pelosi staffers sent out snapshots of front newspapers around the country, in terms of how they're covering the trillion infrastructure bill that just passed through congress and that president biden is about to sign. and the headlines about that bill are great. particularly about the local impact it's expected to have in states and communities around the country. also, the reason i'm guessing the speaker's office started circulating front page snapshots like this today is because as good as the news is about the infrastructure bill for all of the states around the country, it's bad news from members of congress, from those states who voted against it. and i'll show you what i mean. here's the rapid city journal in south dakota today. a big above the fold front page head line. state gets $2.8 billion from infrastructure bill. whoo-hoo, that's a huge amount of money coming to south dakota, right? for roads, bridges, broadband in rural areas which is a huge deal in south dakota. airports, new school buses, drinking water systems making the electric grid better. $2.8 billion coming to south dakota alone. what's the sub-head line under that page, johnson, thune and rounds opposed the measure. south dakota has two u.s. senators like every state does, that's republicans, thune and rounds, both thune and rounds voted no against the infrastructure bill south dakota has so few people in it actually has one member of the house, that's a man named dusty johnson. johnson also voted no on the infrastructure bill. so there's the front page above the fold head line in one of the biggest papers in the state head lining how fricking, fracking is going to be for south dakota. and by the way, our entire delegation voted against it. that's south dakota. head to north dakota, grand forks herald. this time those who voted no against the bill is right there in the head line. armstrong votes against $1 trillion package. armstrong is north dakota's one solid member of the house, kelly armstrong voted no on the infrastructure bill. that's one in the state gushing about what the bill is going to do and how he was no help, he voted no. there's a description on the front page. the bill set aside significant funding from everything from roads to bridges. in order to access, many are keenly eager for what it could mean, roads, airports, underpasses, yeah, underpasses. it's going to do a lot about all of those thing, head line north dakota, we have a republican congressman and he voted against us getting that. we should also mention we have two republican senators in north dakota, they voted no, too. showed louisiana, the same story in the daily advertiser in lafayette, louisiana. louisiana to receive over $7 billion from infrastructure bill. that's lafayette, up in shreveport, louisiana, the headline, state to get $7 billion so far from biden bill, infrastructure passage and major victory for louisiana. but then again, on the front page there's a wah wah for it. this is a transformational moment for people of louisiana carter said in a statement. in louisiana, we've learned the hard way what it means to have roads, bridgesing and flood control systems. in this package, louisiana will get millions for the federal government to update roads, update our roads, bridges, sue watch and water systems, update flood protections, so much more. the senator from louisiana who voted for it. all five louisiana house republicans all voted against the bill. garrett graves of baton rouge, lay higgins, mike johnson of benton, and julia letlow of start and steve scalise voted against the bill. yes, big head line, $7 billion for louisiana. here's how the republicans voted no. down in miami, front page of the "miami herald" billions of dollars coming to florida when bind's infrastructure bill is law. on the front page, who gets the credit, quote, south florida's four democrats, frederica wilson and republicans voted against the bill. the democrats voted for it. republicans voted against it. billions coming to florida to fix our infrastructure. here's what local officials who voted against it, they're all republicans, put that on the front page. you can see why speaker pelosi's staff is sending around local snapshots of how this is playing, right? i think this is probably meant to be also a little bit of insurance against the inevitable next step here, right? which is republicans who voted against the infrastructure billological nevertheless show up at the ribbon cuttings and they'll send out press releases about all of the new stuff that's coming to their district, that's coming to state getting funded by the infrastructure bill. they'll send out press releases and celebratory tweets about it in fact they had something to do with it when in fact they voted no. if you voted no against the infrastructure bill, you're going to be famous for that no vote. and your democrats aren't going to let you forget and it sounds like your hometown papers aren't either. that said, there were a handful republican members of the house who didn't vote for the infrastructure bill, there were 13 of them to be exact. these are they. punchbowl news service reports as punishment for that sin, punishment against them for voting for infrastructure funding, quote, republican leadership is bracing for rank and file lawmakers to attempt to strip committee assignments frommed 13 republican lawmakers who voted for the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. several of these lawmakers are also ranking members, top republicans