the fbi received a tip with a video purported to be filmed by bancroft. the video was a selfie video which depicted bancroft and another woman identified as santos-smith, in the process of attempting to exit the u.s. capitol. the video further captured a large mob of individuals who had become bottlenecked at a capitol exit point. during the video, bancroft stated, quote, we broke into the capitol. we got inside. we did our part. we were looking for nancy to shoot her in the friggin' brain but we didn't find her. they believe bancroft referenced in this quote is house speaker nancy pelosi. bancroft was wearing a make america great again hat. during the video. the screen shot of this video is depicted below and they included a color screen shot in the criminal complaint. there she is. quote, bancroft was interviewed on or about january 20th, so eight days after the tip came in. interviewed by your affiant. bancroft said she had entered the u.s. capitol building on january 6, 2021. bancroft saw a window that had been broken. she witnessed people entering the capitol building. bancroft said she followed and entered this broken window at approximately 3:00 p.m. bancroft stated that she was aware that she was entering restricted grounds inside the capitol building. bancroft further stated she had sent the video to her children and subsequently instructed her children to delete it. bancroft showed fbi agents additional photographs and videos on her cell phone that she filmed on january 6, 2021. on or about that day, january 20, your affiant reviewed cctv footage that captured bancroft attempting to enter the capitol building on january 6, 2021. she informed me during an interview that she had entered the capitol. she admitted to me on january 20th that she went into the capitol and climbed into a window and knew she shouldn't have been doing that. she then filmed the video inside the capitol in which she said, we broke into the capitol, we did our part. we were looking for nancy to shoot her in the frigging brain, but we did not find her. she then sent that video to her children. hey, kids, look what mommy is doing. but then told her kids to delete it. presumably so mom wouldn't get in trouble when the fbi came looking. we were looking for nancy to shoot her in the frigging brain. she sent that to her kids. today in court in washington, d.c., something really interesting happened and quite provocative. there's been a lot of these january 6 cases where people have done and said shocking things and been caught and charged for it. but this was one of those cases where the judge basically balk. a federal judge today accepted a guilty plea from this defendant from the shoot her in the frigging brain defendant. you're not going to believe me when i say this, but the guilty plea the judge was accepting from her today was a guilty plea to a single misdemeanor charge, which is something that prosecutors are apparently fine with even though the judge doesn't seem to necessary agree. the defendant is charged wit sically being disruptive inside the capitol building. as this is laid out in the criminal complaint against her, what she is charged with is the misdemeanor charge that prohibits parading and picketing inside the capitol building. parading and picketing. that's what we're calling this now. the federal judge hearing bancroft's case had a little bit of a hard time accepting this is how thcase is going and this is how it's going to end. here's reporting from wusa reporter jordan fish here was in court today for the hearing. a federal judge pressed the justice department today on why a capitol riot defendant who said she wanted to shoot speaker nancy pelosi is only facing misdemeanor charges, saying during her plea hearing that he was appalled by the comments. then fisher quotes the judge. quote, it is very troubling to hear someone say the reason they entered the capitol on january 6 was essentially to murder the speaker of the house. u.s. district judge emmet sullivan told dawn bancroft, quote, it is very troubling. at the hearing, sullivan called bancroft's comments about pelosi horrible and outrageous. he asked a federal prosecutor on the case why it didn't rise to the level of a threat. he said, bancroft was fortunate there was not a more serious charge. judge sullivan said that the comments will certainly come up in bancroft's hearing in january, and she should be ready to explain the language then because it could have an impact on her sentence. judge sullivan reflected on one of the large questions of january 6, how so many law-abiding citizens like dawn bancroft had turned against their government. and he quotes the judge. so many people up until january 6 were outstanding members of the community, never been in trouble. but on january 6, they morphed into, they morphed into terrorists, the judge said. like i said, these are provocative remarks, but this sort of thing keep happening again over and ove again in ses involving the insurrectionists on january 6. over and over again judges keep asking prosecutors once these cases get into court, are you sure this is all you want to charge this person with? you know what this person particated in, right? you know this was an attempt to overthrow the government by force? and we're charging