we can be two consenting adults and finish it here. >> that's fine, perfect. >> want to do it now? >> i would love it. >> stand your butt up. >> stand your butt up. >> stop it. >> sit down. sit down. you're a united states senator. sit down. sit down please. >> let's get ready to rumble! three days until a possible shutdown and what were republicans doing today? shoving each other in the hallway, screaming at their colleagues and challenging committee witnesses to fight. plus, tens of thousands of people gathered on the national mall for the march on israel as we're learning new details about a possible deal to free some hostages. but we begin with fulton county district attorney fani willis asked the judge in donald trump's case to put a protective order in case. it comes as videos of confidential interviews between the d.a.'s office and former trump codefendants were linked to the media. in her filing for the emergency motion, willis says this was intentionally done by someone from the defense and was, quote, clearly intended to intimidate winces in this case. subjecting them to harassment and threats prior to trial. the videos, which were obtained by abc news and "the washington post" but not nbc news were from witnesses jenna ellis, sidney powell, kenneth chesebro, and scott hall, who have all taken plea deals in the case. and those videos include stunning new revelations about donald trump's alleged plot to hang on to power. fani willis speaking today said this was the exact reason she originally filed for a protective order back in september. >> my team and the particular case that those got out, we had already filed to have a protective order where discovery in the case would not get out. so surprising, no. disappointing, yes. in fact, today, from here, i made sure i wasn't late for this event, but i was with my team making sure an emergency motion got filed so that motion we had already filed gets heard immediately. because i think it's -- i'm not happy that it was released and that you and your colleague got to do your story. >> the judge in the case has scheduled a hearing regarding the emergency protective order for tomorrow afternoon. meanwhile, one of donald trump's other legal cases, the new york civil fraud trial, trump has continued his unhinged rants against letitia james and judge arthur engoron, including reposting a call for them to be placed under citizen's arrest. perhaps this would be considered par for the course for trump if not for the fact we know if trump were to re-enter the white house, he would use a second term to exact revenge against his long list of perceived enemies. joining me is neal katyal, professor of law at georgetown university and msnbc legal analyst. doug jones, former u.s. senator from alabama, and a distinguished senior fellow with the center for american progress. and mary mccord, former acting assistant attorney general, msnbc legal analyst, and cohost of the msnbc podcast, prosecuting donald trump. let me just go around the table and let each of you comment on the release of this video, the release of these videos and the request for a protective order with the claim this was done to intimidate these witnesses. neal, i'll start with you. >> first of all, i think the evidence is so important because really what these tapes show is how the prosecutors are going to tear down trump's defense piece by piece. they show what trump was told, exactly when he was told it, and exactly how he planned to ignore all of it so he could stay in power. so i think it's pretty devastating for trump. that said, i don't think there's a chance in the world that this was leaked by the prosecution. you have seen fani willis. she's a complete pro. she went to the judge months ago and said, make sure that this kind of evidence doesn't get out into the wild. the judge never granted that request, and now there's that hearing tomorrow. fani willis had everything to lose by these kinds of tapes coming out, because it really does scare witnesses from coming forward, because look at what's happening to jenna ellis and everyone else on social media today. they're being attacked by the maga crowd and the like. it's scary. whereas the defendants didn't have much to lose. the evidence against them was going terribly. so many of them had already pled guilty, including people in donald trump's inner circle. this is all about if you had to play the odds, much more probable that the defendants who have a lot to lose were the leakers and not the prosecutors who have the winds at their back. >> doug jones, this feels exactly why you can understand why. donald trump is attacking the prosecutors in his other cases, attacking their clerks. and now, i saw it too on social media, people are going after jenna ellis, going after the people in these tapes. >> they knew that. look, this has been a pattern for a long time now. it is not just in his cases. this is a pattern when he was president. when he could say these things, what i call the dog whistle comments. he can say them, he can have somebody else, in this case, he just put out there, i have got an enemy. i have got someone who is opposing me. and folks are going to take that. that's the sad thing about this. there are people that are out there that are seeing this who think that i have got to do something about this. i have to stop this person from getting my guy. >> it also makes -- it -- >> they have had access to this. they also, you know, for right or wrong, they will take what they have seen, and they may be seeing things that are not going to be admissible in evidence. so it could, you know, it could actually hurt the prosecution. it could actually help the prosecution, depending, but it's not the way it's supposed to be. evidence is supposed to be presented at trial according to the rules of evidence. but i think also here we have the issue of a jury potentially themselves being afraid. we had that already come out when the names of the grand jurors were actually disclosed because apparently in georgia that's the process. and you know, some of those people were the subject to attacks. we have, i think it will be important to keep the jury anonymous if that's possible under georgia law. if i were fani willis, i would be seeking that. anyone who comes close, whether you're a witness, a juror, you are putting yourself at risk because when donald trump calls out the mob on you, they respond. and he knows this. he knows this for years. he's used it. his victimhood narrative, weaponization of the department of justice, weaponization of the georgia department of justice. this