on committees, those positions could be at risk, too. so, the situation in the republican party has created a sort of difficult dynamic for its own members in congress. if you are republican who voted no on the infrastructure bill, you voted no on this incredibly popular legislation that's going to have a big impact on literal nuts and bolts issues in every state in the country. the republicans who voted no on it are getting named and shamed on front newspapers all across the country because they didn't vote to help their home states. because their home states are psyched to get funding for all their party wants because republican parties of congress said no, we don't want it. but the republicans who voted yes, they're facing the wrath in washington, facing getting stripped of their committee assignment, effectively exiled from the republican party, you know, as if they did something terrible. as if they like, you know, threatened to kill someone or something. no, wait, actually, there is a sitting republican member of congress who threatened to kill someone, arizona republican paul gosar just in the past few days posted an online cartoon video of himself showing him as a cartoon killing alexandria ocasio-cortez. posted like a murder fantasy about killing one of his colleagues in the house. house speaker nancy pelosi has called on the ethics committee even outside law enforcement to look into this matter anded to take action against congressman gosar posting this threat that he's going to kill his colleague. you know, she has suggested that perhaps at least the republican party in congress, in the house, might take action to, i don't know, do something in response to that. what did they say the options are? remove him from his committees? so far no sign that congressman paul gosar is going to face that punishment or anything like that for what he did, again, threatening to kill a member of congress. but if you're a republican who committed the grave crime of voting for a bill to fund road repairs and internet access to small towns, well that grave crime is potentially enough to end your career in the republican party. that's the kind of sin you might actually pay for. today, the investigation into the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol produced another ten subpoenas. demanding records and documents and ultimately testimony from ten different people close to and who worked closely with former president trump around the time of the attack and leading up to it. the list included trump's former white house press secretary, kaley mcennenny. also his body man, body man is a weird term but literally means a person hired to carry the president's papers and physically move him around to the door and stuff. that body man is johnny mcatee. and ultimately when everybody else started quitting, trump put johnny mcatee in charge of white house personnel. and the new book excerpted in the atlantic magazine, johnny mcentee is playing the role, playing the role essentially being deputy president of the united states. being deputy president to trump, in fact, running the white house in the final weeks of the trump administration. again, he was hired to carry the papers and open the doors. jonathan karl's book also described john mcentee with a direct role, pressuring mike pence that he needs to subvert the count of the electoral votes and there be throw out the election results on january 6th. mr. mcentee reportly participating in that event. it's unknown in jon karl's book about whether the team wants to talk to him specifically but he did get subpoenaed today. general keith kellogg is subpoenaed. as well as trump adviser steven miller. he will be remembered in history for being the architect of the policy that arranged for the u.s. government to take thousands of little kids away from their moms and dads indefinitely. but he's been summed now to testify about his efforts to spread false information about election results and to persuade states to overthrow the results and proclaim trump the winner even in states that trump lost. a number of other people who are accused of participating in that pressure campaign targeting republican-controlled state legislatures in states they lost, telling state legislates that she should send to washington, even though he lost. the number of people who participated in those efforts, white house deputy chief of staff, also trump's personal assistant, also another guy who served as trump's body man while the first guy got promoted to run the government while trump was tweeting january 6th. they all got subpoenas today. each passing day, of course, is more proverbially pregnant with whether or not the justice department is actually going to see that the subpoenas are enforced. the justice department is still currently mulling whether they're going to bring a contempt prosecution against any trump aides who defy the subpoenas. there was a criminal referral made to the u.s. justice department from steve bannon defying his subpoena. the justice department has received that criminal referral. they still have not contacted on it one way or the other. we don't know whether or not this investigation will effectively be allowed to proceed. as more trump folks get subpoenas. we had six yesterday, ten today, upon all receiving the subpoenas, they all decide whether or not they're going to comply with them. that justice department decision about whether or not steve bannon will be prosecuted for contempt for defying that