the participants in that efforwith having a parade in the wrong place? that was today in federal court in washington, d.c. here's another piece of it. the republican accountability project -- you might remember that name. this is a group that was formed -- they got lots of attention when they came together and formed last year. these are republicans, many of them high-profile former trump administration officials who have changed their mind, who reject trumpism in their party, who are horrified by what happened when donald trump was in office as president. the republican accountability project sort of cities its role now of trying to expose trumpism in the republican party and trying to break his hold on the current party. well, a few days ago, they posted a tape online which showed a republican named paul gosar addressing what appears to be a small crowd of supports in scottsdale, arizona. the tape is really quite something. for one thing it is really hard to believe looking at this viscerally. it's hard to believe this is a sitting member of congress. but it is. >> we can do that and follow through on this audit. folks, if it's what i've been told, and i had people come to me early hours of the day after from the security exchange fraud department to the cia fraud department, that between 450 and $700,000 got altered in the state of arizona. validation, validation. dominion which happens to run the machines in maricopa county. why do i bring that up? they're known for switch and delete. kind of suspicious? if this comes out the way it is, i have to tell you, we have to charge people. >> absolutely. >> so what i'm telling you, the governor knew exactly what i just told you, and he still certified them. it could have been avoided. now, there is also some good news. in georgia they're doing a forensic audit in fulton county, which is the atlantic area. my friend tells me there are error rate of over 60% in many of the precincts. >> 60% errors. he's got sources from the securities exchange fraud department. anybody have any ideas, anybody? the securities exchange fraud department he has sources and also the cia fraud department. now, when somebody emailed you, congressman, and told you they were the cia fraud department, did they also ask for your bank account number? did they also ask for you to wire them a little something? is it possible the e-mail came from a nigerian prince? he's got his sources. the security exchange fraud department, the cia fraud department, and the guy he's got says there's a 60% error in the election. this is this month, this is september 20, '21. his name is paul gosar. there has been some reporting in the arizona press that it's possible he is not well. there may have been something healthwise going on with congressman gosar. we have no reason to believe that's true and he has said in that reporting that he's fine healthwise. the republican star is not saying, i'm sorry, i don't know what that is, i am having a meltdown. this is what republican members of selling back home right now. and again, all the press is saying there's normal press going on in washington. what's going on in the republican party deserves looking at. deserves attention, because what they're saying particularly at home to their constituents, particularly as they start getting ready to run for election is all this stuff. and it's a current animating force in one of the two major parties in our country. pretending that it's not or pretending this is in the past is not helping us. i want to show you another piece of this now. i mentioned a few days ago that a colorado lawsuit was about to become a font of information about where all this stuff came from. about how these lies and conspiracy theories about the election got invented, how they came up with this stuff, how they started propagating it. you heard this congressman in arizona, for example, sharing this stuff about dominion voting machines, right? that's been one of their big villains, right? it's been the conspiracy theory of why they needed to bring in the cyber theory because they couldn't be believed. that's what they've been selling from the beginning. an executive from dominion systems filed a lawsuit against former president trump and trump's lawyers and his allies who have been promoting these conspiracy theories and lies on voting machines. and as has been reported, the discovery of those lies have led to a lot of important information, in part because it's led to a lot of people involved in concocting those conspiracy theories in the first place having to sit through depositions under oath. having to explain under oath why they sent this stuff. and where it came from. and that gives us a priceless window into how this stuff came into being, how this nonsense ended up being promoted by the president's former lawyers and now it's in overdrive. and that more than anything is what's driving the politics of the republican party today. i may be wrong, and i'll correct myself if i am, but so far this has not been previously reported on tv. we know in colorado, the colorado sun news outlet picked up on this, but as far as i know, we think we're the first national tv show to report on this. what we've got is a deposition from this lawsuit in which former president trump's