As President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House, follow along as his agenda takes shape with a new MSNBC newsletter. Trump's first 100 days. Weekly expert insight on key issues sent straight to your inbox. Sign up at msnbc.com/Trump100. Well, Republicans managed to pick a speaker, but we're already seeing just how chaotic this new Congress is going to be. And in that chaos, there's going to be some opportunity for Democrats. Legendary Democratic strategist James Carville is standing by with a few specific ideas about how they can capitalize. Plus, ahead of another anniversary of January 6, Donald Trump was partying at Mar-a-Lago last night, with the architects of the plot to steal the 2020 election. I'll get Congressman James Kyberin's reaction to that. And later, a judge orders Trump to appear pro-sentencing next week, just 10 days before he's sworn in. The law firm of Boyce Men in Cattiel is here to tell us what to expect and why it matters. Okay, so on Friday, Mike Johnson was re-elected as Speaker of the House. But not without a healthy dose of drama. I mean, initially Johnson didn't have the votes, and for a moment, it looked like we might be headed for another McCarthy-esque multi-day dumpster fire here in Washington. And then two of the key Republican holdouts decided to vote for Johnson. Of course, right after getting phone calls from Donald Trump, sometimes that's how it goes. But whatever took to get over the finish line, if you're Mike Johnson or anyone working for him, they could say to say you're probably breathing a big sigh of relief right now, because it very easily could have gone another way. I mean, just asked Kevin McCarthy, given what he went through, it was just over a year ago. And it's important to note, before McCarthy's five-day 15-ballot fiasco, the last time a Speaker of the House was not elected on the first ballot, without any drama, really, was all the way back in 1923. See, the Speaker's vote is supposed to be pretty boring and predictable. And once again, it wasn't. As the Washington Post reported, a total of nine House Republicans used the vote on Friday to show displeasure with Johnson in one way or another. And that number is significant, remember that number, because that's how many it takes to trigger a vote to remove Johnson in this new Congress. Congressman Chip Ray was one of those nine, and listened to how he basically threatened Johnson after voting for him. >> It was very important for a group of us to make clear that we're going to expect the agenda that the President ran on to get delivered. That's why there were nine people who withheld their votes. It sends a message that we're going to be watching that. >> We're going to be watching you, Mike Johnson. So Johnson's side relief might be a pretty short one, it turns out, like a day or two or a couple days. And all of this is just one more sign of how chaotic this Congress is going to be. I mean, buckle up, everyone. Mike Johnson just barely east out, eked out of victory. And now he's going to be in charge of the slimmest House majority in modern history. That's not to mention the Trump of it all, or the Elon Musk of it all. Tweeting and tanking bills and polling strings, believe me, that story's not over. It's going to be messy, not much is very clear at this point. So moving forward, one of the things, in addition to all of that, but one of the other things I'm most interested in is how Democrats are going to take advantage of all that chaos. That's the thing about being in the minority. This Republican majority is razor thin. It's a gender well, in many cases, be very unpopular with a majority of the American people. And these Republicans in Congress will be beholden to the whims of not just Donald Trump, but his buddy Elon Musk. Now, that's a scary place for the country to be, for sure. But it's also a place full of political opportunity for the Democratic Party. Now, to that point, long-time legendary Democratic strategist, James Carvels, out with a new op-ed in the New York Times, all about what went wrong in the 2024 election. And where the heck Democrats should go from here, which is the question all of us are talking about and thinking about. Does something most strategists don't do in this op-ed? He admits he was wrong, which, by the way, is refreshing. Doesn't always happen around these parts. His advice in this op-ed mainly focuses on the top of the ticket, and we'll talk about that. But I think there are plenty of lessons in here for Democrats in Congress, too. Now, as for what went wrong, Carvel returns to what may sound like a familiar referring, which is basically, he says, "We lost for one very simple reason. It was, it is, and it always will be the economy stupid." And as for where the party should go from here, he kind of lays out a strategy in a few parts. First is to oppose. He writes, quote, "We have got to stop making Trump himself our main focus. Our messaging machine must sharply focus on opposing the unpopular Republican economic agenda that will live on past him. Vocally oppose the party, not the person or the extremism of his movement." And House Republicans have certainly given Democrats some fodder for that. I mean, here are some of the top things on their agenda for this Congress. Extend the 2017 Trump tax law, which largely favors the wealthiest Americans and big corporations, not exactly popular across the country, repeal clean energy funding and provide more resources