subpoena. that justice department decision may well be determinative whether or not the justice department has the power to prosecute anything. the justice department, with individual people who went into the capitol, individual rioters, individual people who looted and hurt cops, hurt people on january 6th. arrested hundreds of people, isn't this case, working their way through the courts. the justice department has done nothing in terms of the organizers of the january 6th event. the people who invited people to come to washington, because they promoted this theory that mike pence could be pressured, physically stopped from counting the electoral votes and that would undo the election result, the justice department appears to be letting that slide entirely. they appear to not be investigating that. they're just going for the foot soldiers. the people investigating the organizers of the attack on the capitol, the organizers of the so-called insurrection are congress, this congressional committee. and if all of these trump folks start defying the subpoenas and consider the investigation to be optional it will be up to the justice department to decide whether or not that gets prosecuted as contempt. whether or not the subpoenas are in fact going to effectuated. in merrick garland's hands in a lot of ways. so that remains and that sort of proceeds with the passing days as that investigation gets more and more intense. and the questions around it become more and more flat and more constitutionally pungent. but the cart in washington is broadly quite full. here's something i want to show you on a lighter note. here's something that i want to show you that we've got exclusively. this is going to start airing broadly tomorrow. there's pretty significant ad behind it that you'll see circulating tomorrow. i say that with a little bit of surprise because to be honest, we had to double, triple check with the lawyers to see whether we were allowed to play this ad on tv. touches out, we are allowed to play it, so, again, i'm going to show it to you. it's coming up broadly tomorrow. we're going to hear it exclusively tonight. this is the world premiere. it's not gory, or upsetting or anything. it's a little -- a little edgy. i think that's the right word. see what you think. watch. is your democracy flaccid? trouble maintaining a strong coalition? tired of a parade of disappointing performances that you might be one of the 330 americans suffering from electile dysfunction. >> i get all excited about -- >> hot and heated. >> we'll move things to the floor. >> and right when we're about to get a resolution -- bam. >> total shutdown. >> capitulation. >> i think maybe this will be different. >> filibuster doesn't make me feel good anymore. >> it's embarrassing, okay? >> fortunately, there's the freedom to vote act. >> freedom to vote act? >> what's the freedom to vote act? >> the freedom to vote act, what does that mean? >> the freedom to vote act ends your tired, floppy by making election day across the country, banning gerrymandering, empowering everyday citizens and healing our democracy. >> now my election is rock solid. and it works everywhere. >> oh, it works everywhere. >> it's safe. >> it used to take me forever to find a location. >> but with ftva we have all day to get to the polls. >> and it only takes two minutes. >> which i prefer, honestly. >> she really does. >> talk to your representative if you're experienced greased palms and dictators neofascists, as you may not be healthy for the ftva. if you experience voting lines that last over four hours as they have not passed the ftva. talk to your senator about the freedom to vote act and demand safer and more satisfying elections today. ♪♪ >> admit it, that's very well done. represent us is a good government group, that anti-connection group. the favorite part is the sad twizzler -- i'll never eat a twizzler again without laughing at it. also, i don't know if you noticed, the subtitles are really funny. must be 18 years or older to vote. ask your doctor if a stable democracy is right for you a peaceful transfer of power is necessary. that one they don't even read. side effects, satisfaction, faith renewed and post-election clarity. talk to your representative if you're experienced greased palms -- you may not be health enough -- it's very good. it's going live tomorrow from represent us trying to keep the pressure on to pass the freedom 0 vote act, to protect the freedom to vote. the that said, the freedom to vote act is not going to passion without democratic senator joe manchin deciding it matters enough to make it happen. to pass reforms and democracy protections like that bill if they're going to get it passed because republicans would not help them do it. senator joe manchin has toyed with the idea of having to do that but doesn't seem positioned to act. you know, in terms of what's going to happen next in washington, they did just pass this big infrastructure bill, right? which is huge. check your local paper to see if your local republican member of congress helped or hurt on that. a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, it's a very big deal. but now that they have done they actually have to do an impossible number of things over the next few days. by next week, they need to vote to fund the federal government. they need to vote to raise the debt ceiling. they need to vote to pass the must pal bill to fund the military. oh, by the way, they need to pass the house and senate, the build back