now. >> good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes, roger stone, longtime infinite republican -- dirty's trickster, dating all the way back to the richard administration. he likes richard nixon so much, she's got a tattoo of nixon on his back. still also, notoriously is donald trump's longtime associate, ally, henchmen, and fixer. which is why in 2019, stone was convicted of seven felony counts, stemming from the russian investigation, including, obstruction investigation lying to investigators and witness tampering. that then only resulted in president trump committee with his sentence, in 2020. just in time for stone to help plan the january 6th insurrection, stone appeared at multiple stop to steal events. in the days leading up to the attack. and just this even he was subpoenaed by the bipartisan house committee investigating the insurrection. according to the subpoena, quote, you reportedly spoke on january 5th a rallies that the u.s. supreme court, held by a group affiliated with the right wing of the c three percenters at the freedom plaza. while in washington, you reportedly use members at the oath keepers and personally security, guard several of them were reportedly involved in the attack on the u.s. capitol. you and stated that you -- the ellipse rally on january 6th did not end up doing so or end up going to the electorally or the capitol that day. the ellipse charlie of course was that rally that took place right before the mob descended upon the capital. and i is where donald trump spoke, and it went up to the, crowd and told them to march on to the capital. and the statement, john denied any advance knowledge in his planning. he said, he has not and been served in a subpoena, but he is just one of five trump adjacent targets of subpoenas today. they also want to hear from, alex jones. the disgrace right conspiracy theories who just lost a defamation lawsuit over his allegations of the sandy hook shooting. he was sued by family members of those who were killed. >> jones repeatedly promoted his bogus lie of election fraud leaving on to the insurrection, including on the night of january 5th for he said this. >> we have [inaudible] . we have only begun our fight against the [inaudible] . they will try to steal the election and -- i would tell them again, if they want to fight they better believe that the -- >> real kind of form and content merger there with some kind of unsettling historical residences. according to john subpoena, quote, the white house told you about january 30, 2020, one that after the ellipse rally, ended on january six, you were to lead a march to capital. where president trump would meet the. group you did in fact march from the lipstick capital. the committee is also subpoenaed to people who we have not really heard that much. about dustin stockon, and jennifer lawrence. a couple who are heavily involved in a number of stop the steal rally, and who political once called, the bonnie and clyde of monger. world according to both subpoenas the couple have planned the trump rally, i stockton, subpoena also include that he was with them that he wanted to warn the white house about the possible danger of the stop the steal march in the capital. he said, quote, you were reportedly concerned about the planned by the stop the steal movement to organize an permitted march that would reach the steps of the capital as -- in a statement the couple said they are committed to transparency. finally the committee wants to hear from trump world associated taylor, who currently serves as communications director. according to his subpoena, he offered an organization for $200,000 from an undisclosed source to plan social media and radio advertisement for the stop the steal rally at the ellipse on january six. now, roger stone are notorious trolls. they are notorious figures. they have built their brands off their offense. there are willingness to devise on what's perceived to be there -- the extent of their cooperations investigation truly remains to be seen especially for steve manning, who is a similar kind of guy. has been criminally indictment for congress, refusing to appear before the committee and turn over documents. now the committee is warning that they are going to try to do the same with former chief of staff, mark meadows, who are so far defied the committee subpoena. today subpoenas make clear of the significant number and trump's oregon, and they were aware that something was going to happen after that january 6th rally by donald trump. question is one. >> joining me now to reporters who have been doing stella reporting on the events, surrounding january six, and the investigation turned only underway. bedroom would will swan, and loop of the new york times. >> betsy let me start with you on stone. i remember maybe recalling, this but i think stop the steal was a phrase that stone was using in the run up to the 2016 election sort of prophylactically to discredit and anticipated hillary clinton win. and that has carried over, and that was really central to the stop the steal drunk beat in 2020. and always around the kind of orbit of trump. how do you, i mean i guess you're not surprised, but how would you characterize his role as we know with so far? >> it is a good question, stone is part of this constellation of's far-right media personalities who sort of feed off of the notoriety d that they experience and are always in fattah kabul in terms of pressed revealing the actual activity. they have engaged in over the course of their professional lives. of course, stone, alex jones is in this category, steve bannon is in this category to your point. there are people who are not formally part of trump's companies or part of his campaigns, or his administration that he. ron but that are close enough by association that they can engage