is his narrative. >> now it also puts all of these people in the cross hairs of donald trump now that they're testifying against him, they flipped on him. a lot of them are the most important witnesses. let's play sidney powell. she gets to one of the key questions of whether or not donald trump knew he lost the election. here's sidney powell. >> were you ever around when someone, anyone, told donald trump that he had lost the election? >> oh, yeah. >> who? >> pat cipollone, eric hirschman, derrick lions all thought he had lost. >> was that in the december 18th meeting? >> yes. >> what was president trump's reaction when this cadre of advisers would say he lost? >> it was like, well, they would say that, and then they would walk out, and he would go, see, this is what i deal with all the time. >> neal, that's an important revelation. >> yeah, absolutely. there's a debate about whether the prosecution in georgia and the prosecution in washington, d.c., jack smith's case, need to actually show that trump believed he had lost. you know, that's a tough legal debate, one way or the other, that i dent want to bore our viewers with. what this evidence shows is even under the higher standard that the prosecutors need to show that, they can show it, that they have people in the room where it happened, where trump was told, look, you lost. and when you couple the clip you just played with what jenna ellis' clip was yesterday, which was, quote, the boss is not going to leave under any circumstances. we're going to stay in power. you know, that's all just a demonstration that trump wanted to stay in power no matter what. he didn't care whether he, quote, won or lost the election. >> yeah. let's play another sidney powell. she was -- they established she understood she was going to be appointed to be special counsel even though she didn't have security clearance. he would get her one. then the question is what would she do. here is what she would do as special counsel. >> what was president trump's sense of what you would do as special counsel? >> i guess he assumed and i would have thought that i would have looked at putting into effect a provision of 13848 that would have allowed the machines to be secured in four or five states. >> mary, they were going to take the machines. i mean, that's madness. madness. >> right, and you know, we're starting to hear similar madness when we hear about project 2025. insurrection act on day one, et cetera. so one would think that we would have sort of learned from this experience and that there would not be any lawyers willing to go down the road that sidney powell was willing to go down, and i'm not sure that's the case. the other thing i would note, we were looking at those clips of december 18th, and those statements about the meetings of december 18th and people in his most closest white house counsel telling him he lost. remember, that's one day before his tweet, be there, be wild. one day before that. so he's been told, it's over. and he calls the mob. >> by the way, to go back just a little bit to what you're saying and what neal was saying. dan scavino ran donald trump's twitter. he's the person jenna ellised she had the conversation about the baas is not leaving. where does that put him? he was one of the people who could have been charged can contempt of congress. he wasn't. the question is did he get a deal? >> it's possible. we don't know. we're not going to know that for a little bit. you go back to, you know, what was said months earlier by folks close to donald trump. you know, his whole thing is going to be, deny he lost, stay in power. we have seen that time and time again. and what's really sad to me about this is that, and it is something that i think instinctively a lot of people and a lot of lawyers have known all along. that donald trump wanted to find a lawyer that would tell him what he wanted. that's the whole thing that we're seeing here. he's got really good lawyers. i may disagree with them from a political standpoint, but their are excellent lawyers. pat cipollone is a great lawyer. for them to be able to talk to him and tell him, and him say no, i'm going to shove you out and find jenna ellis and sidney powell and rudy giuliani who will not only tell me what i want to hear, they're going to court and tell that judge what i want them to say. >> and seize voting machines. >> they'll do whatever it takes. that's why you see those lawyers that are defendants in this case. >> neal, there was even the part where sidney powell admits that the reason that she was listened to and pat cipollone wasn't is she was telling donald trump, he was saying you see what i have to deal with? they won't tell me what i want to hear. i would like to ask you about the fact fani willis has said the trial in the georgia case may not really happen until 2025. that is a little frightening because it seems that we will know who the president is by then, and it could be the guy who wants to jail people like fani willis and put them in asylums and that sort of thing. >> very disappointing when she said that today. i always felt this trial, the evidence is all there, turned over to the defense. this trial should be much more ready to go than it is. and these delays i think are unconscionable and wrong. and i think that if this happens and a trial happens and takes place in 2025, if on the off chance donald trump wins, he's going to have a serious constitutional argument that a state prosecutor can't interfere with the nation's business and lock up the president of the united states. that's a serious constitutional argument that well respected constitutional scholars believe is right, regardless of who the president is. and so there's this whole thing about how presidents can't interfere with ongoing criminal cases in the states, and that's generally right under a doctrine of federalism, but it's also a very viable argument that trump can nullify or at least put the prosecution on hold if he actually is president. >> and he is 77 years old, and if he were to be president again, he would get out when he was 80 if he left at all. that is also unfortunately what this guy, a big if. neal katyal, doug jones, and mary mccord, thank you. speaker johnson is relying on the help of democrats to keep the government open, but all is not well in his clown car caucus. they are so dysfunctional that they are actually physically fighting each other. much more on that next. in a crisis caused by a terrorist massacre. warning civilians to clear out, while hamas forces them back. allowing in food and water, which hamas steals. meet