the record setting pace of covid positive patients. we speak with one hospital leader who is getting help from military medical workers being dispatched by the white house. welcome to "meet the press daily". i'm chuck todd. we're awaiting remarks from the president. touting pieces of the bipartisan infrastructure bill that he signed into law 60 days ago while given an update on the how the billion is being put to use. these remarks will cap off a decidedly bad week for the administration. also bad time to have a bad week. his voting rights agenda appears to be on capitol hill after. the spite a presidential visit to the capitol and a meeting with sinema last night at the white house. the plan to hold the vote on the senate on the issue likely to fail anyway before monday's self-imposed mlk deadline has been delayed because of democratic a senator's positive test for covid. he says to isolate and democrats without a majority, they would meet on the senate floor in order to potentially pull off the votes. it puts the president and the party in an awkward position to have to wait and wait to possibly fail. are they going to do the votes next week on the one-year anniversary of the president putting a spotlight on their inability to get this done? i have my doubts. the president's efforts and campaign promises to defeat the virus have run into trouble after the supreme court ruled the testing mandates for big companies was unconstitutional. that was a separate ruling for hospitals who take -- wherever federal dollars go and tailor mandates that way. a n a statement the white house signalled a bit of a resignation saying biden will use his voice as president to advocate for employer mandates. dogging the administration this week, inflation rising at a pace not seen in 40 years. the low presidential ratings that come with it. the uncertainty that lies ahead for the president and the party is the midterm season approaches. carol lee is at the white house for us with the latest on the biden administration. jake ward is talking to businesses in the bay area about how they're dealing with the vaccine mandate decision. and also with us for more on where vaccine mandates go, a professor at case western university's law school and medical school. carol, let me start with you. i hesitate to use the lipstick on a pig metaphor. they've had a rough week. they're trying to tout something that a lot of people say hey, how come you don't tout this more? well, they're touting it today. tell us about it, carol. >> in terms of the president's infrastructure bill, is that what you mean? >> yes, i do. >> yes. well, look, this is part of -- i talked to democrats who are frustrated with the white house because they say they're not telling their own story enough and not touting their accomplishments enough. and i think that's part of why you're seeing the president come out and try to showcase what is really his signature achievement and he's doing it after having a series of setbacks. and not just with build back better. at the end of last year, but now with voting rights and what's happened is that particularly with voting rights, it's turned into a situation where it's really put a spotlight on the fighting within the party. and that's not a place where the white house wants to be, particularly heading into the midterm elections. i thought it was really interesting that the readout of the president's meeting with senators manchin and sinema said they had a candid exchange of views. that sounded very much like you would talk about a bilat with a foreign leader that you're having a little disagreements with. and so that really underscores where they are right now in terms of with democrats on the hill and the president's trying to figure out a way to turn that around. our reporting today shows that they are looking at reviving build back better in some form. maybe splitting it up into two pieces. maybe scaling it back. they're looking at policing executive orders as soon as potentially this month. the president signing those. that's obviously a play to the president's base who has been really frustrated with him, particularly black voter who is are looking for him to deliver on some of the promises. and we saw this week that he failed with voting rights. he failed with policing reform last year. and so now he's trying to really just reset and all of this is happening ahead of him delivering the state of the union in march. >> carol, do you -- what is the likelihood that they do the senate does try to go forward with these votes next week? again, they already had one week where they're shining the spotlight on democratic disunity and almost stirring up passions of democrats attacking democrats which seems like such a wasted set of energy. if they bring this back next week on biden's one-year inaugural anniversary, they want to spend a second week highlighting the dwis within the party? >> the white house doesn't want to do that, and especially as you noted, not on the president's one-year anniversary. it's not a position they ever really wanted to find themselves in. but, again, he was under so much pressure to try to do something, and so once again, he stuck