lawyer, rudy giuliani, is under oath. and the portrait the deposition lays out into where all these conspiracy theories and complicated lies about the election came from, all this stuff that he sold to the public. and he tried to sell to the courts and the election, what went wrong in the election. the initial seeds that is the animating force of the republican party, rudy giuliani was pressed under oath to explain where that stuff came from, where he learned it from. here is trump's lawyer rudy giuliani. i should mention he right now is currently awaiting word as to whether the suspension of his law license will be permanent or if someday he might get it back. here he is under questioning and under oath explaining the due diligence he did as a lawyer, as an officer of the court, when he decided he needed to go public with these claims that the election was stolen. he needed to go public with these claims that dominion voting machines and executives of dominion were the villains who somehow stole the election from donald trump. remember, this conspiracy theory was not just for them. it absolutely still alive today. it is absolutely entrenched on the right that 78% of the republican voters say they believe it and say they do not believe that joe biden was legally elected president and that donald trump belongs in the oval office because all the things that went wrong in this rigged election. where did all that come from? now we know. because here is the president's lawyer explaining how hard he worked tmake sure the rigged election was a real thing before he started spreading it. here's what he says. question, as i'm hearing your testimony in terms of eyes on claims about dominion voting systems, we've got some media reports that you generally described. and then you looked at some facebook postings that you described? answer, giuliani. i don't remember if it was facebook. those social med posts get all one to me, facebook, instagram, twitter. question, social media postings, answer, giuliani, i think it was facebook. question, anything else you tha laid eyes on? answer, giuliani, right now, i can't recall anything else that i laid eyes on. for the president's lawyer, maybe h looked at facebook posts to ce up with the dominion did it conspiracy theory, but he can't really remember and all social media looks the same to him. facebook, sure it's facebook, doesn't remember lookingt anything. then the deposition turns to mr. giuliani's claim that there s a source, there was a witness who claimed to know that dominion ving systems have rigged the election for joe biden. there is a witness. oh, mr. giuliani, did you talk to this supposed witness? question, i take it from your testony that you or your team didn't interview him? answer, giuliani, i didn't inrview him. question, okay. answer, giulia, i can't tell you if someone on the team dn't interview him. i think somebody interviewed him. question, you said the srce's story was credible. do you have any knowledge that source that led you to believe he is credible answer, giiani, no. i didn't havany information that he wasn't. it's not my job to go out and investigate ery piece of evidence that's given me, otherwise you're never gng to write a story. he says, why the heck uldn't i believe him? i would ve had to have been a terrible lyer th liked to exercise rather than give my client the benefit of the dot. i'd like to exerse evething i could against my client. gee, let's find out if it's untrue. i didn't have the time to do that and there is nothing that said to me that i should do it. the lawyer then says to him, question, have you heard the term trial by press conference? answer, giuliani, i have. questi, all ght. was this a trial by press conference? answer, giuliani. no, sir. question, why not? answer, giuliani, it was investigation by press conference. it was laying out the facts that we had. i didn't make ainding who was telling the truth or not. i laid out what i knew, and what i knew i had no reason to believe was untrue. it wasn't trial by press conference, it was investigation by press conference. i read some stuff, i think it was maybe on facebook. i laid it out to the public as what we knew to be the facts. and, no, i had no idea if it was true or not. why would i try to check? you wouldn't have a story then. he literally says, why the heck wouldn't i have believed him? i would have had to be a terrible lawyer. i would have had to be a terrible lawyer. gee, let's go find out if it's untrue. i didn't have time to do that. there was nothing to me that said i should do that. this is a deposition filed in court in colorado in a case brought by an executive from one of the companies that has featured in the republican party conspiracies, ongoing conspiracies about the last presidential election. the president's lawyer admitting that when he seeded that conspiracy theory with the public in the first place, which has now grown into the animated principle of the republican party, at that time he seeded it the conspiracy theory in public, he doesn't remember if he read a single thing about it except maybe he saw a facebook post, but he can't remember. he never interviewed anybody who supplied the source. survived the evidence if any of it was true, because that would ruin