Skip to main content

tv   Deadline White House  MSNBC  December 1, 2021 1:00pm-3:00pm PST

1:00 pm
oxford high school in michigan just about 24 hours ago. we will have more coverage of that later today here on msnbc. and on "nbc nightly news." for now, "deadline: white house" will begin in just a moment. will begin in just a moment. ♪♪ hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. today the u.s. supreme court seems poised to make history based on today's oral arguments in the mississippi abortion law case in terms of overturning the protections of roe versus weighed which nearly 50 years ago established a institutional right to abortion. the court's super majority of conservatives indicated today that they just might radically curb the rights of women in this country to make determinations over your own bodies and health. during oral arguments for mississippi's proposed 15-week abortion ban the six conservative justices on court asked questions that ran the
1:01 pm
gamut between claiming there is no constitutional right to abortion to pressing why 15 weeks was enough time to figure out if you need an abortion. attorney julie reichelman and u.s. slisor general -- preologua pushed back reminding the supreme court a 15-week ban would cut the current time period nearly in half, mepging the stakes of their ruling. >> the real world effects of overruling roe and casey would be severe and swift. if this court renounces the liberty interest recognized in roe and reaffirmed in kissy, it would be an unprecedented contract traction of individual rights and a stark departure of principles of starry zisis. the court has never revoked a right so fundamental and essential to americans to their ability to participate fully and kathie lee gifford equally in society. the court should not overall this central component of women's liberty.
1:02 pm
>> the report has never revoked a right. justice alito seemed to speak for most of the conservative members of the court taking aim at the viability that was established in roe. >> the fetus has an interest in having a life. and that doesn't change, does it, from the point before viability to the point after viability? >> during arguments justice kavanaugh took the position that abortion want remanded to the states. it is considered an extreme restriction on the rights of women across the country. >> i think the other side would say that the core problem here is that the court has been forced by the position you are taking and by the cases to pick sides on the most contentious social debate in american life. and to do so in a situation
1:03 pm
where they say that the constitution is neutral on the question of abortion, the text and history, that the constitution is neither pro life nor pro choice on the question of abortion. and they would say, therefore, it should be left to the people, to the states, or to congress. >> if the court chooses what is being called kavanaugh's so-called middle ground, 26 states are likely ban abortion. chief justice roberts seemed the narrow the scope of any discussion by arguing that the issue of 15 weeks was the only thing before the court. >> the thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks. that's not a dramatic departure from viability. why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> "new york times" is reporting that roberts' fellow conservatives did not appear to see things the same way that
1:04 pm
roberts did. times reports, quote, assuming the three most conservative members of the court, justices alito, thomas, and gorsuch are prepared to overrule roe entirely chief justice roberts would need to i a tract two votes for narrower opinion, one upholing mississippi law but not overruling roe in so many wore to be controlling. but justices kavanaugh and coney barrett said little to incline they were inclined toward the narrowing approach. justices ryan, kagan, and society myiar, the liberal justices insisted the dangers of overturning a watershed decision like roe with society mayior asking whether the court would survive the stench of being a political institution. surviving the stench in the words of justice society my major, possibly the only question about the mississippi
1:05 pm
case is where we start today. joyce vance is here at the table. also at the table, john heilemann, nbc news and nbc national affairs analyst as well as the host of the hell and high podcast. and -- >> take me through where this ended today. >> where this ended is an interesting question. it is just the right one to start with. the question is, if roe and casey don't survive, what comes next? it seems unlikely with the 6-3 conservative majority that roe and casey will survive as they currently exist. what do you do? do you in the words of justice brett kavanaugh return the decision to the states? he says the court shouldn't be picking sides but really no matter what court does here it will pick a side. if that's to leave the question of abortion to the states that's
1:06 pm
picking the side that says if the legislature decides a women shunt have the right to determine their own future in terms of pregnant that a state legislature can take it away from them. of course we saw the map that you put up. it's not like there is an even sprinkling across the country. if roe versus weighed is reversed there will be parts particularly in the deep south of the country where women will have to travel hundreds of miles to access something that's prfl been deemed a substantive right. what's? is there -- it seems there are five votes to undue roe's viability standard. ultimately, we are left with more questions than we had going in.