his neck out through his -- he gave the big speech several days ago. and it didn't work out for him. so they don't want to have another spotlight on the fact that democrats are not united on certain issues. at the same time, the president needs to do something with all the pressure he's under from his base. >> speaking of the president, here he is right now about to deliver remarks on his agenda. >> things we haven't gotten done. we're going to get a lot of them done, i might add. but this is something we did get done. and it's of enormous consequence to the country. one of the reasons i put mitch in charge of implementing the infrastructure bill is because he gets it. he's a former mayor who knows that the real measure of success is not partisan points. it's did we fix the problem. did we fix the problem? this is all about fixing the problem. i ran for president to unite the country. this bipartisan infrastructure law i signed a few months ago you nights us around things we all depend on whether in rural kentucky or downtown philadelphia. you should be able to turn on a faucet and drink clean water. students should be able to get the internet if they need it to do their homework at home instead of having to drive to a fast food parking lot. people need good jobs. mitch told me about the man he met in jackson, mississippi who told him, quote, i don't mind working three jobs. i just don't want one paycheck across all three jobs. you know, we've heard and said talent is equally distributed. but opportunity is not. when we invest in infrastructure, we're really investing in opportunity. these are investments that will build a better america. it sounds like hyperbole, but it's real. today i want to talk about the progress we've made in the two months since i signed the bill into law and to make a big announcement as well. here's some of what we've done so far. the department of transportation has released nearly $53 billion, billion dollars, to states to modernize highways. so you have to leave 30 minutes earlier to get to work just because of a traffic jam. that's going to be fixed. we announced more than 240 million in grants to improve ports in 19 states. to speed up and strengthen our supply chains, lower cost, and get you the things you need more quickly. we've announced $3 billion for over 3,000 airports around the country to make the more modern safe, and sustainable. and we're kicking off the largest investment in affordable reliable high speed internet in our nation's history. $65 billion to get to every corner of our country connected, urban, rural, and suburban. our infrastructure work also protects health, cleans up the environment and helps us fight climate change. across this country, people have been struck and they've been struck by all the changes that are needed. they have stuck -- they're angered by the broken water systems. polluted water from the faucets, raw sewage in their backyards. i see you. we hear you. we understand. and i've seen and we understand the damage done in places like flint, michigan and jackson, mississippi. so we've already announced over $7 billion in clean water funding to states so they can fix and upgrade the aging water and sewer systems. it's going to take time, but they're getting the money. our children deserve no less. we've released an action plan to replace all the lead pipes in the next decade. this is the united states of america. everyone in this country should be able to turn on the faucet and drink clean water. it's time to get back to cleaning up hazardous waste sites that poison our land and water and have stricken communities. and getting back to holding polluters accountable. the environmental protection agency announced $1 billion to clean up 49 super fund sites in 24 states. we're talking about cleaning up rivers in ohio, chemical plants and sites in florida, polluted lakes in michigan and many more. this is long overdue. we have to stick with it. the department of interior is launching a program to cap and plug orphaned wells that are dangerous. many are in south western pennsylvania and eastern ohio. but there are hundreds of thousands of them across the nation. capping them is going to create quality jobs. just as it took to dig the well, union jobs, union jobs to close the well. to keep it safe. one of the ways we're going to reach my goal of 100% carbon pollution free electricity by 2025 is with wind energy. i visited one of the renewable energy labs in colorado about a month ago and saw technologies being developed there. and just this week the department of interior announced the largest ever offshore wind lease sale. it could generate enough clean energy to power nearly 2 million homes and create thousands of jobs in manufacturing, construction, operations and maintenance. it's just the beginning. jobs that can't be outsourced. we've also seen the impact of extreme weather. taking down transmissions lines. leaving cities and communities dark for weeks. so the department of energy launched a new initiative to speed up our efforts to strengthen our energy grid with new and upgraded transmission lines and towers keeping the lines flowing for americans with cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy. that's going to happen. it's going to make a big difference. i also want to be clear. we're in this to win. and there's a lot of work underway. it's going to create a whole lot of jobs. and that brings me to the announcement i want to make today. it's just part of the infrastructure bill. my bipartisan infrastructure law includes the largest investment in our nation's bridges since the creation at interstate highway system. bridges to connect us. bridges to make america work. across our country right now there are 45,000 bridges. 