to carry out mass deportations. So the whole point here, he's saying, is don't oppose these policies only because Trump supports them. Oppose them because they're bad policies for the country and for you, and make that point. The second part of the strategy Carvel lays out is to go on offense, writing, quote, "We must be on the offensive with a wildly popular and populist economic agenda that Republicans cannot before." Let's start by forcing them to oppose or raise in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Let's make Roe v. Wade an economic messaging issue and force them to block our attempts to codify it into law. And let's take back the immigration issue by making it an economic issue and force the GOP to deny bipartisan reform that expedites entry for high performing talent and for those who will bring business into our nation. Now, that all sounds pretty smart to me. And at least even if you disagree with some parts of it, it seems like some form of offense, which by the way is the way you win. You don't win by hiding in a corner. Look, Friday's speaker vote was another reminder to everybody watching that Republicans control nearly everything in Washington. But it was also a reminder that this is not going to be smooth sailing for them. It's going to be very messy, which is why it also may be the perfect time for Democrats to get out of out there with an aggressive strategy to be on offense to show why they can and should be put back into power again in two years. Joining me now is longtime Democratic strategist James Carville. Hopefully, summarize his op ed. Well there. Okay, I just want to start with some of the lessons in your piece because it was very specific. And I know you want people to kind of pull from it what they may pull from it. But one of the things you talk about is how to oppose policies that the Republicans are putting forward or put them on their back heels, I guess, by forcing them to vote against things that are popular. How do you do that in the minority for people who are at home and haven't worked in the business of politics or Washington? How can they exactly do that? Well, thank you, Jim. First, let me give a shout out to my former Tulane students out of Italy who now has our own show on MSNBC. Five in tomorrow. Yeah, I'll probably get up. I'm generally up at that time anyway, so I'll get a chance to watch it. What are you appear on the first show? Should we book you here? Are you ready to get up? So let's go back and what I think the Democrats should focus on a limited number of things that have the following criteria. There must be massively popular all across the Democratic Party. Secondly, there must be massively popular all across the United States among Republicans, independents, and everybody else. And third, it has to be something the Republicans can't be for. So they can't be for raising the minimum wage because people won't let them. Their financiers won't let them, their billionaires won't let them. They can't be for having protections for women in Roe v. Wade because that's part of who they are. Then they can't be for doing their tax cuts for people to make over $4,000 a year and take that money and use it to help young people buy a rent a home. This is 75% popularity stuff. All we have to do is be there and hammer it home. And like I say, it's three things, massively popular all across the party, massively popular all across the country, and the Republicans can't be for it. Ram it home, ram it home. Ram it home. It's a bumper sticker right there. Okay, let me ask you, because some of this is about what we've learned over the last couple of weeks and how to navigate what a Republican led Congress under Speaker Mike Johnson looks like. What I just went through what I learned. What did you learn from watching the Speaker's vote and watching the last couple of weeks with Elon Musk and Trump and everything that happens? I learned more in the five minutes after the vote than I ever wanted to know where my jobs are sitting at the well of the house and attributed a prayer to Thomas Justin, which is a boldface lie. Okay, a boldface lie. So they started with a lie, they're going to continue to lie and they're going to end with a lie. So let's be very forceful and let's be very upfront here. And the billionaire class in this country has exercised such power that they got rid of the cartoonists at the Washington Post. They're having editorial sway over a cartoon that runs. I grew up with Conrad, an urban, I studied Thomas Nash. David Shipley, what happened under his watch is a disgrace to journalism in America. I don't know how that guy could possibly get up in the morning. She quit to be clear. She quit. And she made a statement because she was because they let her quit because they wouldn't run the cartoon. That's right. All right. Well, if you're a journalist, if they sit here at MSNBC and tell you you can't say anything bad about the Trump tax cuts, because executives might get them, you're going to walk out the door. That's right. Well, no one's telling no one's telling me that. Fortunately, I can trash the tax cuts as much. Let me ask you, let me just go back to Congress because this is an interesting part. And I think it doesn't get enough attention about how they can be part of the opposition. Kristen Wilker this morning actually asked Senator Chuck Schumer about your op-ed. He seemed to agree with you. He gave his thoughts on what Democrats can do differently