the story. why would he do that? again, this deposition from rudy giuliani filed in a defamation case brought by the former executive from dominion voting systems. but that story he admits was just concocted is what ultimately led to the attack on the u.s. capitol building on january 6. a federal judge today saying in bewilderment that that attack turned otherwise law abiding people into terrorists that day. that concocted story led to the fiasco in arizona where republicans did spend months undoing and retrying their election results. and even today their republican congressman, paul gosar, is saying because of their audit of the review and the dominion voting systems and the blah, blah, blah there should be a redo between biden and trump. that story, that concocted story is behind all of these editorials you might have seen in the newspaper in texas today, if you live in texas. all of these editorials in different texas newspapers today. they're not going to believe that because of this story, that under oath, they will admit. it's all made up. this is the scene today in chicago with former president barack obama when he picked the spot on which this would happen today. he was actually still president. it was july of 2016 when president barack obama chose this site, jackson park in chicago, to be the official home for his post-presidential library. today in chicago was the official groundbreaking, you see the former first president and the former first lady there. a new presidential library is always a cool thing. it's a research center, a museum, a monument to history for the public to engage in, this one is also a reminder, that our immediate past president after president obama, who has been out of office for over a year now, he hasn't done anything to planning his presidential library. he hasn't even announced his library. these things take a while to get off the ground. barack obama chose the place for his presidential library five years ago. they just started putting shovels in the dirt today. why is there no trump presidential library being cited as we speak? for donald trump to start planning his presidential library, that would require him to acknowledge that he is post his presidency. apparently we are not there yet. the animating life force in the republican party right now means that their president thinks he's still the president and three quarters of the republican voters agree with him. >>president biden canceled his own planned trip to chicago tomorrow to try to avert the debt ceiling crisis and try to pass the infrastructure bill on his budget. all the beltway press in washington are thinking abo two parties thinking about two governing ideas in the country. how much money should we be should be raising instead of spending with overthrowing elections. overthrowing small deed democracy and getting stuff done by force. ignoring that when you're looking at the rational negotiating positions of the two parties in washington is to put your head in the sand. that said, we do see president biden and the democrats trying to get stuff done. we see them under the gun in terms of timing trying to get it done by the end of the week. we've got more on tt ahead. in senator joe manchin's home state of west virginia, the $3.5 trillion build back better legislation that's being proposed by president biden, it is overwhelmingly popular. the support in west virginia among wesvirginia voters is almost unbelievable. the build back better proposal has 80% support state wide. just ask self-identified conservatives in west virginia, how many self-identified conservatives support it. that number is 77%. i don't know if senator joe manchin wants to be known as the democratic senator that's holding the bill up for his voters back home might not be happy about that. it's not just joe manchin, of course and it's not just west virginia where the home state rumblings might be disconcerting to democratic conservatives who are holding this thing up. the state's democratic party in arizona is so fed up with her not being on the bill that they passed a resolution this weekend which says if she votes against the senate reconciliation budget bill, then they will give senator sinema, a vote of no confidence. if you have been following the news about this dispute at all, you're probably wl versed in the political dynamic right now. democrats almost unanimously want to pass a potentially groundbrking legislation on climate and the social safety net and infrastructure. in the senate these two conservative democratic senators, joe manchin and kyrsten sinema are holding it up. but they have a problem. wh you look at the package, it's very popular stuff, including in their home states. take a for instance on what the bill would do for electric vehicles. in the newsletter volts this week, he talked about if the bill gets passed, here's what you get in terms of buying an electric vehicle. if you buy an electric vehicle, you get a tax credit, a rete, essentially, of $4,000. but it goes up from there. if you were to buy that car before the year 2027, you would get an extra $3,500 on top of that. if it was an electric car made in the united ates by a union auto shop, well then your rebate would go up another $4,500 on top of what you're already getting. and