45,000. they are in poor condition. we're seeing photos of some of them behind me. and all 50 states. i've had the chance to see some of them myself as i traveled the country. i was up in new hampshire. this is a bridge where if it's not upgraded, weight restrictions could mean school buses and fire trucks would have to travel an additional ten miles out of the way to get to the other side of the river to get to school or put out a fire. in new jersey i just visited the busiest rail bridge in the western hemisphere. but because it's not tall enough for ship traffic, it needs to swing open to let barges through. sometimes when it closes, the rails need to be manually sledge hammered back into place. this increases cost and commerce. i went down to louisiana and saw the i-10 bridge. i stood with the mayor and looked at that bridge. it's 20 years past the planned life. it's handling more than double the number of crossings it was designed to handle, and it's two lanes narrower than the interstate that feeds into it, causing backups and accidents. today the secretary of transportation, pete buttigieg is in philadelphia at the martin luther king bridge. the bridge is no longer safe for vehicles, even though it used to carry 25,000 vehicles a day. as we prepare to celebrate dr. king's birthday, we remember too often bridges are cutting off families, churches and businesses. we're going to use the infrastructure investment to recorrect communities. one thing i'm certain of. everyone knows what i'm talking about. people have written me about bridges they depend on. one man told me the bridge he traveled on every day is a tragedy waiting to happen. one woman wrote that a bridge near the center of her town had to be closed. and now she -- now drivers and tourists bypass downtown, kwons kwently devastating local businesses. one wrote to me saying, quote, this is your chance to show the people in my area that they matter to you, end of quote. i hear you. i hear you. you do matter to me. and we are going to get it done. my infrastructure law includes a total of 40 billion in funding for bridge improvements. 12.5 billion of that is going to replace the most economically significant bridges in the country. these are bridges like -- and i've seen them. the brent suspended bridge connecting ohio and kentucky. the i-5 river crossing connecting washington and oregon. the bridge connecting minnesota and wisconsin. but about two-thirds of the bridges in need of repair in this country are considered what they call off system because they're not directly connected to interstate highway systems. these are the bridges often overlooked when decisions are being made. but they are essential for small, rural towns, farmers, to get their products to market. small businesses to be able to serve customers. these are the bridges that went they're closed, shut off deliveries and routes to school work at home. they create longer delays for first responders when every second counts. so we've included 27.5 billion for smaller bridges including dedicated funding for those off system bridges i just described. and because maintaining these bridges is often the responsibility of counties or towns whose budgets are stretched thin already, we decided to get rid of the requirement that counties or towns share the cost. the federal government is going to pay for 100% of the cost for repairing the small bridges. today we're releasing the first year of that program which is $5.5 billion. $5.5 billion to states and tribes to repair and rebuild bridges to make them safer and more usable. this investment will help connect towns and regions to new opportunities. with this investment, we're sending the message to those communities and to the people who call them home, you matter. we're building back and building back better with you. we're making sure you're not left behind and left out. i'll end with this. these investments are consequential. we're just getting started. we're building back better than ever before. clean water for every american. we've never done that before. now we're going to do it. high speed internet for every american. we've never done that before. now we are. connecting forgotten communities. capping wells that are dangerous. strengthening our power friday to make it more resilient to extreme weather changes. these are investments. these are investments our country has never fully made. now we are. you know, we've arrived at this by a bipartisan agreement. there's nothing beyond our capacity when we work together. when we get this done, we'll get back to beating the world again. we've once