on the economy moving forward, which I think everybody's thinking about. I want to play that and talk about it with you. We talked about the mechanics of the legislation and the details of the legislation. And we really didn't show the kind of empathy and concern to average or show enough of it, to average working families. So what we're going to do is spend a lot of time talking to working families, showing them how much we care about them, and not just talk about legislation, but talk about the conditions that have made so many working families worried about their futures. That sounds pretty good to me. We'll see how it's implemented. What do you think? Well, I mean, I think there's always a reason I kind of have some affection for Senator Schumer. And what he hears is he understands on the fly that we're not communicating, but we need benchmarks to tell people we care about. Hey, the American needs are raised. Let's raise this thing to $15 an hour. Workers are getting the shot in there to stick here. Let's ask these billionaires to pay the tax rate that they paid during the most prosperous era in the United States in the 1990s and contribute to young people having a future in this country. Let's protect a pregnant woman that works at the Walmart and Positula, Louisiana, who already has two kids and would have an economic and social burden that is unimaginable. Let's stand up for these people, let's show these people that we stand up for. And by the way, it's not just them. Everybody in America wants working people to make some more money they do. Everybody in America wants to rich to pay their fair share. Everybody, that's an exaggeration. Most Americans and most Americans want to give women and families a protection that they had under Roe v. Ray. This is not easy, people. This is really pretty simple. And we just have to accentuate this and drive it home. Let me ask you about something I've been thinking a lot about. I mean, one of the things you write in your piece in this struck my mind, got me thinking too, is to Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2020 should be based on two things. One, how authentic you are in the economy, and two, how will you deliver it on a podcast. Now, the mechanisms and delivery mechanisms, I think, is a really important question, but I want to ask you about the other piece, because one of the things that strikes me sometimes about Democrats is that they talk in consultant DC speak, right? That it becomes like poll-tested language that people are reading off of. How do you break people of that? Or do people just have to do it themselves? Well, I think the best way to, you know, they said in the Marine Corps that there's three ways to lead, by example, by example, and by example. And I think people like you, who have considerable experience in this, who are spokesperson for the White House, you know, by doing this, or maybe somebody like me who people say, well, that guy's kind of been around a long time, maybe we should listen to him, is don't talk in that joggingistic language. If you remember, Dan and I, two campaign, when I said the economy stupid, I was talking to all of the geniuses in the campaign. And I was telling them who are all more educated and smarter than I was, don't be too smart here. Okay, let's just be authentic and to the point. So I think people like you and I can bring this home, by example, and don't use that idiotic NPR jargon when you're talking to voters. We got a deacademic, I mean, we love academics, but we got to make it less academic, less ivory tower. I'm hearing Ricky, I'm just like editing. We all seem, we got to keep working at it. There's so many things I want to ask about. We got to talk more again at some point soon about how our both of our former bosses like to make people mad, and that's part of how they won. But we'll have to have you come, have you come back to talk about that? James Carville, always love it. Thank you. Coming up ahead of another anniversary of January 6, Donald Trump celebrates and praises the architects of the plot to steal the 2020 election. It literally happened last night. South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn is standing by. I'll ask him about it coming up next. As President elect Donald Trump returns to the White House, what will the first 100 days of the presidency bring? Follow along as his agenda takes shape with the new MSNBC newsletter, Trump's first 100 days. Weekly updates send straight to your inbox and expert insight on the key issues and figures defining this second term. We're seeing a really radical effort to change the American system of government. Sign up for Trump's first 100 days at MSNBC.com/Trump100. Tomorrow is January 6, which means just like they did four years ago, both chambers of Congress will meet in a joint session to count electoral votes and ultimately certify the election results. But unlike four years ago, no one is challenging their results and no violent mob is expected to try and stop them. Though it is remarkable that the man who tried to stop the process and overturn the will of the people last time is the man whose election victory they will be certifying this time. And in case you're wondering just how Trump views this full circle moment, he seems to be reveling in it. I mean, last night he apparently partied at Mar-a-Lago was some of the key figures involved in his attempt to overturn the election. It was a celebration of John Eastman, where attendees watched a film called The Eastman Dilemma. You might recall that Eastman was the lawyer who advocated for the plan for Mike Pence to unilaterally reject state's electors in 2020 to stop the certification of the results. And in a video posted online that appears to be filmed from the audience at Mar-a-Lago last night, Trump praised Eastman and his efforts in 2020. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. Congressman, it's great to see you. Thank you. Happy New Year and thank you for being with me. I have so many things I want to ask you about, but I want to start with tomorrow's date of January 6, because I know it's on your mind. You were at the Capitol that day. I just played that clip of Donald Trump praising John Eastman from last night. And we are two weeks away from Trump being sworn in and potentially pardoning people who participated in the insurrection. I just wanted to know how you were digesting that reality. Well, thank you very much for having me. It is a very unnerving moment. I do not believe you will have a repeat of that. We will have a vice president presiding on tomorrow who believes in the peaceful transition of the office. And she will was hired over her own defeat. I saw Al Gore do that some years ago. These things are what makes America great. Not whether or not you've got more hits on your social media than someone else or whether you can insult more people than the other person. But whether you can commit yourself to maintaining those things that keep us strong as a country and keep us great as a nation. And that's what you're going to see tomorrow. A great contrast. I hope the American people will take time out to watch this tomorrow and hopefully have their faith in this great country renewed it. Such an important reminder. Let me ask you about the new Congress. It was just sworn in after a bit of a slightly dramatic, but not that dramatic vote for speaker. It's a very narrow majority as you've talked about. And you've said and others and leadership have said in the Democratic side that you have to work with Republicans to get things done, which I think people might be happy to hear. What does that look like? What kind of things do you think you could work with Republicans to get done? In addition to, of course, keeping the government open. What beyond that? >> I would think that the speaker ought to put into practice as he presides over the full Congress, the same thing he did in order to get elected on the first ballot. He kept the vote open for a while until he could sit down and negotiate within his conference to get the votes he needed. That's what he needs to do as speaker. Presides over the Congress in such a way that when issues of importance come before the Congress, give us time to sit down for him to sit down with the leadership on the Democratic side, with Hakeem Jeffers, and find common ground. They found common ground. They got the 218 votes they needed. And that's all you need in order to get deals fast in the House of Representatives when you fully constitute it. And we're not going to be fully constituted. So he's going to have the need to get the 216 to 15 in order to get an agenda pass. Sit down with the opposing views, find common ground, and get it done. He's showing us that he can do it. Let's hope that he will. >> There's an idea that James Carville, among others, and obviously you've been a part of minority rule in the House in the past, put forward, which is forcing the opposing party to vote on things that are very popular with the public. That you've long been an advocate for, like raising the minimum wage, codifying abortion. Are those things that you think Democratic leadership will push forward? I saw, obviously, Litter Jeffers gave a great speech about protecting Social Security and Medicare the other day. Are you hoping that you can force Republicans to have to vote on those issues? >> Yes, but I think we've got to explain the issues to the American people in the way that they can understand it. And let me give you one good example. Medicaid, I keep hearing all those talked about Medicaid and these states that have not expanded Medicaid. Medicaid, there's two of a sudden, five or eight of a cent. It's all about nursing home care. It's about every single family in America needing what Medicaid provides. But we don't explain that to people. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to people, especially in rural communities. And they've got no idea that these nursing homes are funded through Medicaid. People keep the passionate off as something for low income people only and doesn't apply to other families. We've got to go to the American people and they've got to understand exactly what's in this legislation. And that's what we're not doing a good job of. And that is where we have the problem. So I agree with Gabriel as to his overall approach to this. But I think we have to spend a little time on the message and the messing jurors because we all know when it comes to the national party, we have the Democratic National Committee, we have the Senate Campaign Committee, the House Democratic Campaign Committee, the CCC. These are separate entities and they have to figure out how to get the American people to see how they differ and how they can work together. Because that is where we're missing. The Medicaid piece is such an important one. I just was saying yesterday I want to do something on this because nobody understands