in activities that moves about forward for trump without necessarily cruising backlash for him by virtue of being part of the administration itself or part of the campaign itself. and that is why the stop the steal term is something that fits so seamlessly into what trump in self witching. it was a term that was helpful for roger stone to, use that he and ali i've examined really promoted and pushed up there as the same cap chalet shun of what was going, wrong and what's needed to be done. and it was very easy for trump to adopt because perhaps more than anybody, else roger stone is fluid in trump, and he knows how to reduce slogans and commentary into his vernacular. >> look, i was also reminded by these subpoenas. i remember the time seeing alex jones crop. up he was someone that, i get, in that circle i had forgotten how present he was actually. until i read the subpoenas. and i thought that bit about how the subpoena says that he was told by the white house to leave the, march which, you had been reporting on this so closely. is that new information? do we know that already about that allegation, at least stipulated in the subpoena letter? >> well the january six committee has certainly put a highlighter right across that it is actually something alex jones says on his whatever you call it internet show the day after the attack on the capitol. he is out there he is claiming antifa do climbing all sorts of conspiracy theories. but he says this in the sort of long rant that the white house contacted him three days before january six. told him to lead a march on the capitol, he said the secret service would show him where to go. and that trump would tell the crowd to go to the capitol and i'll meet you there. now trump in fact does tell the crowd to march to the capitol, he does promise to meet them. he tells them to fight like hell. and then he doesn't show up. but alex jones does make the march long, and so the committee obviously has been doing a good thing of listening not only to steve bannon's podcast but alex joneses. and they're picking up on these details that people are saying out in public. but it takes some unearthing to dig up the sort of piece together where you can sort of put all the puddle together the way the committee wants to lead to the conclusion of what happened on january six. >> that is a great point. that sort of hiding in plain sight aspect which we have seen at the lower level, and the people who have been indicted the hundreds and hundreds of arrests. many who have been documenting what they have done on social media. confessed to what they've done on social media. and then they just have to go and find the. stuff which is not being used in evidence against them. but it wasn't just like the january 6th rally. or even the plan to go to the capital, let's see what, they were particular private as they said they were going to march down to the capitol and i'm going to come to you and you are going to fight like hell. we all saw that happen. at least two people who were involved in the planning of that rally, and jennifer lawrence, not that jennifer, lawrence i want to play a little stockton at that january 5th stop the steal rally just to get a sense for him, take a listen. obviously, we know what's gonna happen at the capitol. we need these legislators to do the right thing. we need them to look at the evidence that this election was stolen, then do the right thing. if the votes don't count, nothing counts. we will try to give you time -- you guys real time updates what's going in the capital, if it goes to the supreme court and where we need people to be. >> i thought the last line, betsy was pretty striking given this subpoena where we need people to be in realtime can you update? >> so many of the comments people made on january 5th and january 6th operate as a rorschach test. people can say i didn't call for things to go to the capital, they didn't engage in violence. they're indicted in the subpoena telling people as the attack unfolded not to engage in violence because it was colluding with the globalists, or something to that effect. when you have a massive crowd of people who are extremely exercised, and you make comments like that one, the big question is, what did you think was going to happen? another big question is, why didn't trump go to the capital building? a third big question is specifically, what's going on with the involvement in the committee? we reported a couple months ago he answered questions from investigators there, clearly they are not satisfied with everything because they issued a subpoena. what's the back story there is something we're gonna try to do closely. one last thing out of the bag of subpoenas to the roar just or point is it highlighted the fact that a guest host on alec jones's radio host on september 31st, explicitly talked about people going into the capital noting itself. you cannot organize a rally secretly, and you can't plan these type of margin secretly. it all has to be over. that's why they are doing this to bring together these massive trenches and hours of video to put it into one place and process and make sense of it. it's a relative, or even though some of it is stuff that is technically public already. >> on the stockton issue and betsy's point there, they say you are kind of a whistle blower a. together with miss kramer, you escalated your shared concerns and liaison and she's been subpoenaed as well. there is a stipulation in the supreme -- subpoena letter that he was concerned and freaked out trying to get the windows to do something, which again, seems new to me. >> well, right. i believe he made those comments in the political magazine article and he is one of the people planning this rally and sees they are gonna bring all these people to the capital and you know some of them will be