1:07 pm
we won't find out until the court render its opinion. >> in your personal view, what is the best case scenario right now? >> if you believe that women should be full participants in our society and have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, and i certainly ascribe to both of those views, then this was not a good argument. i mean, it's a little bit dangerous to predict the outcome of a case based on argument. typically you will hear people like me decline to do that because we believe the justices will try issues and arguments on for size. and sometimes the opinion they issue doesn't really look anything like the viewpoints that they seem the espouse during argument. today, though, the view seemed a little bit more honed and a little bit more narrowed. justice kavanaugh was very clear as he talked about returning rights to the people adopting the language used by mississippi. so it's hard to believe that the outcome here is anything short of, if not reversing roe versus
1:08 pm
weighed and then essentially futuring its protections. >> we are having a hard time with our ability to play this. i want to read some of this. your first words out your mouth were if we overturn roe and casey. they all went before the united states senate and neither said they would overturn roe and casey. how did we get there. >> i think that's a contegsing virginia tech for judges to try the duck answering how they would rule cases if they appeared before them. in the cases that may have been on courts of appeal, we have an inkling of their rulings. justice barrett was in a symposium and written in other cases. democrats are more lickly to apoint justice who is are warm towards women's' rights. of course in the caves former president trump he vowed he would only put justices on the court who would reverse roe versus wade. that was a pretty stark promise.
1:09 pm
my coal, you will recall that mississippi when it passed the law that's under question here, they passed that with representatives going to the floor of the mississippi house, in essence, now that we have got this new conservative majority, we can pass this law which we know violates the law which we could have never gotten past a preliminary injunction and up to the court before but now with the three new justices, it's time. >> lame play justice society myiar's comments. >> the newest ban that mississippi put in place, the six-week ban, the senate sponsor said we are doing it because we have new justices on the supreme court. will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?
1:10 pm
i don't see how it is possible. it's what casey talked about when it talked about water shed decisions. some of them, bound versus board of education, it mentioned, and this one have such an entrenched set of expectations in our society. this is what the court decided, this is what we will follow. that we won't be able to survive if people believe that everything including new york versus sullivan -- i could name any other set of rights, including the second amend, by the way. there are many political people who believe the court erred in seeing this as a personal right as opposed to a militia right. if people actually believe that it's all political, how will we
1:11 pm
survive? how will the court survive. >> i want to stop right here. this seems to me the most watershed question before the court. will this institution survive the sterchl it creates to do just what she said. the mississippi ban was put in place by people who said we have new jss on the court. they were the justices appointed by donald trump. to the larger question, what damage has been done to the supreme court by the line of questioning about a law that was put in place because of who they were, of who got those spots? >> i worry deeply about the court's ability to survive what she called that political stench. the idea of stary zisis, that you can't willy-nilly overturn a
1:12 pm
decision, which important for our full democracy. it allows us to rely on the facts that the court will poll precedent, won't sway left to right depending on who is president or who is in congress and that there have to be really special circumstances -- none of which are present here. that is what is so unusual in this argument. they weren't just asking about precedent in stary zisis. several times they said assume this is a matter of first impression, assume we are deciding this for the first time. we are not. we have had five decades of roe. >> she references other amendments. kavanaugh seems to be saying, hot, potato, send it back to the states. what isn't a hot potato right now is this the right to vote is, donald trump successfully
1:13 pm
branded the first amendment as an act of -- as enemies of the people she and he who exercised it, unless they were on fox news. the second amendment, a tragic school shooting and only a handful of people talking about doing anything about gun safety reform because those rights are so firmly entrenched. why not this one? >> i mean, look, the history on this. this is now a 50 -- 50-year conservative project to overturn roe v wade. it has been the center of our judicial politics since 197. i think, you know, i saw just looking at the polling here, gallop has been asking of approval of the supreme court since 2000. it is at an all-time low now, 40%. there is a reason for that. it's that the country has increasingly come the see the court as a political institution and not a judicial institution. and they are not wrong. and there has been -- the court has always been a political institution, let's be clear, to
1:14 pm