how many people it helps in the country. So I promise you we will do that. Let me ask you before I let you go. I know personally how close you are to President Biden, how important you are to him. And Macey News is reporting today, he plans to deliver two major speeches before leaving office. He has quite a record to stand on. But I wanted to ask you on a more personal level what you hope people remember about the impact his presidency has had on the country as we look to the final two weeks of his presidency here. Well, I think you begin to see headlines already about what this president's policies have met for the American people and they're very positive. I've seen op-ed pieces saying that Trump has to thank Joe Biden for inheriting a country in real good shape. And I believe that what's going to happen here is President Joe Biden is going to have to wait like Harry Truman has to wait for the country to look back and give the full understanding of what he was able to do in those four years. Remember Harry Truman just served a little more than one term he only got elected one time. He was eligible to run again, but opted not to. So he is now just in the top 10 of American presidents. And with me, he's in the top four or five. And I think the same thing's going to happen with Joe Biden. He's had a very consequential term in office, one of I believe the most consequential in modern history. >> Congressman Jim Clyburn, thank you so much. Great seeing you. Thank you for joining me today. I'm coming up Judge Juan Rochon orders Donald Trump to appear for sentencing next week, just 10 days before his inauguration. I'm guessing you've got lots of questions about that. I do too. Luckily our resident lawyers, some of your favorite lawyers, Andrew Weisman and Neil Kaziel are standing by. They join me next. >> Stay connected with the MSNBC app, bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere. >> Let's get up to speed. We've got some breaking news right now. >> Watch your favorite shows live. >> There's a lot happening here in Washington, as Donald Trump's second term starts to take shape. >> Read live blogs and in-depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app now at msnbc.com/app. >> So this week the judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal fraud case in New York ordered the incoming president to be sentenced next Friday, January 10th, which if you're doing the math is just 10 days before he takes office. Now in doing so, Judge Juan Rochon rejected Trump's combative last ditch attempt to forgo sentencing and dismiss the case altogether. Rochon said that presidential immunity does not extend to a president elect who is not in office yet. But he also ruled out any sentence of incarceration. Instead, he suggested he will order an unconditional discharge that is Trump won't face jail or probation or any other punishment. And given the crime here, that would be pretty unusual under any other circumstance. In fact, the New York Times review of the 30 felony false records convictions in Manhattan since 2014 revealed that no other defendant received an unconditional discharge. They instead received jail and prison sentences, probation, conditional discharges, community service or fines. Andrew Weisman is the former general counsel at the FBI. Neil Cottiell is the former acting U.S. solicitor general. I think you know them both. I don't know why we have to keep introducing all of the things because you know them both. But here we are. Okay, Neil, let me start with you. I think obviously this was a strongly worded from Judge Mershan. But for anyone out there is not a lawyer and who's wondering what is the point of having a sentencing hearing but not punishing him at all. What is the point? >> Yeah, so it's strongly worded, Jen, in two different senses. In one, the first part, Judge Mershan really says, look, Trump violated the law, had felony convictions. This guilty verdict was by -- wasn't handed down by operatives or elites or anything like that. It was a jury of 12 of Donald Trump's peers who listened. They deliberated and affirmed the enduring principle that no one is above the law. So that's part one of the decision. The judge says, I'm not going to overturn this conviction. The jury rendered it in a fair and impartial way. Part two about the sentencing, the judge says, but I am going to -- I'm likely to give what he calls an unconditional discharge, which, as you say, means no jail time. It's still important because it's still a felony conviction, and Donald Trump almost certainly is going to appeal it in any number of ways. But right now, Donald Trump stands as a convicted felon. And sometimes you do have felons who don't serve jail time. It's a really rare as that New York Times study that you pointed out says, but it is possible. >> All right, Andrew. I'm just trying to kind of help explain to all of our viewers here, no one better than you two. Is there anything the judge could have done differently to change where we are clearly arriving at on Friday or not? >> That is a great question because it gets at the dilemma that the judge had, because the only other real choice absent giving Donald Trump what he wanted, which is an outright dismissal of the case, and the judge rejected that. And as Neil said, the language, as you point out, was very strong. He called the case here premeditated and continued deception by the leader of the free world. Nothing but the sentencing takes that