again -- we'll be number one in the world instead of where we sit now at number 13 in terms of the quality of our infrastructure. that's going to mean more jobs, good-paying jobs, safer communities, and lower costs. we can do this. this is what a better america is going to look like. i want to thank you all for listening, and we've got a lot of work to do, and the reason i asked mitch to do this is because he knows how to get things done. i want every penny watched how this is spent. just like when i did the recovery act in the last administration. it matters. it matters. so thank you all very much. appreciate it. >> wow. he didn't even turn his head on that one. i think we all expected. he's been a good egg to the shouted questions. as a former member of that press group, i'm pro shouting questions and presidents turning there. to me it's one of the few times you get them in unprepared moments. >> reporter: yeah. >> look, i give the president credit. he acknowledged the week he had there up top. >> reporter: yeah, and he said, you know, he wanted to update everyone on the progress we've made. so you can see the sort of pivot check where the president is over the past week behind him. and look forward. and start to sell what he sees as his successes. and starting with this program that's something interesting that i heard throughout his speech was he repeatedly said i hear you, and you matter to me. so, again, trying to convey the message to americans that he's listening. he's taking their concerns, and he's doing something about them. and that's something that democrats have wanted the president to do more which is talk about what they see as their accomplishments and a record that gets lost in their view when he has weeks like he's had today, although i've got to say this is probably one of the worst weeks he's had in his presidency in terms of things just not going his way one after the other. >> quickly, carol, before i move over to, is the white house talking at all on the vaccine mandate front, talking about looking at the one mandate that did meet constitutional muster. the health care mandate? are they looking to design others that have sort of a similar description, federal dollars or connected to a certain group of people? >> reporter: yeah. well, there is another mandate with federal contractors that's out there. and i think what you're seeing from the white house is they're saying they're going to enforce the health care mandate, but they're also at this point, chuck, where they're kind of -- the people who are going to get the vaccine by and large have already gotten it. and so it's not clear exactly what leverage they have, particularly beyond what they say they're going to do now which is go to individual businesses and companies and say hey, can you institute a mandate? this is what we think is the best for your workers. and so that's the avenue they seem to be moving toward which is trying to apply pressure to states or local governments, but also to corporations to say that they should do them themselves because the federal government clearly can't. >> all right. carol lee reporting from the white house for us. carol, thank you. still with us, as i previewed, professor hoffman. and also joining me is president and ceo of one of the hard hit hospitals where federal medical teams are headed. he joins me from the university hospital in newark, new jersey. professor hoffman, let me start with the mandate rulings. we're not going to have the legal argument about the one they did. based on what they said was constitutional, are there other areas the federal government could go sort of using the health care mandate as a model? >> i don't think that's the direction they're going to go in. they will enforce the mandate that passed. the mandate regarding health care workers. but i think they will try to get the more traditional routes for these kinds of vaccine orders from the states, from local governments, and from businesses themselves. so it's important to understand that the supreme court didn't say nobody could ask employees to get vaccinated. it is simply that osha could not do that. >> is there anything in the ruling by the supreme court that makes you think osha could if they had done it a different way or added any other sort of carveout or was this a pretty complete open and shut with this current makeup of the court? >> no. i don't think osha could have done it any other way. the court said they exceeded the power it was granted by statute with this kind of broad public health mandate. and so there isn't a different way they could have done that. >> and is -- at this point, what do you think the chances are that the federal contractor mandate is upheld? >> it's possible. the court sort of split upheld one, didn't uphold another. so it just depends on what arguments the parties make. and what convinces a majority of the justices. >> all right. let me get a little sense of where the situation is right now. let me bring in the doctor. first, you have medical teams, military medical teams assisting. paint a picture of the situation your hospital system is facing. >> thank you so much for having me, chuck. first of