better bill. remember, it's infrastructure and build back better bill today. the build back better bill is the big one, it's the home for the bulk of president biden's economic agenda. this is the bill that house progressives promised it would pass next week, in exchange for votes on infrastructure next friday. how is that promise holding up? how likely is this all to come together in the end. joining me is democratic congressman jayapal who has been a key negotiator in this. congresswoman jayapal, it's great to see you. >> it's great to see you, rachel. >> so what happened with the passage of this bill on friday? we've been talking weeks, if not weeks, that you and others wanting to pass the infrastructure bill and build back better bill together. one went out the other in exchange for a promise. how strong is that promise? >> well, rachel, first of all, five weeks ago, there was no build back better bill. there was no negotiated agreement between the two senators that you mentioned, manchin and sinema, and the white house. and the house there was no text, there was no vote to move the bill forward before the final bill at the end. as you know the progressive caucus stood up strong, not just once, but twice, to make sure that that -- that we didn't pass the infrastructure bill without the build back better bill. and we made a tremendous amount of progress. now, what happened on friday is that we were all set to pass both bills. and at the last minute, there were six democrats who said that they needed more fiscal information from the congressional budget office. and that they needed a little bit more time. and i'll tell you, rachel, our members of the progressive caucus were so strong, they were willing to continue to hold it up, but we had a caucus-wide discussion. and we decided that what we needed to do is show momentum by passing the infrastructure bill but if and only if, we got an absolute rock solid agreement from the six, that they would vote for this bill, as soon as the congressional budget office got that information to them. but no later than next week. and that is the agreement that we finally agreed to. i believe, and i'll tell you, they made a commitment to me, one-on-one. they made a written statement. they also made a commitment to the president that they did not believe that any information would change substantially from what had been already provided and that we would pass the bill next week. you know, negotiation is always tough. but there's a moment where you have to decide whether it's going to get you close enough to what the original prize was. and what was the original prize? it was to pass the build back better act through the house to actually get universal child care, universal pre-k, biggest investment in housing. $500 million investment on taking on climate change. making sure we protect our immigrants, these are major thing, health care, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, these are all things in the build back better act. and, rachel, we're going to get a pass next week. that wouldn't have happened five weeks ago, six weeks ago, if the progressive caucus hadn't stood up strong and said this is what we have to do. >> and there are members who said they wouldn't vote until they got information from the cbo about the cost. is their decision on whether or not to vote for it dependent on what the cbo says that the cost is? if the cbo comes back and says that the cost is "y," instead of "x," is that justification for them to there be not vote for the bill and leave you stranded? >> well, the really good news we got fiscal information in the joint committee on taxation and the white house that actually mapped out that says this is how much it costs, this is what the investments are, this is what the revenue would be. what they said, we just want a few more tables from the cbo actually verifying this information that we got. so, what our agreement, written agreement says, their written statement this says, but as long as it turns out to be approximately ballpark what the white house has already given us, that they will be fine. and if there is a discrepancy, that they will work expeditiously with us to fix that discrepancy. the president committed if there was a discrepancy he would work very quickly with us to fix it and to make sure that we raise the revenue. but, rachel, everyone i've talked to, i don't think we would have made this deal, let me be clear, if we thought there was going to be a discrepancy. edge we have talked to has said that the cbo, you know, whatever the tables are that we're going to get are going to be the same as what the white house has represented the costs and revenue to be. so, i feel confident, and let me say, that we asked the white house multiple times, are you sure that these numbers are going to match up? and they did say, yes, we are very certain of that. and so, i think we're going to be fine. look, i think at the end of the day, sometimes, you just need to make sure that you're not getting so stuck in your promise that you don't see that actually this is now a $2.1 trillion bill. and we're going to have every single one, but perhaps we'll lose one, i'm not sure, but one of the members, voting for this bill, which means we get a very strong vote from across the democratic caucus on this bill to send to the senate. and, again, with all of our progressive priorities that we had articulated almost six months ago. >> washington congresswoman pramila jayapal, chair of the