away. It's worth remembering whether sentenced or not. That is what the jury found he did, and the judge has said that. But the only other option for the judge was to put off the sentencing until four years from now after Donald Trump is no longer president. And at that point, even the district attorney's office said, yeah, would not be appropriate. So this is a really unusual situation. So it's hard to compare it to the other 30 cases that the New York Times looked at because you would have had this four year hiatus. And the final thing that's sort of important to notice by sentencing Donald Trump this Friday, he actually will trigger Donald Trump's appellate rights, because if this was waiting for four years, the normal rules are that Donald Trump would have this hanging over his head for his entire presidency. So in many ways, this is a really solemnly decision, it gives finality to the district courts, the trial court's ruling here. And it sends a message about this case to the public. There were a number of messages, at least in my reading, in how Judge Mershan wrote this. I mean, it was pretty scathing, as Andrew just mentioned. He also calls out Trump's lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emilbo, for using language in their filings, he says, has no place in legal pleadings. I mean, these two, for anybody who's not following this, and I think many of you are, are about to have big jobs at the Department of Justice. So, Neil, let me start with you on this one. What does that tell you? I mean, the language they have in here, how they've approached us about what we should be preparing for, that these two individuals, who the judge went out of his way to kind of call out, are about to have big Department of Justice jobs. Yeah, I mean, it's a shot across the bio, not just for the lawyers, but I think more specifically for Donald Trump himself, who had done any number, made any number of public statements about the court, about the judge, about the process, that I think the judge was worried about. The judge went so far as to actually quote Chief Justice John Roberts' statement just a few days ago on New Year's Eve about attacks on the judiciary, destroying its trying to destroy its credibility and undermine the safety and security of judges. So, I think that's definitely part of it. The other thing, just to return to the earlier conversation that I just want to make clear, the judge is not saying, "Oh, Donald Trump, you did something that wasn't that significant, and therefore I'm not imposing jail time on you." Rather, he's saying that because a state can't jail a sitting president, that that option was off the table. So, if Donald Trump tries to say, "Look, you know, I'm totally exonerated the way he did to Andrew and others in the Mueller report on the basis of this judge's decision," absolutely not. The judge is saying, just by dent of the Constitution, one state can't undo the whole, just like South Carolina in 1862 couldn't put Abraham Lincoln in jail and undermine the nation's will. So, it's not about the crime, it's about the fact that Donald Trump was elected and is going to serve as our president. We only have about 30 seconds here, but Andrew, you've poured over this. Anything we missed, you think it's important for people to understand? Well, I think your comment about the lawyering is important because it's hard to see how the new incoming administration at the Department of Justice is going to uphold the rule of law when one of the things that the judge found, and I'm just going to quote it, is that it's public record that the defendant has gone to great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grain juries, and the justice system as a whole. So, that is what the justice system at the Department of Justice that Neil and I served in for collectively decades. It's hard to see how you have that institutional concern when you have a president who has that record. Andrew Weisman, Neil Cottiell, everybody's favorite legal eagles, thank you so much. Happy New Year to you both. Coming up, Republicans were quick to try and use the deadly New Orleans terrorist attack to their political advantage, and they did not let facts get in their way. I'll explain when we come back. Stay connected with the MSNBC app, bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere. Let's get up to speed. We've got some breaking news right now. Watch your favorite shows live. There's a lot happening here in Washington as Donald Trump's second term starts to take shape. Read live blogs and in-depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app now at msnbc.com/app. Right now, officials are updating the public on this week's terrorist attack in New Orleans. They said there's still no evidence that the attacker worked with an accomplice. They also said agents are still following leads in Houston, Atlanta, Georgia, Florida, and internationally. They're still gathering the facts. And that's important to note, because in the immediate aftermath of Wednesday's attacks, Republicans in right-wing media didn't wait for the facts. Said they wasted no time in once again resorting to one of their favorite tactics, whipping up fear around immigration. It all started with one of their favorite sources. I mean, in the chaotic hours after a man plowed his car through a crowd on Bourbon Street in the early hours of New Year's Day, killing at least 14 people, Fox News published a claim from anonymous sources