all, we have just around 30 0 employees out right now due to covid, but also other matters related to the pandemic, schools cancelled because of staffing issues and what have you. and our hospital, not only impacts the 150 or so people with covid in the hospital, but everybody who needs that acute urgent care within our walls. so this assistance from the president, from the white house, from the covid response team, department of defense, could not come at a better time. the president just said he's been listening to the american people. he certainly has been listening to american hospitals when it comes to our staffing crisis. we're appreciative in newark for that. it's also going to be impacting the broader public health concerns that our community is facing because the public health issues as a result of the pandemic worsening, delayed care, chronic conditions getting worse, behavioral issues, these incredible men and women in uniform will be there for all the public health issues in our community for at least 30 days. we're grateful for that. >> tell me about your hospitalizations. there's been this debate about are the covid hospitalization numbers about people in the hospital for covid, or is it people -- a combined about half of them are there for covid, half of them test positive for covid because they're in for something else? is that a distinction that matters in the current situation you're facing? >> it matters, but not in some of the ways that people might think. about 60% of our patients now are actually here with covid instead of for covid. in other words, they don't have the classic covid respiratory symptoms. however, some people in the category are here because of complications from a recent covid infection. they're dehydrated. they have kidney failure because of a recent infection. it's a murky category that also includes traumas and things unrelated. all that said, it's important, because it means that about half of the patients with covid may have been here anyway. and when it comes to the hospitalizations as a metric in terms of hospital strain, it's not as indicative as you might think, because i do think we would have seen these patients regardless of the omicron surge at least about 50% of them or so. >> how would you -- this idea of omicron being less severe, what have you noticed with the unvaccinated versus the vax knitted on omicron? >> 75% of patients with covid in our hospital are completely unvaccinated. not had a single dose. about 25% are fully vaccinated but do not have a booster. and we have almost no patients who have had a booster. hands down, omicron may be less mild on average from person to person, but because it's so transmissible, it's getting to a lot of people in the community who are vulnerable so hospitals are seeing a lot of admissions because of that. vax nax does matter. we are seeing some increased demand in our vaccination clinic which is good news and continuously trumps the importance of vaccination to our community. >> vaccine mandate, i know the state has put in one i believe for the medical workers in new jersey. what kind of -- have you had trouble getting people to take the vaccine or not? >> well, in terms of our employees, we have over 92% of people fully vaccinated and a large share of them have gotten a booster n. i think the vaccination mandate mattered especially after health care workers come back after five days. a mitigating factor in hopefully reducing the chance of spread is we have a vaccine mandate. we support as a hospital community vaccine mandates at large, even justice kavanaugh mentioned that during oral arguments in the supreme court case. it's important for us. but it's important because also the rationale for mandates and really other businesses going forward may be in question if, in fact, that vaccination boosting doesn't reduce the risk of spread. so the reason why we haven't mandated boosters yet, we're still seeing what the data is in reducing the chance of spread among health care workers. we don't have that data yet. when you mandate something, you really have to have strong enough evidence. there are two sides of the coin that are important. but i am grateful we did the vaccination mandate initially. >> all right. thank you both. up next, what is next for the democrats on the issue of voting rights? plus another house retirement that donald trump is cheering. you'll only guess why. we'll explain that next. you're watching "meet the press daily". e press e press daily" crafted with clinically studied plant-based ingredients that work naturally with your body. for restorative sleep like never before. on ancestry i discovered more about my great-great-grandfather baptiste caretto. ancestry threads all of the little facts together into a narrative so you get to feel like you're walking the same path they did. subway's eat fresh refresh has so many new footlongs, here's how they line up. we got the new chicken & bacon ranch, new baja steak & jack, and the new baja chicken & bacon, aka "the smokeshow." save big. order through the app. welcome back. covid and bad weather are going to delay the senate from voting on the democrat's bill before martin luther