congressional caucus. still very much in the middle of this with extended conversation about the two bills. thank you for staying in this. >> thank you, rachel. >> all right. stay with us. all right stay with us the call came into the vermont secretary of state's office on december 1st. four weeks after election day last year. the man on the phone was apparently fixated on one of the election conspiracy theories pressed by president trump and his allies, the conspiracy theory that voting machines from the company called dominion had been rigged to flip millions of votes from trump to biden and they had stolen the election. this call from the vermont secretary of state back on december 1st was very, very angry about this conspiracy theory. i'm going to actually play you the audio of the voice mail he left there. it is an unpleasant tape. it's disturbing, it's a little bit of scary. if that's not the kind of thing you want to hear right now this is your chance to mute. we're going to play it. the voice mail lasts about 40 seconds, here it is. >> you [ bleep ] this might be a good time to put a [ bleep ] in your mouth and pull the trigger if any part of this [ bleep ] fraud. do you understand? do you realize there's a reason we just brought back the firing squad. no more painless lethal injection. from now on, the firing squad or poison gas. both are torturous deaths. if you blp blp are in on this, let me tell you what, your days are [ bleep ] numbered. >> that was one of three threatening messages like that left for vermont election officials in november and december of last year, all left by the same man. we know that because of detailed reporting from reuters, reporters, according to interviews and records reuters obtained. state police in vermont looking into the matter determined that the number that this guy was calling from was, quote, essentially untraceable. the reporters write, quote, police didn't pursue a case on the grounds that the callers didn't threaten a specific person or indicate a place to act. and police never called him. reuters did. reuters talked to him on the phone number police claimed untraceable. spanning over three days, the man acknowledged the officials and described his thinking. and reuters didn't just speak to that guy, they actually tracked down nine people responsible for making communications targeting election officials, six of them across four different states. all of the nine people reuters tracked down happily owned up to having left the threats. as reuters puts it, quote, most were unrepentant. this is a new piece of remarkable reporting from reuters. but it's the latest in a series they have done, highlighting the increasing extreme harassment and threats of violence that have been directed at even low-level election officials since last year's presidential election. back in june, reuters published a bloodcurdling report on the barrage of physical intimidation directed at election workers. the headline on that episode in the series is trump-inspired death threats are terrorizing election workers." some headline in that piece did not mince words, quote, election officials and their families are living with threats of hanging, firing quads torture and bomb blasts. and reuters is now investigating 800 intimidating messages to election officials in 12 different states including what legal experts say could warrant criminal prosecution because they could put a person in bodily harm or death. troubling, reuters reporting on this issue includes the fact that law enforcement's response to this widespread and intense campaign of intimidation has been really anemic, so the reporters jason and linda decided they would track down the callers themselves, in large part, because police seem to have never bothered. one stay-at-home dad and part-time lyft driver in arizona became convinced that barack obama and george soros had packed ballots boxes with fake ballots. he left messages saying that the secretary of state would hang from a tree. and georgia, saw for rudy giuliani, he left a voice mail for the fulton county director telling him he better rung or he would be hung and face firing squads. a 42-year-old night staffer, worked at a youth treatment center in utah, he said his anger boiled over after he watched an election conspiracy theory event hosted by the my pillow guy mike lindell. he messaged an election official saying i know where you sleep. be afraid. you will die. this is by a real person who is findable, traceable, reuters called them. reuters spoke to nine of these folks, believing they believe they didn't do anything wrong, saying election officials deserve these threats. most of the people reuters spoke to, part of the reason they're so cocky and not running from this, there are no consequences for it. most have never heard from police. even though law enforcement alerted officials about the messages and forwarded them all of the information that reuters is able to find these people. as for the vermont guy, the one police said was untraceable, the vermont guy told reuters journalists that thousands of ballots were cast in arizona, he said members of the media would soon be executed. perpetrators of election fraud would be sent to military prison. and then he started threatening the reuters journalists. they say that he sent dozens of voice mails over the weeks. he left a new threatening voice mail with the vermont secretary of state's office. he said some election staffers and the two reuters reporters were, quote, about