that the truck used in the attack had crossed the border just two days prior to the attack. Of course, when they published that report, investigators were still trying to piece together who the attacker even was. They were still so much they didn't know, and that was a couple days ago. But that didn't stop the next president from taking the truth social to blame the terrorist attack on criminals coming in to the United States. Now, within minutes, of course, as Vice President J.D. Vance had reposted Trump's claim, and soon other Republican lawmakers, like Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene, of course, started pushing this unconfirmed report that the attack was carried out by someone who recently crossed the border. And yes, you can probably guess what happened next. That initial Fox report turned out to be very wrong. Shortly after publishing its original report, one of Fox's senior national correspondence walked back the claim, saying that the truck actually crossed the border back in November, and that the person who drove the truck across the border was not the shooter. That's a pretty key piece of information. Now, soon after Fox posted its correction, the FBI put out a statement saying that the attacker was, in fact, a U.S. citizen from Texas and a veteran of the U.S. Army. And yet, those crucial new facts did not change the focus of a number of Republicans or right-wing media. Even after the clarification from Fox, even after a federal law enforcement official told the country that the attacker was an American citizen, they've continued to link the New Year's Day attack to the risk of migrants crossing the border. The congressional Republicans we hear in the House and the Senate have repeatedly asked the DHS under the Biden administration about the correlation, the obvious concern about terrorism and the wide open border, the idea that dangerous people were coming here in droves and setting up potentially terrorist cells around the country. Close the border. Secure our sovereignty. The entire world knows that we have an open border. They intend to hit us. When you can't secure your borders, when you refuse to call out radical Islamic terrorism and punish it, you get the events of October 7th, you get the events of just this past week in New Orleans. I'm more scared of the people who are pre-radicalized, the people who come into this country easily with an agenda who want to kill us all. I mean, two of those people were the speaker of the House who's second in line to the presidency and the guy who's going to be Trump's national security adviser, spreading inaccurate information about a terrorist attack in one of America's cities. Look, what happened in the hours of after New Year's Day was it was horrifying, and we should all be very clear about that. This was a person who's an American citizen and raised in Texas. Now, rather than deal with that incredibly disturbing fact, the president-elect, Republican in Congress, many of you that you just saw in that video, and writing media have been singularly focused on falsely tying this tragedy to their preferred narrative about the border. That is not an accident. They know what they're doing. Donald Trump and his allies want to stoke these fears. Facts began. The goal is to inject panic in order to bolster a very specific narrative and lay the groundwork and justification for their most extreme policies, like their plans for mass roundups and deportation, and the ending of birthright citizenship. But the job of any president, all of our elected officials, is not to lie about tragedies to meet political ends. Their job is to gather the facts, to work with local law enforcement, to try and understand what happened, and why it happened, so we can better protect ourselves in the future. But this week was a sobering reminder of a lot of things. One of them is that our next president sees things very differently. Janet Napolitano is the former Secretary of Homeland Security, and I'll ask her about all of this when we come back. As it relates to this investigation, all investigative details and evidence that we have now still support that Jabbar acted alone here in New Orleans. We have not seen any indications of an accomplice in the United States. That was just moments ago at a press conference in New Orleans, where officials said that there's still no evidence the attacker acted with any accomplices. But they also said they are still chasing leads all over the country and internationally. This is very normal. This is what happens with law enforcement. Joining me now is somebody who's dealt with this quite a bit. The former Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. She's also the former governor of Arizona. So let me start, Governor. I want to ask things I want to ask you about. But he just said that there's no evidence of an accomplice. They're still chasing plenty of leads. What other questions do you think officials are grappling with right now, and what questions are top of mind for you right now? Well, I think one of the fundamental questions with Jabbar is how did he go from being a seemingly normal citizen, a military member, to adopting a very radical form of Islamic faith to the extent of the violence that he committed? What was that radicalization process? And could it have been kicked up earlier in order to prevent the acts that he committed? That's such an interesting part of this. I just talked briefly right before we were