king junior day on month. chuck schumer announced that last night. his plan to bring both the freedom to vote act and john lewis voting rights act to the floor will have to wait for tuesday. cutting into the senate recess that was also plan rtd for the week. this move comes after the hawaii senate tested positive for covid. meaning democrats don't have the votes to do everything right now. every vote counts when it's a 50/50 senate. and sinema made it clear yesterday not even the president would change her stance on keeping the senate rules as they are, which means the party's voting rights agenda is likely going nowhere. i'm joined by garrett haake. garrett, before i get into today's retirement news of the day which -- it's not a democrat this time. we'll get to that in a second. color me a bit skeptical. are they really going to do this on tuesday and wednesday and thursday? i'm staring at january 20th. i can see that from my house. it just seems like why extend this bad week into a second week? >> chuck, i was saying it before they had to delay it, that i think it's unlikely this rules change vote ever comes to the floor. kyrsten sinema yesterday slammed the door in the face of the rest of the democratic party on this issue. taking to the floor to give a speech on this issue before president biden even had a chance to work the room, before she ended up at the white house making clear in no uncertain terms she doesn't going to be in favor. if that's the shot, manchin reiterated his support on this, this is a vote that will fail, and the democratic caucus is undecided on whether it needs to fail on the floor, by this i mean the rules change vote. we don't think they can get to 50 on the voting rights bill if they have 50 members present. the caucus is divided on if it needs to fail or whether they can cut their losses and just move on. but who knows? there's plenty of days between now and tuesday which another senator might test positive. this could be delayed days, weeks, just a matter of how long they want to prolong this difficult period. >> all right. we had a retirement. and it's a retirement that donald trump is cheering. so you can guess it must be an impeacher. you want to tell us who it is? >> that's right. john cat koe of new york state. he voted for impeachment. he has voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and by the way, he's the guy charged with working out a bipartisan commission to study january 6th that kevin mccarthy supported in theory but then didn't support the deal kind. he's had a political target on his back for a while now. a pickup opportunity for democrats. he's running in a biden district, but it's likely to change in the new new york map when we see what it looks like. >> what is our math on impeachers not seeking reelection? are we up to three not seeking reelection? >> reporter: i believe it's four now. >> we're scurrying to do the research. it's up to four. primary challenges for them except the two washington state ones. >> well, no, isn't joe -- joe kent is one of our washington state primaries. i don't know how high profile he would be, but he has really leaned hard into the january 6th narrative of the far right here and is trying to make a great deal of hay out of it. he came here for the protest back in september. i think just about everybody has a primary challenger at this point. >> at this point. and finally, let's end where we began. and that is on sinema. the amount of angry democrats at her, paint a picture. it sort of dawned on me as you were talking. before the holidays, joe manchin pulled plug on build back better. now, it may get plugged back in. this time kiersten sirn ma took the heat. they have been the two hold outs back and forth on all these things. is the anger more heated at sinema or manchin when you look at the two situations? >> i think it's sinema, and it always has been. manchin has been consistent on the filibuster including when democrats and republicans are in charge of the senate. and he's kind of a political unicorn as this democrat in west virginia. sinema is newer to the body. doesn't have the relationships. and lots of other democrats think there could be any other democratic senator from arizona. every time something like this happens, there's a phone that starts ringing off the hook. i think sinema faces more of the internal democratic heat on issues like this. >> and do you believe that sinema and manchin are the only two uncomfortable with the filibuster change, or are there folks hiding behind sinema? >> uncomfortable? no. plenty of others are uncomfortable, but the level of uncomfort is relative, and at 48, there could be only 46. we'll see. >> including another senator from arizona. all right. mr. headache, i saw your eyes. well-done. television emoji. >> thanks. it isn't just the former president cheering when people say they aren't running. he's wielding his powers through endorsements. that can make a politician bend positions to the former president's will? who is he endorsing? what does he want the future political party to look like? we ran the numbers. this is basically a census. of the 93 candidates trump that has endorsed, 73 are men. 20 women. 