very angry based on what they're told and he gets kind of worried and says we probably need some better security, can we get this up to this chief of staff, mark meadows? there is a number of people that day who do say things about going down the violence and even alex jones as betsy points out says, be peaceful and then he's also directing them to the west side of the capital where the rest of the violence breaks out so it is a bit of both, they are doing things to escalate tensions, to spread lies, fear, anger and then they also say but don't go too far so it is a lot of walking people right up to the line and then seeing what happens you'll there is a kind of plausible deniability app expect that hangs over all of this. intelligence agencies will run an operation that they want to have plausible deniability, and they never authorized that you could go do that job and there's a feeling to that like none of the connections are quite, there there is no order giving like ghost storming the capital but there's a lot of stuff encouraged at arms length that maybe you could possibly deny but we also saw one plus one equaling to in realtime. thank you both for being here. >> thank you >> coming up has tucker carlson even gone too far, the breaking point for two people we're reporting more. after this more. after this full prescription-strength? reduces inflammation? thank the gods. don't thank them too soon. kick pain in the aspercreme. congresswoman cheney, there is talk congresswoman cheney, there is talk now, and now that talk, that january six was january 6th was a false flag a false operation. flag operation that it was and was a case a case of of liberals. liberals in the deep state setting up conservatives and trump supporters. is there any truth to that? none at all. it's the same kind of thing that you hear from people who say that 9/11 was an inside job for example. it is un-american. to be spreading those kinds of lies, their lies. >> the sunday after tucker carlson's crazy special suggesting the january 6th attack was a false flag operation staged by the government, his fellow fox news host, invited the january 6th select committee, to ask her if that was true and at the time that it appeared it was a little bit of a dig at its colleague it was pretty obviously that, we are now learning that there's a little bit more to. it they say that the veteran figures on fox news side, including burn chris wallace, shared their objections about the tucker carlson, false flag special, and its president of news jay wallace. but nothing happened. now to news commentators, pointing to the conspiracy thick special at the breaking point, they he, is the media correspondent to the npr needs, and he joins me now david, what can you tell me about the reaction inside -- i have to say people when the trailer came out, and then when the actual thing, people thought well this is galling. and it just, you know beyond the pale, it seems like it was a reaction that some people happy inside the building. >> not just a handful either. i think that there was a growing sentiment among people on the news side and not exclusively the news side that this was different. and that this was dangerous. what tucker carlson was doing was in the sense gathering up a lot of the strength that he had amplified or touched on in his various broadcast since the january 6th siege of the u.s. capital. and tied it together in a narrative. giving credence to every claim allegation, characterization and conspiracy theory. saying that he had run across in further incidents of undercutting both the seriousness of what occurred on january six. and also the connection of trump supporters and anyone in sort of the larger trump circle with what happened on that day. and what led up to it. and there had already been, not just hand-wringing, but angst and acrimony internally about the role that some fox opinion personalities played in fueling that led to, not just the so-called stop the steal rally on that day, but were followed. but in terms of carlson's claiming that there was perhaps false flag elements that there were protesters there that are anti trump fueling this cleary pro trump movement. despite what arrested pro trump supporters said about thei involment that day, you know, really was shocking talking to people. they said these are people we do not give credence to on fox news programs and they also said that these are things that our own reportings have already disapproved. but i will say that, part of it too is that there is a broader thing happening here, which is that that show is really vile. and that the vile in the way that is distinctive qualitatively from other things on the network. and other things that they have done before. and it's clearly the focus of internal dissent. more broadly than just this instance, that is happening inside and getting nowhere. it is my take away from your report. >> well one of the questions i asked, the two commentators, conservative anti trump who resigned steve hayes, and jonah goldberg. it is why is this? after all the lies that were propagated on news about the idea that the president biden somehow won. about all the incinerate rhetoric that i mentioned about the one six each. about the claims about the siege itself, and in fact all the rhetoric that we had seen living up to this election. the rhetoric about president obama. why is this? it's the straw that broke the camel's back. and it was too much for them to abide anymore that they conceive that they were somehow offering a counter argument to convince people. it wasn't happening anymore. and here's what else they argued. they acknowledged what you and i can see from the outside. that opinion is the point to fox news. the word news in the title is not the reason why they really make money. it's not the reason people