it keeps going like tha until the tax credits on this bill reach a grand total of 12,500 back. you could get $12,500 back if you chose an electric car rather than a tradition gas engine vehicle. i mean that sounds less like a piece of legislation and more like a car ad, right? who doesn't want to save $12,500? and help the environment doing it. it's very easy to get swept up in the will they/won't they narrative wit what they're talking about what'sn the bill not just because it's popular and should and will affect whether it gets passed. but also because if this thing gets passed, it's important that it be right that, it be the next big bang for the buck we cou get. this could be the biggest piece of climate legislation we pass for the country ever. as such, is it a collection of right ideas? would it make a de? joining us now is bill mckibben. he's a climate expert, he's one of the founders of the grassroots effort 350.org. mr. mckibben, thanks for being here. >> what a pleasure, rachel. >> i imagine you are rooting for the reconciliation bill, the build back better bill, to pass because it seems like america's biggest stab yet in doing something climate. but what do you actually think substantively about the climate stuff that's in it? does it appeal to you? >> yes, absolutely. not only is it our best stab, it would be really the first piece of serious legislation that the u.s. congress has ever passed on climate change. and once you flip through it with great detail, and they're very good at this, have said that the provisions in there about the pricing plan, the price credits, the home electrification things there are enough things to get us to reduction in 2030, that joe biden has promised. that the scientists have told us is the absolute minimum we could possibly hope for and that we give john kerry, importantly, something to negotiate were he goes off to this intertional climate conference in a month in glasgow. >> i know, bill, that in addition to being an expert on climate substantively, you're also a pretty distinguished pert in terms of knowing how things get done on this and how thpolitics and how power works around these issues. are thright people making the right arguments to help get this thing passed? if it would be as consequential as you are describing in terms of climate, it's obviously a very, very high stakes decision this week for everybody for whom that's a number one issue. >> well, first of all, the process in and of itself is obviously crazy. senators sinema and manchin are behaving in a cruel fashion, trying to play one constituency against another. that's not how this thing has been fraught, the sunrise movement and the dreamers and e nurses working on health care, they've all been rallying together to get this $3.5 trillion bill through. to negotiate with someone who won't even tell us what their end goal is, sinema and manchin. it is crazy. that being said, they've really been working to get this in place, and it's been very powerful to watch the progressives in the house stand up and insist it's got tpass. the bipartisan infrastructure bill by itself really doesn't do much. it's a series of giveaways for the fossil fuel industry. the only reason for doing it is so you have the chance of passing this actual really important climate bill. we don't know if it's going to happen. and we know if it doesn't happen, just as it didn't in 2009, the last time congress teed something like this up, then there's likely to be no significant climate legislation ever in the period of time that scientifically relevant to dealing with the greatest crisis we ever faced. already miles behind, just saw science yesterday that children when they're born will pay 7,000 more times for weather disasters in their life. all we're trying to do now is protect civilization from being cut off at the knees, and we're down to our last innings. >> down to our last innings, bill mckiben, climate expert, once of the founders of the 350-.org. thank you for joining us this hour. thanks for helping us understand the stakes. >> thank you, rachel. take care. i will tell you that in terms of senator kyrsten sinema arizona, she is being told if you don't pass this thing, we don't know what to make of you as our senator. we'll pass a vote of no confidence. i don't know what else we can do. you sense this real regret of democrats in arizona who worked so hard to get her in that seat feeling now they have to fight against her for democratic priorities she said she agrees with. i will tell you, though,o the extent that senator sinema has been somewhat unrecruitable on the issue, one thing that she's frequently saying that she really wants to get something done about is climate. she says that's one her biggest priorities, one of the main reasons she wants to be in the senate, which makes it more difficult to imagine why she's standing in the way. she and senator manchin are the ones standing in the way in the democratic party of the only significant climate legislation we have in the hopper and the biggest job we've had in a generation. lots more to come tonight. stay with us. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now. 