35 are running for u.s. house seats. 15 are running for u.s. senate seats. 12 running for governor. about half are incumbents. 15 trump backed candidates are sitting republicans the former president wants replaced, many of them for what he perceives as disloyalty. the e americaning litmus test is an adherence to the former president's lie about 2020. not surprisingly but importantly, 59 of the 93 candidates he endorsed have questioned the 2020 results. a total of 10 candidates that have been endorsed by trump attended his rally in washington on january 6th of last year. former president will told his first rally of the year tomorrow in arizona. and joining him on stage will be his endorsement picks for governor, lake, and mark finchem. both said they want to decertify the 2020 election. there are likely more endorsements from the former president. will voters like what they see or not? that's one of the bigger questions. perhaps the only thing that can hold republicans back is donald trump. up ahead, new charges against 11 members of the oath keepers, including the leader with seditious conspiracy. it can put you in jail for at least two decades. how could the charges play out in court? you're watching "meet the press daily". t the press t the press daily" ♪ who would've thought printing... could lead to growing trees. ♪ welcome back. there's more concern that russia preparing. russia znchts it could seem like ukraine is triggering something. the kremlin would use the operation to justify a war with its neighbor. the white house press secretary addressed this situation last hour. >> as part of its plans, russia's laying the groundwork to have the option of fabricating a pretext for invasion, and we've seen this before. we saw it before leading up to 2014. including through sabotage activities and information operations by accusing ukraine of preparing an imminent attack against russian forces in eastern ukraine and the russian actions to begin it several weeks before a military invasion between mid january and mid february. >> russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops along the border. talks between the u.s., russia and nato wrapped up with no diplomatic resolution. a lot of this stuff, the u.s. is declassifying a lot more intelligence than it normally would, but a lot of it has had to be done because many of the european allies have not fully realized the urgency of what russia is up to. so this is why it's pretty extraordinary when you see what the -- you see the amounts of what is normally classified intel being put in the public do main here. this is the kind of one they're trying to put at putin to try to keep the european allies together. also we're less than a month away from the start of the winter olympics in beijing. we get into the implications of competing in china with human rights advocate, tenes canter freedom. he calls out the treatment of u uyghurs. he said the china brutal dictatorship doesn't -- >> while we're talking there's a genocide happening right now. and once again, by the international committee, they sleep in the same bed with china. they are very, very corrupt. i would just tell this to the athletes. all the gold medals in the world that you can win is not more important than your morals and values and principles. >> i urge you to check out this interview with him, and learn his story, what he went through in turkey. it's on the latest episode of the chuck toddcast. we'll be right back. toddcast we'll be right back. welcome back. the justice department has charged more than 700 people over the last year in connection with the attack on the capitol. but the most serious charges were filed yesterday, in a story that broke this hour yesterday. the department of justice charged stewart rhodes, leader of the far right group the oath keepers with seditious conspiracy among other counts. this is the first time that charge has been brought in connection with january 6th. prosecutors say rhodes never entered the capitol that day but he and his co-conspirators spent weeks planning to stop the lawful transfer of power. i'm joined now by chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official, now an msnbc contributor. chuck, the decision to charge seditious conspiracy, you know that place well, you know how cautious prosecutors are, they don't want to bring something unless they've got the goods. so what do you make of this decision and what do you think it means for the future other charges that may be coming? >> your point, i think, chuck, it means they got the goods. in order to bring charges we need to have a reasonable probability of conviction, meaning we expect to win in trial court. and we need to have sufficient evidence and the right laws so we can sustain the conviction on appeal. it means we got the goods. you know, the department of justice does not often charge seditious conspiracy, it's an unusual charge, a rare charge, in part because, thank goodness, not a lot of people are trying to overthrow the government of the united states. and some folks may think it took too long. i don't have that view. a year is not a long time when you're building a case from the