white house" starts right now. hey, everyone. 4:00 in new york i'm in for nicolle wallace. justice and accountability. more than a year after a harrowing attack that shocked this country, the ongoing political violence at the forefront, the jury found david depape guilty on counts of attempted kidnap taing of a federal official and assaulting a family member of a federal official. talking husband of nancy pelosi, paul pelosi, with a hammer in their home back in october of last year. depape faces life in prison. nancy pelosi they are deeply grateful for outpouring of prayers and warm wishes for mr. pelosi across country during this difficult time. the pelosi family is proud he densated extraordinary bravery and demonstrated in the courtroom this week. he felt in immediate danger when depape arrived at the doorstep in the middle of the night. the nbc news, "the door opened a very large man came in with a hammer in one hand, zip ties in the other and he said, where's nancy. i think they woke me up, pelosi testified." hit me in the head and that woke me up. david depape reveal add mind ripe with conspiracy theories saying he had targets. hunter biden, gavin newsom and former vice president mike pence and wanted to confront nancy pelosi about involvement in the 2016 elections. depape and his defense team never denied he attacked paul pelosi. he said they mounted a narrow defense. "whington post" report key question in the federal case whether he did thisse of nancy pelosi's performce of her job represented in san francisco and congress. after nine hours deliberations and two days, the jury found he did. that's where we start today with former assistant director counterintelligence at the fbi and former congressman from florida and nbc news political analyst david jolly and from the department of justice now an msnbc legal analyst and host of my favorite podcast, andrew. let's start with your reaction to the verdict. >> conviction of the day is really two stories in one. it's the tale of online radicalization, and it's a fascinating tale to study in what happens when someone hacks out on online addictalization and a tale how those who radicalized him respond when someone does their bidding. in this case we saw, you don't have to believe me. listen to depape's testimony and listen to what interviewing agents and officers took down when they interviewed him. he'll tell you the story. he was radicalized online. he was a qanon believer, all-in on the most ludacris conspiracy theories out there. all-in on it and told us about that. then look at how after paul pelosi was attacked, how the far right, how those online in the media who helped radicalized them. how they responded. they laughed. they joked. they didn't believe it. told viewers that wasn't us. they made jokes about nancy pelosi. they implied things that were simply not in evidence. and that's where we are, and as recently as last weekend, former president trump running again for president laughed and joked about pelosi, the who of them at a rally. >> i want to talk about comments from trump and others in the republican party. first, talk a little about the legal strategy. as i understand it, this was the defense's hail mary strategy. going to argue depape was in alternate reality. not about the fact nancy pelosi was a member of congress. and in doing so their hope was it would be tried at the state level and not the federal level. to me, that seems relative both in terms of this case and in terms of a lot of the cases judges said, i'm not even sure i can apply the maximum sentencing here, because the person is not tethered to reality? >> yeah. i think sort of a couple things going on. i think one of the things people might be confused by in your introduction, which got it totally right. >> okay. >> is that they might be saying, i don't understand. this guy breaks in, has a hammer. assaults this guy. what do you mean? federal? who cares why he did it? he attacked this guy. as long as he attacked him with intent to attack him, isn't this game over? the answer to that is that the state level, at the state level, where he is facing charges that would be the case. a separate state system where if he's charged with assault and did it intentionally, he can be convicted. at the federal level, you need some reason why it's a federal crime. here was sort of this extra element. did he do this because of nancy pelosi? because of her position? was that part of the motivation? so that's why the defense said this isn't a "whodunit" it's a "whydunit." at the state level defense, as you said, got to be essentially he's nuts. like, he doesn't really have the mental state to form the intent to have done this. i think that will be a hard argument, because he took the stand in the federal case, and while he had altered delusions and conspiracy theories, he articulated why he was there. and so it's going to be hard now at the state level to show where he is facing charges, to figure out what exactly his defense will be there. >> given the fact we're living in this sprawling discussion around political violence those who fight and those who react to incitement. if you're any of the other defense team or prosecutors what do you len from this case? >> i'm not sure you can go from this case to the january 6th case. the proof here is overwhelming, and, remember, the police when they came in had not only saw it themselves, they saw the attack. one of the outrageous things here is that the defendant acted in, with the police standing at the door. so even without the cameras they had, which a lot of this is recorded. you had the testimony of paul pelosi. the testimony of the agents, but also you had most of this on video. so it's -- it is true that in the january 6th case there are sentences of, snippets of video but that's a very different case, and i don't think the issue, what's your motive? which happens here is, it doesn't play as well and that's why you see so many convictions even in the january 6th cases you see here. >> david jolly, that image of andrew referenced, when we saw the door open and we saw paul pelosi there. it is burned on a collective frame. take a listen with that in mind. to what donald trump said just two weeks ago about paul pelosi. >> stand up to crazy nancy pelosi who ruined san francisco. how's her husband doing, by the way? anybody know? and she's against the wall at the border even though she has a wall around her house, which obviously didn't do a very good job. >> paraphrase the current president, no