's the most comfortable, dually-adjustable, foot-warming, temperature-balancing, proven quality night sleep we've ever made. ve 50% on the new sleep number . plus, 0% interesfor 36 months. ends monday. so this is interesting, and this is a real change, and this is something that probably deserves more attention than it's getting. as recently as this summer, as recently as july, the percentage of white adult americans who reported getting at least one shot of the covid vaccine was 70%. that's according to a kaiser family foundation poll. compare that number in july to black adults. that number was 65%, and for hispanic adults, that number was 61%. this is adults who got their first shot. as of july, whites, 70%, blacks, 65%, hispanics, 61%. racial divide. at was in july. ke a look at a new poll just released today by pfizer, showing that gap has basically closed and there's a different gap that explains what's going on in our country with vaccination rates. look at the gap closing. as a baseline, the number of all american adults who report getting at least one shot now, that number for all american adults is now 72%. look at it by race. the numbers have really evened out. the percentage of white adults who say they've gotten one shot is 71%. compare that to black adults and hispanic adults. those reports at least one shot, 70 among black adults, 73% among hispanic adults. so those are all really, really tight, and hispanic adults is actually the highest proportion. this basically means that race is no longer a statistically important factor when it comes to those who are vaccinated. there isn't a racial divide anymore. but there is another factor that sticks out like a skyscraper. take a look at this, as i said 72% of american adults have had at least one shot. that's our baseline here. in blue there, that's the number of democrats who say they've gotten at least one shot. that's 90%. now look at republicans who say they've gotten at least one shot. that is 58%. that is the gapingivide now. that is the difference now. that is where we are as a countr how do we defeat that challenge. with us now is liz hamel. she' vice president and director of public opinion and survey research for the kaiser family foundation. miss hammel, i appreciate you being with me here. >> thank you for having me. >> let me ask you about the significant changes over time. for me it seems like positive changes for the country, positive changes to see the racial divide shrink. it wasn't a gigantic divide as recently as july, but it is larger than it is today. in statistically significant terms, have those numbers tightened up? >> yes, in our surveys they have. we go back further than july, april and may, early on in the vaccination effort. what we find in our surveys is that any black or hispanic adults were telling us they weren't yet ready to make a decision about getting the vaccines. they had questions and concerns both related to side effects but also to access to the vaccine or time off from work. we found that gap that used to exist between black and hispanic americans and white ericans in terms of vaccination has closed in our surveys. >> in terms of the divide that remains with political party affiliation, is there anything in your survey data that indicates, other than calling yourself a democrat or republican, what might be driving those decisions? you just spoke about the kinds of concerns th were driving what we've previously seen as a racial gap. are there any other subtleties about why republicans are so much more reluctant to get vaccinated that your surveyors and your polls are able to figure out? >> well, you know, it's not a new thing that we see these big partisan divides in how people think about the vaccine, and it really reflects other attitudes about the puic in general divided along party lines. i think one of the big ones in understanding attitudes about the vaccine is republicans are more likely to feel like the seriousness of the pandemic has been exaggerated by the news media and they're less likely to less worried about getting sick and democrats are more worried about themselves and their family membe getting sick. >> one of the things we have seen in terms of policy interventions that's been, at least to my untrained eye, shockingly effective are these vaccine requirements. and i'm saying they seem to have been shockingly effective mostly on self-reported results of the entities putting in place these new les. for example, united airlines reported last week that once they announced they would require a vaccination fotheir employees, 97% of their u.s.