gravitate towards them. that's not the point of the enterprise. it's not the engine that drives them or the profit. an opinion has become so big. and also, tucker carlson, and pro trump sentiment has become so sprawling that the top executive seem to feel they cannot control. and i think that is what you are seeing right now in fox news. in a sense, you don't have, you know roger ailes prove to be a sexual predator. on the other hand, he never let a figure at fox get bigger than the network. and we saw that when he essentially -- he did kind of back front from the network. >> that is true. and we should note also here as a matter of public record, the knackered's own lawyers argued successfully in court that the host, in showing question, tucker carlson, is not news. and should not be believed. and that essentially that is so over the top that if you believe it you are essentially a sucker like buyer of the word. this is essentially they use this to defend against a claim of slander, and i think that it is noteworthy that that has been deployed successfully about what the networks own official legal status of what comes out of that show is. >> you know lawyers will occasionally, say that is very usual defense to have, but they needed in the case of some of these more importance programs and making more wild outrageous and untrue claims. in the case of tucker carlson, what you are not hearing is the network defending him. or defend the facts. i have asked the question numerous times about this and other claims. and they have just pointed back to carlson's own claims. they have not stood by it. a news organization even an opinion laden news organization should be able to defend the factual basis of what it presents even when it is strongly opinionated. and foxes are doing it here. because they have already, in a sense, have their own new size undercut any foundation for making this claim credibly with a straight face. carlson, it would, appeared doesn't care. he is interested in scoring points, he is interested in the former presidents critics. and he is interested in particularly getting in a back and forth with the rest of the media so that it has all open for debate. he is also interested in cashing the millions of dollars and checks. david folkenflik, thank you very much. >> you bet. >> next is the white celebrate acquittal with the growing obsession of the vigilante justice is an active threat to american society. we'll come back with, that just ahead. jus ahead. don't think so. this black friday... get the amazing iphone 13 pro when you trade in your old or damaged phone. you break it. we upgrade it. you mistletoe it. champagne flow it. angel snow it. we upgrade it. whether you're a current customer or a new one. get iphone 13 pro on us. and, up to $800 to help cover your costs to switch. because everyone deserves better. you may have seen there was a concerted piston airs today reported all up across -- the american press. headlines were similar. the united states was listed as the first time as a backsliding democracy. they're referred to the u.s. as the washington post tried to put this picture up. that day is the most striking -- of our backslide. something we document often hear, one faction on the american right is giving up some of the basic tenants of liberal democracy. they are given up on the rule of law in the nine violent rule of so -- this dark violet moments have always flourished throughout our history. the lynching of black americans throughout the 19th and 20th century as one example. the redeemer's in the south after reconstruction. first on vigilantes and other types of violence are not alien to us they are part of our traditions but they're the opposite of our best traditions and better angels of our nature. we are seeing enthusiasm so kind of that model among some of the far-right growing. cher will to power. we have collective self governance and these are inevitable. battles between world views, nonviolently mediating by a shared institution mediating by shared institution kyle rittenhouse represents. last summer kyle rittenhouse the person or the child in the eyes of the law did something indefensibly stupid and reckless and went to a protest and the aftermath of police -- e he has done literally irreparable harm to those three families. irreparable harm. and last week, he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. and the same people have been casting aspersion on our institutional safeguards, like the prosecution of the january 6th insurrection, so now turn around and champing that jury and their decision. now, independent want anybody may think about the verdict, the idea that culbertson health in any way a victim, a martyr, or god forbid the hero's deranged and despicable. and the idea is also an expression of what is fundamentally vigilante ethos. one that is totally incompatible with the help the liberal democracy. and this is view of rittenhouse is not just coming from the fringes, it comes all the way from the far-right to the punitively more moderate center of the republican party. >> what a beautiful thing huh? not guilty on all counts. kyle rittenhouse did not deserve the ordeal that he went through, but he certainly deserved today's verdict. >> for me, the defining aspect of kyle rittenhouse is not his tears. it's in fact it is unbelievable bravery. if i was on the jury i would not acquit him i'd give the kid a medal. >> he was not guilty, he shouldn't have been indicted, and we should not move forward and i hope that everyone will leave this young man alone now and let him go to living his life. i am so proud of the jury and the jury system because it gave kyle rittenhouse a chance that all these other talking heads on television didn't give a damn convicted along time ago. >> that of course former governor of new jersey, chris christie, praising the jury that acquitted call rittenhouse. and also buying into the broader notion that the prosecuted, and getting acquitted was itself some sort of violation of his rights. after he killed two people. let's be very clear here. kyle rittenhouse got a lot more process than most people in the criminal justice system do. i mean a lot more. here is one example that comes to mind. in some senses a parallel. example, it's the case of a left-wing antifa member. who shot and killed a far-right trump supporter named aaron danielson on the streets of portland, oregon last summer. horrible thing. and this was during the protests in that city sparked by the police killing of george floyd. and a few days after that killing, members of the u.s. marshal task force located the shooter. 