to get f'ing popped. but he didn't say f'ing. you would think, surely, there's investigation now, after all of the earlier calls from this vermont guy. police say he's untraceable. reuters found it very easy to trace him. even after they talked to him about the threats, he started up the threats again and then started threatening the reporters as well. it's all documented. the reuters reporters know who the guy is, they've been able to find him. apparently, vermont state police, again, declined to investigate. and the fbi won't say whether they're looking into it. although the bureau did tell reuters it takes such acts seriously. says they work with other law enforcement agencies to, quote, identify and stop any threats to public safety. and, quote, investigate any and all federal violations to the fullest. a nice general, you know, statement of purpose. and this reporting from reuters, again, it's been a series over the last few months, a groundbreaking series and it will be an award-winning series, i'm sure, it has now tipped over into the people they have found of people who waged campaigns of harassment and intimidation of election officials. these folks have turned on the reporters as well. it seems in part for their belief they'll never have consequences for what they're doing. one of the reporters who broke the story is going to join us live next. stay tuned for that. here. new aspercreme arthritis. full prescription-strength? reduces inflammation? thank the gods. don't thank them too soon. kick pain in the aspercreme. a play in three acts. first, june, groundbreaking and bloodcurdling piece from reuters. trump-inspired death threats are terrorizing election workers. but a few months later, reuters followed up with this, u.s. election workers get little help from law enforcement as terror threats mount. and then today, act 3, reuters unmasks trump supporters who terrified u.s. election officials. quote, law enforcement has taken little action as backers of donald trump aim stark threats at election officials. reuters track down nine of the harassers, most were unrepentant. it's a remarkable series from reuters, up and including this new piece today in which the reporters track down and spoke to nine people responsible for quite acutely threatening communications delivered to six election officials across four different state. most of the nine people reuters made contact with didn't seem to care they had been found in particular. most of them, the cops never bothered to speak to. most of them as reuters said, fairly unrepentant here. proud of what they did. it presumably means there's nothing to stop them from continuing to do this thing. joining us is reuters senior editor jason szep who reports this along with his colleague linda so. mr. szep, thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure, rachel. >> my response has been there hasn't been much response from law enforcement even though election officials have handed over to law enforcement in a forceful way. you outline the quite serious case where the vermont state police seem to be completely disinterested. but it seems like that's a pattern that you and your colleagues are able to discover. >> yeah, it surprised us. we reached out, first in june, the doj launched a tank force to gather election threats from the secretary of state offices to local election offices across the country. we kind of did the same thing. we went out and gathered threats from election officials across the country, particularly in the battleground states. then we went through them. we looked at the severity of them. we gathered about 800 of these. we looked at the severity of these and narrowed down, doubled-down the rather severe threat the kind that legal experts say could be prosecuted in court. then we went out to set up to really track down the people who were making these threats. we want to try to understand their motivation. try to understand their thinking. and, you know, when we spoke to them, we were really surprised that, you know, none of them had any contact at all with law enforcement. >> in terms of the gentleman in vermont with whom you spoke, we played a voice mail left at the secretary of state's office, obviously, very threatening. you and your colleagues detail the way that state police explained why they didn't follow that up. it was specifically laid out in your reporting, however that the police also said basically they couldn't find him. that they found that his phone number was untraceable. and that they couldn't locate him. that seemed to be part of at least their initial explanation for why they weren't pursuing this matter, despite how threatening it was, and how alarmed the officials at the vermont secretary of state's office were when they received the threats. did you have to do any magic jujitsu, sherlock holmes work to find this guy, did you know why it was untraceable? >> you know when we did the request to the secretary of state's office, they gave us the threats, they gave us the voice mail. and with that, they gave us the phone number. so, you know, really, all we did is call that number. >> wow. >> and, you know, the individual, when we first contacted him, he was -- he just basically hung up. he swore at us. but then we called him again and again and again. actually, it was only the second time that we called him, he really started opening up to us. and then over the course of a number of days, we spoke with him, in sort of multiple interviews that went on for -- i think in total, we talked three hours, we talked with him. and really got a sense, he wouldn't reveal his identity, his name, but we got a good sense of what was driving him. and he admitted to making the threats. and then, at a certain point, as we discussed in the story, he kind of turned on us as well. >> reuters senior editor jason szep, thank you very much, very much for your time tonight. i hope you that and your colleague linda so will keep reporting on this. i'm sorry it ended up with you two getting threatened by these folks as well. this is crucial reporting and nobody is doing it to the level of detail you that guys are and it's a real service. thank you. >> thank you, rachel. >> we'll be back. stay with us. h us a federal judge tonight just ruled on former president trump's attempt to try to keep documents from his time in the white house out of the hands of the investigation in congress into the attack on the u.s. capitol on january 6th. last month, trump filed a lawsuit against the january 6th investigation, against national archives from handing over trump documents to the investigation. the suit argued those documents were protected by executive privilege and must be shielded from the investigators. well, in reality, the person who actually gets to assert something is protected by executive privilege is not a former president but the current president and president biden's white house counsel office reviewed the documents in question and said no, these are not privileged documents at all. these can be given to the investigation. well, now, just within the past few minutes, the federal judge has issued her ruling on that lawsuit and she has similarly rejected donald trump's attempt to shield these documents from the january 6th investigation in congress. the judge writes quote, the plaintiff does not acknowledge the deference owed and his position he may over ride the pressed will appears to be his executive power exists in perpetuity but presidents are not kings and plaintiff is not president. the judge writes in this ruling tonight it is well within the public's interest congress gets to review the documents. quote, the court holds that the public interest holds permitting the combined will of the legislative and executive branch to study the events and led to and occurred on january 6th and prevent such events from occurring again. again, this ruling says trump's assertion of privilege is bogus and there is a strong and legitimate public interest in the documents being given to the investigation and so they shall go. the documents requested by the investigation include white house call logs and draft documents prepared for trump, handwritten notes from his chief of staff also included in the request which i find very intriguing was supposedly an executive order that was drafted about election integrity, trump was going to try to issue some sort of executive order about the election. what was that? as was expected, trump has filed a notice he intends to appeal the ruling to the d.c. appeals court but barring any movement on that with this ruling from this judge tonight, all those documents, all the documents that the investigation is seeking are now expected to be turned over to the january 6th investigation by the end of this week. by friday. we'll see. we'll be right back. it's time for our veteran's day sale on the sleep number 360 smart bed. what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? no problem, the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing so you both sleep just right. and it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. so, you can really promise better sleep? yes! you'll know exactly how well you slept, night after night. we take care of the science. all you have to do is sleep. save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed. plus, 0% interest for 36 months and free premium delivery when you add a base. ends monday. when traders tell us how to make thinkorswim even better, we listen. like jack. he wanted a streamlined version he could access anywhere, no download necessary. and kim. she wanted to execute a pre-set trade strategy in seconds. so we gave 'em thinkorswim web. because platforms this innovative, aren't just made for traders - they're made by them. thinkorswim trading. from td ameritrade. that's going to do it for us now. recapping the news that just broken in the last few minutes in a 39-page ruling, a federal judge ruled emphatically that former president donald trump cannot block the january 6th investigation from getting his white house documents and records around the january 6th attack on the capitol. he tried to assert executive privilege. the judge rejected that and he tried to claim the demand was overbroad and unrelated to the public interest. the judge shot that down, as well. this ruling coming down just this hour. we will have more ahead undoubtedly, "way too early" is up next. ♪♪ new overnight, a federal judge rejects former president trump's request for block the national archives from releasing documents to the house committee investigating january 6th. the question is where does the legal fight go from here? plus, tensions are on the rise among gop lawmakers over the bipartisan infrastructure bill. the 13 house republicans who voted in favor of the legislation are facing increasing criticism from members of their own party. the question is, will they be stripped of their committee assignments? and green bay quarterback aaron rodgers admits he mislead