the traveling trio. each helping to protect their money with chase. wooo! tools that help protect. alerts that help check. one bank that puts you in control. chase. make more of what's yours. the house averted a government shutdown with three days to spare. once again, democrats stepped in to provide the votes, passing new republican house speaker mike johnson's short term plan to fund the government 336-95. the plan will extend funding for half of the government until january 19th and the other half through february 2nd. and i'm going to pretend that makes any sense as a way to fund the $27 trillion government of the whole united states. i would also note johnson is not facing calls to remove him as speaker for relying on democrats for the votes to pass the funding bill. even though doing the same thing cost kevin mccarthy the gavel a mere six weeks ago. go figure. the lingering tensions over that explains some of the meltdowns and hostility was the word of the day on capitol hill. house republican tim burr chet who voted to remove kevin mccarthy as speaker accused mccarthy of deliberately elbowing him in the kidney while he was being interviewed. >> a little different the way people react in tennessee than in california. in tennessee, if you have a problem, you take it to them face-to-face. i guess in southern california where he's from, you take a cheap shot. >> for his part, kevin mccarthy said he didn't hit him intentionally and in a totally mature way, he added, if i kidney punched him, he would be on the ground. to stop it all off, matt gaetz filed an ethics complaint over mccarthy over the whole thing and things also went off the rails in a house oversight hearing when republican chair james comer called democrat jared moskowitz a smurf over a report that comer did the same thing that he wants to impeach president biden for, giving his brother a loan. but since testosterone is a hell of a drug, the mauncho man antics spilled over to the senate. former mma fighter turned oklahoma republican senator markwayne mullin tried to throw down with the president of the teamsters during a committee hearing. >> you want to run your mouth, we can finish it here. >> okay, that's fine. perfect. >> you want to do it now. >> i would love to. >> you stand your butt up. >> you stand your butt up. >> stop it. sit down. sit down. you're a united states senator. sit down. sit down, please. >> joining me now is congressman ro khanna of california. i feel constrained to ask you before we start this interview, would you like to fight? >> well, joy, i'm happy to report that i made it to the camera unscathed. i didn't know that we were in the 1800s when people challenge each other to duels. i'm glad bernie sanders stood up to restore some decorum. here's the thing that's not getting covered. you know what we were voting on in there? the republicans literally had amendments to say that they want to zero out the national institute of health, and all cancer research. they want to zero out all student financial aid. they want to zero out all math and science education. their agenda is so extreme, so dangerous, and that's what really we need to focus on. >> and why is it, do you think, that speaker johnson was able to get away with passing a clean mini funding bill, which i think is ridiculous to fund the government through february in two halves. i think it's silly, but he did get something done that kicks the ca. why do you think he's getting away with it when kevin mccarthy couldn't? >> you're asking the impossible, to provide reasonable explanation for the actions of the republican caucus. you can have expert after expert and i don't think anyone could answer that. it shows a lot of the grievance against mccarthy was personal and didn't have as much to do with the substance, and again, it's the democrats staying unified, being the adults in the room, funding government. and it's the republicans who want to cut basic services. >> you know, the thing is that, is that the core of the fight? because it does seem to me that the arguments of the far right, i guess they're all right, far right, against all of these funding bills is that they actually don't want to fund any of this. they don't want to fund, as you said, head start and preschool funding and i guess they don't even want to do roads and bridges. what have they communicated so the democratic caucus understands what they do want to pay for? >> they have not. they just want to cut things. part of the challenge, these are such extreme ridiculous proposals. they have amendments, we want to make the nih director $1 salary, department of education that gives money for special needs kids $1 salary. that the democrats lm think it's so ridiculous we don't need to argue against it, but we need to let the american people know what's at stake, particularly in 2024. you have a republican party that wants to cut science, that wants to cut cancer research, that wants to cut education, that wants to make cuts in social security, that wants to make cuts in medicare, and you have a democratic party that is standing up to fund the basic social safety net that this country has had since the new deal. that's the choice in this election. >> let me play for you matt gaetz who started all this by doing the motion to vacate against kevin mccarthy before. here he is plaining why it's different for mike johnson. >> there's a fundamental difference here between johnson and mccarthy. mccarthy had seven months. johnson only had a few weeks. mike johnson and kevin mccarthy both promised us a path to single subject spending bills. and seven months of kevin mccarthy being speaker, he only delivered one of them. if mike johnson is only able to deliver one of them over seven months, then he would likely face a motion to vacate too. >> please explain what that is. >> what that means is they want to vote on one spending issue at a time. they don't want to link education funding with ukraine funding. look, funding government is complex. it's a trillion dollar budget, trillions of dollar budget. you can't just say we're going to fund everything one piece at a time for every vote. the concerning thing about matt gaetz's commentary is it makes it seem as if johnson is on the continue. i once said it's a question whether british prime ministers are going to last longer or house republican speakers, but now i'm not joking. >> a head of lettuce usually beats all of them. seven months is actually not a long time. is it -- it must be mad making for you to be in a house of representatives where the timeline for whether a speaker can remain is