one who makes that type of remark is worthy of the office of the presidency. i have to imagine given that we have seen donald trump watch other people, receive punishment, the fact he's under more gag orders tells me today's verdict does not make it stop. what do you think? >> does not. what is also unsettling is the crowd's reaction. their affirmation, finding humor in the attack. to your point, this is an attack where video and audio is real. you get to experience it, and as frank said, the far right and conservative underworld jumped out with crazy, wild theories to kind of soften what should have been a national moment, and make light of it. you see donald trump continuing to do it today. the most important thing about that is we know from our domestic intelligence agencies over the past several years that the rise in politically motivated domestic violence is real. homeland violence is real. so in this situation, you have a moment where leaders of all political persuasions, all partisan persuasions, could come out condemn it and also say, here is my plan, if i am to be president, combat political violence. you're not seeing that. republican party making light of it, laugh about it, insult the former speaker and her husband in a time of critical national import. the rise in political violence is real, and in this case resulting in the attack on the former speaker's husband who fortunately survived. what happens the next time? we don't know. >> i think about all of this in the context of what we heard from ray and this week, right, talking about the sprawling threats against the homeland. talk to me specifically about the effect of comments like the ones, just heard it from trump, a few minutes ago? >> yeah. a solid track record now. the path well worn between rhetoric and far right from donald trump and extreme violence even fatal violence. we can go on and on for the next hour, if you'd like, from the church, the black church in south carolina. that shooter from the walmart, el paso. shooter who bought into the series at a buffalo supermarket, shooter who similarly thought we were being replaced. it's all coming from this echo chamber that people can't get out of, and i've got to say for those who say and dismiss all this, mental illness. these people are mentally ill. we're not doing this. kind of okay with it but understand we can't possibly anticipate the actions of someone who's mentally unstable. i say this. be awe salutely can. there's a track record of it, and a long list of people who might absolutely be mentally unstable but respond with extreme violence to the rhetoric continuously spewed from these far-right echo chambers. we'll see a lot of lawsuits some day when they can pinpoint the verbiage in someone's writings and rantings and the violence to the people who spewed it, and there will be consequences. >> i want to play something nancy pelosi said just a few days after the attack on her husband about the reaction to it from some on the right. let's listen. >> you would think there would be some level of responsibility, but what you see, you see what the reaction is on the other side to this. they make a joke of this, and, really, that is traumatizing too. nonetheless, forgetting them, there has to be some healing process, and democrats and republicans know that, as member of congress, anybody could be a target, and we can't, there's no guarantee, but we can -- in our democracy there is one party that is doubting the outcome of the election feeding that flame and mocking any violence that happens. that has to stop. >> i think of what she says there about anyone could be a target. the fact we know security detail, the fact reporting now about exchanges with other public members saying, love to stand with you but truly concerned for myself and my family. a year later, doesn't feel like anything's changed? >> it's difficult. we're sitting here talking about, gee, wouldn't it be great if politicians had the fortitude to not normalize violence? >> and such a low bar. >> it is such a low bar and worth remembering in light of this, the clip you played of nancy pelosi and also what you played of donald trump belittling the hammer attack. a near fatal attack on an 82-year-old man. as we now know, that he is now convicted by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt doing this because of her position in the government. that on monday, the court of appeals in d.c. will be deciding whether there should be a gag order on donald trump, and this is exactly what you were asking in that the words have effects. this defendant when he took the stand just said words to that affect and why he was acting on this. and donald trump's argument on appeal is, speculation people are going to act on what i say and i'm not responsible for that. i think the, what we have seen this week, this conviction, it really should be a clarion call to the court of appeals deciding whether violent rhetoric that the former president uses is going to be allowed to continue. >> so struck, david jolly, this is a week where we talked about what could be another government shutdown. talked about the ungovernable nature of the republican party, do they want to govern, can they govern? you said, this is bear minimum. right? an ability to step up and decry violence. if they can't do that, governing seems to fall to the wayside. >> yeah. we're all friends and i love the conversations. sometimes, though, it strikes me for people like, talking about it in lights term. republican authoritarian forces. what he's done, shameless should be condemned being a child in the way responding to this. leaders lead and leaders denounce political violence. leaders denounce the attack on paul pelosi. children, you know, in this case donald trump in a child-like behavior and impulse, selfish impulse devoid of character and judgment decided to make light of it and so do the people who follow him. shameful. rip off the varnish and call it a shameful moment from a repugnant former president without the moral character to lead. has that resulted in a party unable to govern? sure. who's going to follow that party into governing? take this tame attitude with everything they do. fred flintstone, barney rubble, whichever character goes in breaks up, beats things up, beats his chest saying i'm hero of the moment and has people around him saying, yes, you are. no, you're not. you're an idiot. in this moment call it what it is. somebody refusing to denounce violence and incapable of governing and