48 year old michael reinoehl. north of portland and quote unleashed a hail of bullets that left him dead in the streets. we have covered this before the new york times investigating the incident and learn details that raised questions about whether law enforcement officers made any serious attempt to arrest him before killing him. then president donald trump even bragged about what's seems to have essentially been, again, as we can tell from the evidence assembled by that investigatory team at the time, i'm from talking to light witnesses, seem to have been in donald trump's understanding, and possibly reality, an extra judicial killings. >> the u.s. marshals one in to get him and in a short period of time they ended in a gunfight. this guy was a violent criminal. and the u.s. marshals killed him. and i will tell you something, that is the way it has to be. there has to be retribution when you have crime like this. >> there has to be retribution when you have crime like this. this idea of retribution, meaning violence with violence of essentially vigilante justice. in this case back by the states is embodied by donald trump's worldview and his followers. and it is unraveling this country just look at the spectacle around kyle rittenhouse. the grotesque carnival atmosphere celebration for a teenager who took a weapon of war to a protests and shot three people killing two rendering a child an orphan, fatherless. it was an act of stunning stupidity recklessness and prodation, and yet the rioters turn, kyle rittenhouse into a call celeb. and the entirety of kyle rittenhosue and his supporters is exactly what is producing our democratic decline. so noted by the stockholm based think tank. that view, the celebration of a world in which vigilante justice is how society should look is a view that poses an extension threat to what we cherish about this country, and it must be defeated. don't just put on a light show—be the light show. make your nights anything but silent. and ride in a sleigh that really slays. because in a cadillac, tradition is yours to define. so visit a cadillac showroom, and start celebrating today. ♪ ♪ there is often the case in the american criminal justice system that you get as much process as you can afford. the call rittenhouse backed by his legions of supporters can afford a lot. here is paul butler notes that covered in house had a 2 million dollar defense fund, that bottom may first cost defend. that's fun defend fun enabled his lawyers, before the trial to stage a separate practice. it also -- butler reminds us it is not the same situation in another high profile trial that we are watching against the three man for murder in georgia after they killed ahmed arbery as he jogged through their neighborhood. joining me now is paul butler, joining us from the washington post, also the criminal law at georgia university, and heather mcgee, the racial justice organization and the author of the great, the son of us with racism cost everyone and how we could prosper together. something that i think everyone should read, if they get the chance. paul, let me start with you because i think that the point that you made in that piece was really important and i think overlooked here, in the broader context of the criminal justice system and how it tends to operate which is that he had a very high price defense and you could see it in the trial. >> mr. rittenhouse beat his case because he has the best defense money can buy, that 2 million dollar plus legal defense fun allowed his lawyers to use o.j. simpson's jury consultant. and they got the same not guilty verdict. i would expect rittenhouse to denounce that he would spend this time looking for the real killer. we already know. he is the real killer. all of that money also helped rittenhouse hold to practice jury trials that paid off with this well rehearsed testimony. when he took the stand, most criminal defendants don't have those road resources. and wouldn't houston either but for people like donald trump and for matt gates, back in them as cheerleaders for a man who gunned down people. >> heather, there is something really that i find, and again, i guess i'm never surprised by the depths that we sink to, but there is something truly dark an awful about the celebration. i think that there are people out there who think, while he was not guilty in a sort of tactical legal sense or he shouldn't have been held guilty. but there's another thing to go from that to celebration of what this person did. and that is a sort of mainstream view among the enormous class of political immediately there. ship which is incredibly dark and both what it says, and what mitch event. >> that is exactly right, what we are seeing right now is self interested leads and adding billions of dollars broadly in the media and social media and in politics. and they are trying to teach americans to think of themselves as white to reject democracy in the rule of law. to reject the sort of common norms. if they have to share democracy with the americans of