blows several different whistles. doug blows several different whistles. [a vulture squawks.] there he is. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty♪ woman: i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer ♪ ♪ yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. most who achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months had lasting clearance through 1 year. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin at 3 years. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. ♪ baby got back by sir mix-a-lot ♪ unlimited cashback match... only from discover. it been one heck of a week, a week that begin with people refusing to attend biden's powerful speech on voting rights because they fear it might be a johnny come lately using them as a photo op. we heard the complaints and they registered and when voting rights activists found themselves pleasantly surprised by the speech, they still ask what took so long? we heard the same question asked again when it came to the department of justice. more than a year after the insurrection and a year to the date of a second presidential impeachment, we saw sedition charges filed against 11 people including the leader of the oath keepers. the charges didn't target a former president or his inner circle so people still asked does this mean there will be equal prosecution of the laws? that question was asked of gop members in congress that refused to cooperate with their colleagues' request for information and saw an emerging midterm election campaign platform that seems to prioritize retaliation over legislation apparently tit for tat is the new black and in a different chamber, we saw republican senator mitch mcconnell reduce a call for voting rights to a rant and that apparently the traditions of the senate were more important than the expectation of democracy and we asked, when will the hypocrisy end? and this week we've heard the continued criticism of the mied messaging from the cdc and in our covid fatigue asked you mean i've done all that you have required of me and it still feels like i'm sitting here on square one? you've heard the questions. but in a week where people are frustrated at every level about campaign promises not yet realized, let's talk for a second about the people for whom dreams remain deferred. equity. >> fairness, i equity. >> equity is at the core of everything we do. >> we have a real chance to deliver real equity across the board. >> it was a campaign promise, hell, it's a democratic promise and if you think you're tired of mixed messaging and delayed justice and constitutional hypocrisy, imagine how millions of americans of color that comprised the working core feel? how about the native and indigenous populations and people from seattle to appalachia. square one might be a temporary inconvenience for you and by no fault of their own because long before there was frustration over a delayed voting speech, there is frustration about waiting in vain long before there were questions of congressional hypocrisy. james baldwin told you i can't believe what you say because i see what you do. long before there was a question about whether a senate rule should be upheld voters had been voting for the voting rights act of 1965 to be honored, restored and fortified by the very legislative body that wrote it. and long before there was irritation about the inability to find masks or covid tests, far too many people have been tested by economic inequality, denied inner generational wealth and can't find a way to make ends meet on a shoe string budget that splits every way but sol solvent. as important as each collective complaints have been and they are important, i hope they realize the luxury they have to focus on the big picture issues like it's a george painting and not bother to examine the individual dots let alone connect them so listen, you are entitled to be frustrated. but be productive. be inpatient but be vigilant, be opinionated but please stay informed. i rest my case. is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward. and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity. (music) ♪ i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ to be a thriver with metastatic breast cancer means asking for what we want. and need. and we need more time. so, we want kisqali. women are living longer than ever before with kisqali when taken with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali is a pill that's significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant alone. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain, a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. ask your doctor about living longer with kisqali. cough cough sneeze sneeze... [ sneezing ] needs, plop plop fizz fizz. alka seltzer plus cold relief. dissolves quickly. instantly ready to start working. so you can bounce back fast with alka-seltzer plus. now available for fast sinus relief. hey, thanks for watching. "don lemon tonight "starts