asking for the opportunity to hold the keys to the white house four more years and they shouldn't let that happen. >> david jolly always calling it like it is. thank you for starting us off. andrew and david are sticking with me. when we come back, late breaking news in the civil trial against former president trump. now temporarily free from gag orders in both d.c. federal court and in new york. plus, a scathing report out today on congressman george santos. the republican announced he will not run again. calling for his removal months ago says that's not good enough saying now is the time. that's after a break. later, investigation into the fake election expanding. that and more when "deadline: white house" continues after this. do not go anywhere. this do not go anywhere. -dad, what's with your toenail? -oh, that...? i'm not sure... -it's a nail fungus infection. -...that's gross! -it's nothing, really... -it's contagious. you can even spread it to other people. -mom, come here! -don't worry about it. it'll go away on its own! -no, it won't go away on its own. it's an infection. you need a prescription. nail fungus is a contagious infection. at the first signs, show it to your doctor... ... and ask if jublia is right for you. jublia is a prescription medicine used to treat toenail fungus. its most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness... ... itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters and pain. jublia is recognized by the apma. most commercially insured patients may pay as little as $0 copay. go to jubliarx.com now to get started. (♪♪) happy holidays. we're going to need a bigger tree. hey honey are you ok? everything's fine. hey, did i set the alarm? yes, you did. shop black friday deals at ring.com. the power goes out and we still have wifi shop black friday to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. hey, while you're there, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat treat. de-licka what? delectables. delickables? delectables. delickable delectables. yes, just hurry! hm. it must be delicious. got it. delectables lickable treat. ♪ deliciously de-lick-able delectables ♪ breaking news this afternoon. an appeals court temporarily lifted the gag order on donald trump and his attorney, $250 million civil fraud trial against the ex-president and new york. filed just a short time ago appeals court judge friedman temporarily lifted the order following trump for now. talking freely about the judge in this case. and as well as support staff trump previously targeted on social media. the ruling follows the gag order infringed on the ex-president's right to freedom of speech. back with david and andrew. were you surprissurprised? >> i'm not. so much what happened in the d.c. circuit. meaning the defendant here, donald trump, in d.c., he said the gag order was improper and i'm appealing it and what the appellate court said, okay. during the appeal we're going to put things on hold and keep it status quo and then hear your argument. essentially exactly what's happening at the state court level. for some reason a little more surprising, that the state court's gag order is so limited. i mean, this is a gag order that basically says, take a sharp pencil and stick it in your ear. this is, you know what? here's how i'm abridging your free speech. do not threaten the law clerk of the judge. i mean, that seems like it shouldn't have to be said. so that's the only process that's a little surprising. yes, said that it was donald trump then the lawyers, don't do it. no lawyer in their right mind thinks it's a good strategy if trying to get the judge to be on your side. really not a great thing to say, let me talk to your law clerk. and it really doesn't abridge in anyway his ability to run for office. as auv is said, you can actually run for office of the presidency in the united states and not distract violence or threaten the judge's law clerk. >> it's temporary. what type of timeline? >> november 27th. from the judge's order a time line for when papers have to be submitted and there is a motion date. so that is -- >> and -- >> 11 days they think. never do math in public but i think it's 1days. >> smart man. i had my abacus readily available to do the math for you. given what you know about donald trump, the fact he has 11 days of this temporary release, what's he going to do now? >> look, what i -- >> funny. >> funny you should ask. i assume as sitting here figuring what he'll do to take advantage of it. saw it exact, that exact thing happened in d.c. issued that temporary stay of the gag order he started social -- >> and given, just talking about, using this to end incendiary rhetoric and language and the cause you can cause a direct line to political violence in the real world. got 11 days where he's not going to have the whatever fear he does have of a gag order. going back to attacking the judge most likely. on future jurors and future witnesses, i mean, the institution of the judicial body? >> yeah. that's right. first of all, not to be overlooked in the first segment. andrew weissmann said your legal analysis was exactly right. worth updating. twitter profile, i tested that. congratulations. look, to your point, i think one of the reasons andrew's analysis always is perfect, the appellate judge said, look, balance donald trump's free speech versus whether or not this is actually interfering with the case. a civil case, not a jury. language not around tampering, trying to intimidate a jury or affect an outcome, it's complaining about the judge's staff. a stupid move. really intimidation? who knows. stick with the childish theme from the previous segment as well. who does that? not only not in your own legal interests, adults, what adult goes online complains about a clerk, tries to insult the people in a judicial forum that can affect the outcome of the judge, the final judgment? it's a thing that -- >> and right? i think we agree on the answer, which is aside from all of this, use of the type of person that does that, it is a person who believes it is political important for him to muddy the water. >> right. >> to claim this and to undermine all of the institutions that have upheld this country and this democracy since its founding. >> right. the credibility of the forum ultimately designed by our founders to hold him accountable. to kneecap the judicial branch you ultimately have to make a judgment about him. to the point, and also somebody willing to accept violence in the country, benefit of it per