color. there is a lot of evidence about that. but as we think about this, evidence that we keep seeing stuck up, right the backsliding that you spoke about at the top, as you think about all this evidence, my question has been throughout our history, who wins when democracy is defeated. who wins when property owners rights are held above the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyday people, right? it is always the self interested elites who are just buying right now for the hearts and minds for white americans, and they are saying reject democracy, and the problem is chris, they are winning in the republican party? the study shows that the majority of republicans think that the traditional american way is disappearing so fight because of demographic change. that money use forces to change. it the idea that patriotic may have to take the launch of their own. hands and the study was done in the field before the big lie became the sort of common sense on the human. right >> you have to take matters into your own hand. and what is strange about this moment to, i have to say paul, i have read some of your writing you have a credible essay in your times as a prosecutor and what you think about prosecutions in the way of how criminal justice works. and again that is great, where people should be that when they get the. chance and what i think is that when you come up in the left in the progressive, your particularly thought to be critical in the structural equities that they can promote. and the way that they can serve as a kind of force for maintaining inequality. but also, at the same time, you want them to be better. and there is this kind of nihilistic desire to just go around them. now that i stay on the. right that is really scary, right? don't go out into the street with their gun. is a really dangerous message about what it means to live in a society with other people. >> yes, and chris, this verdict does not mean that the jurors bought the boy scout image of rittenhouse that the defense presented that he was testifying in kenosha to help anybody. the verdict means that they have reasonable doubt, they were 95% certain that rittenhouse was guilty. but i can't imagine that those jurors will live in kenosha are happy about and reckless 17 year old bringing an assault salt weapon to patrol their streets. now wouldn't house will be the poster child, whether he deserves it or not. wants -- to take the law into their own hands, who wants to bring assault weapons to black lives matters protests. and who think that violence is a legitimate form a political discourse. >> yes, and that part about it is what kind of society we are going to live in and how we are going to be able to talk to each other, and what we can do together is incredibly imperiled by the appearance of a person holding a gun like that, in a public space. it is just the other part of this that i find so troubling. >> that is, right it's the second amendment overall other rights including the first one. the freedom of speech. the freedom of assembly. the freedom to protest. the freedom to raise your voice against state violence. which is what people were doing in kenosha. you know, this is a core question. are we going to have a multi racial democracy in this country or are we going to have a country where you are banning history in 12 states? where you are banning protests, where you are making a permissible for people to drive through protests. this is all laws that are being put in place in states across the country, as i just spoke about. with the cheerleading of the republican party. because they see it as their path to minority rules. but the thing, is that people don't have to despair this is a very scary conversation. i want to make clear that people can make sure that we passed the freedom to vote act in this country. that we make sure that minority rule is not our future for the next three generations. and that it's actually on the line right now. 150 democracy scholars put in a letter today in congress that was very well covered. i think that this is sort of a twilight moment for american democracy, -- >> put paul butler, and heather mcghee, i thank you both for talking to. you coming up why president biden's decision to keep trump appointee as the chair, important steps that he could take in the economic recovery. i'll talk to -- about it next. t it next. it's the ultimate sleep number event on the sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to relieve pressure points. and its temperature balancing so you both sleep just right. save 50% on the new sleep number 360® limited edition smart bed. plus, free premium delivery when you add a base. ends monday. facing expensive vitamin c creams with dull results? olay brightens it up with new olay vitamin c. gives you two times brighter skin. hydrates better than the $400 cream. my hygienist cleans with a round head. so does my oral-b my hygienist personalizes my cleaning. so does my oral-b oral-b delivers the wow of a professional clean feel every day. ♪ ♪ xfinity rewards are our way of thanking you just for being with us. ♪ ♪ enjoy rewards like movie night specials. xfinity mobile benefits. exclusive experiences, like the chance to win tickets to see watch what happens live. andy cohen: hey! it's me! and tasty recipes from bravo's top chef cheftestants that'll have you cooking like a pro. the longer you've been with us... the more rewards you can get. join for free on the xfinity app some will no doubt question why our thanks. your rewards. marino maintaining jet, the choice of a republican predecessor. why might up again democrat? why may not picking fresh blood? we are taking the fed in a different direction. put directly, at this moment, both of them -- enormous potential for our economy, we need stability in independence of the federal