-based workforce is now vaccinated. today with requirements for new york health workers going into effect, today the percentage of new york health care worke who have gotten a dose of the vaccine is up to 92%. it does feel like employment-based vaccine requirements, least anecdotally, are showing themselves to be very effective in terms of raising vaccination numbers. is there anything the survey data tells us in terms of what to expect and how that may interact with this big partisa divide in terms of republicans not believing the seriousness of that underlies those requirements i the first place? >> yeah, we did ask people how they feel about these employer requirements, and not surprisingly, they're not very popular among unvaccinated people. if we ask unvaccinated people, what would you do if your employer required you to get a vaccine, about 3 in 10 say they would be likely to get it. but if you instead give them the option to say, what if you had to get a vaccine or be tested weekly, about half say they would take the weekly testing option, so i think wheer -- you know, how successful the mandates are in increasing vaccination rates might have to do with how employers roll them out. >> right, exactly. liz hamel, vice president and director of public opinion at kaiser research family foundation. thank you for putting these results out in a way that is digestible and understandable to our lay audience and thank you for being here tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> it is important to understand these dynamics. one of the things that caught my eye in terms of vaccine requirements, the vatican is now putting in place a vaccine requirement. as a catholic, it's been interesting tour me personally watching people try to say they should get a religious exemption from the vaccine because they're catholic. well, not only is the pope vaccinated, he will now start docking pay for vatican officials who don't get vaccinated. which i think will complicate the effort to make that a religious exemption in this country, but we shall see. we have more so stay with us. it's a sunny day. nah, a stormy day. ♪ ♪ we see a close up of the grille ...an overhead shot. she drives hands free along the coast. make it palm springs. cadillac is going electric. if you want to be bold, you have to go off - scrip experience the all-electric cadillac lyric. all right. here is a story that i swear has given me a rash every time we cover this story and we cover the fact that this is still going on as a story. i get like a new itch. i get hives. but this is a real thing. still happening. we are eight months into the biden administration and you know who is still running a major federal agency we all count o in this country, this y, this name is louisejoy, and still unbelievably, he is still the postmasr genel of the ited stes. he w appoied to at job last year ring t trump adnistraon. he hasero poal service experience butots of experience running companies that compete witthe post office a therefore wish the post officto be worse athat it does. also has lots of experience shoveling ge amounts of money to republican candidates including then president tru. as you say recall, as soon as mr. dejoy took this po, he said about deliberately slowing down mail livery in this country. you might remeer some of his greatest hits like destroying 10% of the custom made multimillion dollar il sorting machines just as the postal service was preparing to handle millions of time-sensitive mail-in ballots for the presidential election. but you know, during the time he's been in charge, his own former company has done well and he's done well personally. under louis dejoy's leadership, the u.s. postal service ramped up its business with a logistics company that louis dejoy used to run. it's a company that continues to pay him millions of dollars in his ongoing investments and contracts with him. so the postal service is doing more business with the company that pays him what it does well. he's running the postal service. oh. and to top it all off, he is currently right now under fbi investigation for an alleged brazen illegal campaign donation scheme. former employees dcribe to "the washington post" where he allegedly pressured employees to make donations to republican candidates of his choosing. he would then reimburse those employees for their, quote, donations. that's called a sprawl donor scheme and that is very much against the law. how can this guy still be running the postal service? it is true president biden cannot hire him directly. he reports to a postaloard of directors. the chair of that board who has backed louis dejoy and all of his plans to make the postal service worse. the chair is the head of an investment firm from which louis dejoy purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bonds. i mean, how is this tenable that he is still postmaster general? which means more of his big plans for ruining the mail going into effect. "usa today" reporting today, as of the end of this week that the u.s. mail service will be becoming even slower and more expensive in a way that's designed to be permanent. under the latest changes, 40% of first class mail will be effected. a spokesperson for the post office says these changes, quote, will prove service reliability and predictability. as in your mail will be reliably and predictably slower and more expensive for no reason, other than the fact that louis dejoy is still breaking the post office because he's still in that job. how long will we remain stuck with this guy? watch this space. all right. that is going to do it for us tonight. i will see you again this time tomorrow. "way too early" is up next. it will reach the level that we need to pass the bill. but we will pass those bills. this morning, democrats remain divided over how to move forward with two key pieces of president biden's domestic agenda. and with the looming threat o the government shutdown, the question is when are we going to see congress get something done. plus, top military adviser, contradict president