inside, using other conspirators, other members of the oath keepers, other cooperators, to, as you said, chuck, get the goods on these 11 people. >> so at this point, mr. rhodes looks like he's somewhere, i used this analogy, you're going up the ladder here, right, he's not the lowest rung, he's not the highest rung, but he's certainly somewhere in the middle here. do you expect this to go to trial? or do you expect them to do everything they can to see if they can get him to -- if he can -- if there is someone more to give, if they can get him to do that. >> yes. and let me explain what may seem like an odd answer. overwhelmingly, when people are indicted by federal prosecutors, they don't go to trial. more than 90% of cases resolve through plea agreement. but here, you have 11 defendants. so even if you just did the math, it would seem like one or two or three might go to trial and the others would try to strike plea bargains and perhaps cooperate. so, hard to know what any individual will do. but usually it's in their best interests, the best interests of a defendant, if they can, to work out a plea agreement with the government. and if they can, to give truthful cooperation, because that helps reduce their own sentence. in fact, we see that behavior over and over again. and to your point, chuck, you're exactly right, rhodes is not at the top. he's not at the bottom. he's somewhere in between. and if prosecutors can continue to work up the ladder, they will. >> hey, i have a question on evidence sharing between the january 6th committee and the justice department. when the january 6th committee put out subpoenas to facebook, twitter, and google, and yes, i'm aware facebook is called meta, but they don't get to rebrand that fast, when they put those out, i assume, correct me if i'm wrong, justice probably has already done those type of subpoenas and has already combed through that stuff in their own separate investigations? or am i leaping to a conclusion? >> no, i don't think you are at all. i think your instincts are exactly right. if i were still a federal prosecutor, i would not rely on anyone else to send out subpoenas for me and to collect evidence for me, i would do it myself, i would do it independently, by that i mean through a federal grand jury process, using the fbi to deliver the subpoenas, to collect the information and to analyze it. i would not rely on congress. i don't mean that derisively. i just wouldn't rely on anyone else. >> congress may forward a criminal complaint to justice. how often would justice share information and give it to the january 6th committee if they're not using it to prosecute, or is this just not a two-way street? >> it's typically not a two-way street. i don't know the specific dynamics here, but it's typically not a two-way street. here's why, chuck. if i'm using a federal grand jury to collect information through subpoena from companies around the country, i'm boundly grand jury secrecy rules, i can't share it without an order from the judge. >> makes perfect sense. it feels like we have two simultaneous investigations that might be combing through very similar information. chuck rosenberg, always good to get your expertise and experience to explain this, you this, sir. i want to take a moment to congratulate our friends and colleagues over at nbc's "today" show for marking its 70th anniversary today. the iconic morning show reshaped television, not just morning television, after its launch in 1952 when only a third of american households even had a television. that risk surely paid off. so a big happy birthday to my younger brothers over there at the "today" show. we're the older sibling here at "meet the press." "meet the press" turns 75 later this year, our diamond anniversary. that does it for us this hour. we'll be back monday for more "meet the press daily" to kick off a huge week for us on tuesday. we're going to look ahead to the big races, the issues that matter most to voters and what we'll be watching throughout this consequential year. a huge midterm kickoff special. plus coverage of president biden's one-year anniversary in office. among my guest, jim clyburn and, exclusively, senator mitt romney. joe fryer picks up right after the break. see you sunday. after the break. see you sunday parodontax active gum repair toothpaste real cowboys get customized car insurance with liberty mutual, so we only pay for what we need. -hey tex, -wooo. can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ only pay for what you need. after my car accident, ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ wondnder whahatmy c cas. so i called the barnes firm. i'm rich barnes. youour cidedentase e woh than insurance offered? call the barnes firm now to find out. yoyou ght t beurprpris call the barnes firm now when that car hit my motorcycle, yoyou ght t beurprpris insurance wasn't fair. so i called the barnes firm, it was the best call i could've made. call the barnes firm now, and find out what your case could be worth. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million good to be with you. i'm joe fryer in for katy tur. both the leader and a member of the right wing militia