talking about how when you're blaming on people coming over the border, which is not what happened in this case, you're taking your eye off exactly that, which is something that people should pay attention to. I wanted to ask you a little because you've dealt with law enforcement so much and the challenges that they are facing all the time, which is significant. And one of the challenges they're facing under Trump is kind of the spreading of information that's not tied to what the law enforcement officials are actually finding in investigations, either the pace or what their conclusions are. Can you talk to us a little bit about the impact that has on local law enforcement efforts when they're just trying to do their job, get to the bottom of it, and the pace is sometimes not what people want it to be, but what it is what it is in these processes? It is what it is. And the kind of immediate reaction or misinformation that was put out that this was somehow related to the border is that a minimum, a huge distraction from the real investigative efforts that need to be undertaken, which are more difficult than simply throwing out that the problem is related to the border, as if every problem is related to the border, which we know is not true. The border deserves to be defended and respected, but it is not the cause-detra of all of these things that have happened. And the whole radicalization process is very difficult for law enforcement, generally local, state, federal, and the so-called lone wolf, the person who doesn't act in concert with anyone else. So there are no communications to intercept. There's no way to get in an informant inserted. Those kinds of investigative methods don't work when you're talking about a lone wolf. So you have this combination really trying to understand what is still, I think, a mystery to most law enforcement. All law enforcement actually is this radicalization process, but also the lone wolf phenomenon. This is all happening with a backdrop of Trump has nominated a number of people to serve in positions in government and national security roles. And I want to ask you about specifically your former role, because he's nominated a former governor, Christy Gnome, to serve as the Secretary of Homeland Security. This kind of, to me, focuses on why we need more vetting, why there should be questions asked at these hearings that are significant. What do you hope she's asked at the hearing as they're making a decision about whether she's the right person to serve as the Secretary? Well, I think she's asked some basic questions about what she understands about the Department of Homeland Security, and then how she would prioritize the many missions of the Department. And then I'm sure she will get a lot of questions about immigration and border enforcement. That goes with the job, but so does FEMA. So how does she intend to protect FEMA from misinformation about claims that it's politicized the relief process, as we saw in North Carolina this past fall? What does she want to do about the protection of the nation's critical infrastructure from cyber attacks, which are many and varied, and have become almost ubiquitous? How does she intend to relate to the White House? Will she exercise any independent judgment, or will she simply do what the President's senior advisors tell her to do? And then how will she manage the Department? The Department is the size of almost 10% of her total state's population, and it spread all over the country and in many foreign countries as well. What management skills or techniques does she intend to bring to bear as a Cabinet Secretary? Ten and Polotano, some good advice for people prepping for hearings there. Thank you so much for joining me. We'll be right back. That does it for me today. As President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House, what will the first 100 days of the presidency bring? Follow along as his agenda takes shape with a new MSNBC newsletter, Trump's first 100 days, weekly updates and straight to your inbox, and expert insight on the key issues and figures defining this second term. We're seeing a really radical effort to change the American system of government. Sign up for Trump's first 100 days at MSNBC.com/Trump100.
Jen Psaki dives into the drama filled re-election of speaker Mike Johnson, and how aggressive moves by the Democrats could be the key to regaining power down the line. She is joined by James Carville to discuss what Democrats got wrong in November and where to go from here. Next, Jen is joined by Representative Jim Clyburn for a wide-ranging interview, including his thoughts ahead of the four-year anniversary of the violent January 6 insurrection and how Democrats can find common ground with Republicans in the new Congress. Then, legal experts Neal Katyal and Andrew Weissmann join the show to discuss Judge Merchan's orders for Donald Trump to be sentenced in his hush money case and why Merchan signaled that he will not be sentencing Trump to jail time. Later, Jen breaks down the GOP's attempts to falsely tie the New Orleans terrorist attack to the border and how it reveals their larger goal of stoking fears as groundwork for their extreme immigration policies. Finally, Jen is joined by former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to discuss the latest updates on the Bourbon Street attack and how Trump's disinformation distracts from the real investigative efforts being conducted by law enforcement.