reserve. jay has proven the independence that i value in the fed chair. >> president joe biden today renominated jerome powell for chairman of the federal reserve and -- u.s. monetary policy through a once in the century global pandemic. all eyes are on biden's pick because the fed chair is in charge of the central bank, which uses monetary policy to try to keep prices low. that means relation, low the economy stable, and unemployment levels up. right now, the pandemic has created a ton of lingering economic uncertainty, including, the largest inflation in over 30 years. many consider -- reelecting -- continuity in hard to. -- we he joins me now. i'm curious to know your points on powell because epstein arguments in 1 million different directions about whether this was the right way to go. what do you think? >> it's interesting the choice between the monetary david thinks inflation is probably transitory and is reluctant to raise rates and the monetary dove who thinks inflation is probably -- there wasn't much air between jay powell and leo blaine nerd who was the other likely choice on this in terms of the issues that seem likely right now just doesn't look like there's a big deal. powell is a republican, or was and he not now but in terms of his actual policy stance he is pretty much in line with a lot of the democratic party and it's not clear there was a crucial policy issue at stake biden probably just didn't want to fight on this front -- >> the question is what the fed does and we should divided the different rules on the monetary front terms of rate and more extraordinary means, asset percentages and bonds things like that what's the fed's done has been aggressive and i think people who are in the dovish category, you would be in that category and i would count myself there as well and people believe full employment is great as a justice issue and working people in this country and it's been good, that's the general feeling. >> you came close to a financial meltdown in march of last year and power through an enormous amount of money and he responded aggressively and he's been in a camp that says inflation might be a problem but let's not rush, we made that mistake too often of choking off an economic recovery before it gets a chance to improve peoples life so i think it's hard for anybody to have a complaint there. he does have industry the fed regulates the bank in plays a role on other fronts and cow has not always been what the people on the center left would've wanted there, but it's not clear that that is really what is crucial now and that powell is still the person who was a little bit slower on that front then you saw ten years ago >> elizabeth warren came out and said i will vote against him and then cites this is failure and regulation crime a regulatory role. there's also the question about what's next? this big thing we have inflation, it's hot the highest it's been in 30 years and people don't like it there's a certain amount of whipping up into a frenzy about the media what they're doing and people can tell when things cost more and they don't like it and there's a huge question of if it persists and what the fed does about it so how are you thinking here nicole? >> this is very different the inflation from ten years ago were clearly silly but now this is a tougher one and the best bet still, we have not in fact had massive spending in this economy spending hasn't been so high in terms of past -- insignificant warehouse space and also the great resignation where a lot of people are reluctant to go back to jobs and nobody knows how long that will last and there's the risk that inflation can become indented and it would be hard to get rid of an on the other hand there's a risk that the american rescue plan and the big spending is receding in the rearview mirror now in a few see you might be tightening the adjustment where the economy starts to falter and you want people who are alert and willing and the odds are saying what was that about next year and we don't know that but you want smart people at the fed who are alert to the possibilities. >> that is the bullish case that the wall street journal was noting that some of the supply chain issues are on winding and we seen price races across the country and getting big investment announcements about superconductor factories in the u.s. and the standard of macroeconomic here is that the man should lead to more issues and we've seen productive capacity and supply, increase and we are seeing an example of that. i share that hope and no one really cares what i think pau's gonna matter and it's good to have you on tonight and have a good one. >> that is all in on this monday night. >> everybody cares what you think, chris. >> i'm giving the chris hayes house view -- >> it's the only one i've listened to. come on, don't sell your stuff short. >> all right, thank you for helping us this hour. good to have you here. shot guns are legal, sawed off shotguns or not legal. the national firearms act of 1934 put in place new federal rules in 1994 against owning big classes of weapons and weapon accessories weapon accessories to be associated with serious crime. so that 1934 law included things like machine guns and silencers and sawed-off shotguns. and now just because i said that small sequence of sentences, all the gun people are now going to write me really pedantic misspelled threatening letters telling me that i've explained this in a way that they do not like. i welcome your hate mail. bring it on.ot but, frankly, the bottom line truth for most americans is that for 87 freaking years now u.s. law says you can't have a sawed-off shotgun. you cannot shorten the barrel of your shotgun to be 18 inches or less.ot because crime. but this being the united states of america, in which we are not really allowed to have ,