some extent. i like joyce have seen the court surprise people many times. we thought the court would do certain things and it has not. justice roberts has been focused on this question of legitimacy and trying constantly to maintain the legitimacy of the court in a way that it has the paramount virtue for him in his private conversations, his public rulings, his contribution of what he has done on the court. we are now at that place where it is quite clear -- what justice sotomayor said, what the attorney general the slitdor general said, the right of taking a right a right this fundamental -- i don't believe believes the right to bear arms isn't as fundamental to the right of women to control their body and their own health. it is a fup right, the second amendment, but most women in
1:15 pm
america would probably say this right is a more central right. now we are only analyzing this in terms of politics. not wrongly. you think back to roe, it was 7-2 decision? a 7-2 discussion. who was on the court, chief justiceberger, a nixon appointee. justice blackmon, a nixon appointee. justice powell, a nixon appointee. stewart, an eisenhower appointee. all of these people were republican appointees. that was what conservative used to mean in the judicial sense. they voted some ways in ways conservatives didn't like. >> they were separate, separate from the republicans in congress. >> but they -- the appointments of -- constituents are frustrated often when they thought they were going to get something and they got something he will. on this case, this has been the
1:16 pm
runaway train rolling down the track fosse ar long time. i will say one last thing, the job that chief justice roberts had was different in a 5:-4 -- in 5-4 court than it is in this 6-3 court. 6-3 is a really hard hand to play when you are chief justice roberts. you have to get two of those votes to stick with starry zisis and to do -- and to stick with trying to promote the legitimacy of the court. he is now playing a losing hand. he played surprisingly winning hand for a long time. it look like in this case -- again, i don't predict what's going happen but, boy, this was a bad day for -- could you hardly imagine the arguments going worse if you were trying
1:17 pm
to maintain a fleck of a hope roev weighed would survive. >> you agree? >> i do. as a woman, it effectsly differently. not me anymore, but i have a daughter who is still in our 20s. i try not to think about just the legal aspect of this, sometimes as lawyers we hide behind the legal arguments when the going is rough or personal. here today it looked like the court was about to tell women, you know, you are no longer full partners in society. you are second-class citizens. and mississippi made the north its brief that women had main so many gapes, such advances that they could have successful careers, that they had ready access to contraception. and there was a part of you that read the brief and said, because of roe, because roe and those protections have existed. and now, you, mississippi, are willing to take those away from women, probably we we need them
1:18 pm
as much as we have ever needed them. >> let me ask you. i really mean this as a real question. is it ignorance that cause as brilliant man like chief justice roberts to ask if question about in 15 weeks isn't early enough? you mentioned the politics of this. most of my visibility into the issue is around the politics. it is deadly politics to be against abortion in cases of rape and incest. the vast majority of young girls who are raped and victims of incense do not know early in their pregnant. if you don't know at 15 weeks, what makes the chief justice ask that question? >> it feels like a tone deaf question. i think the technical legal answer is he is searching for an answer to the unhappiness with the viable question. they are saying what do we do if viable is no longer the
1:19 pm
standard? but there is a certain lack of lived experience to ask that question. because pregnancy is difficult and confusing in the best of circumstances. i don't know about you but i was a little bit slower. i once put my car in gear and then got out of it. you know, at some points my judgment making took a little bit longer. if we want women to make difficult but well reasoned decision i would think we would want to give them more time, not less time. and as you point out in cases of rape and incest, some of these state laws are stunningly restrictive. alabama, for instance, as a law ready to go that will ban abortion including in cases of rape and incest. women really need more time in these settings. the more vulnerable they are the more time they need. viable is standard that's held up really well for the last 48 years. >> i want to -- >> go ahead. >> i am not trying to defend justice roberts i have no idea what's going on in his mind. there have been cases, you have
1:20 pm
seen instances where they ask tone deaf questions and what they are trying to tease out an answer -- they can't make their point of view, and they ask questions where they know the answer is going to be and they are trying to get the answer on the record. i don't know if that's the case in this ep stance but i have seen that many times on the supreme court. >> the justices are looking for is there an intermediatia standard because mississippi is now in a full-on way saying it is time to reverse roe versus wade. >> right. >> one possible interpretation of the question is they are searching for an answer that says there is no intermediate, it is all or nothing in let me play justice kagan as well. >> i guess what strikes me when i look at this case is that, you know, not much has changed since roe and casey, that people think it's right or wrong based on the
1:21 pm
things that they have all thought it was right or wrong for. so the rationale behind those cases has something to do with the autonomy and the freedom and the dignity of women to pursue their lives. some people think those decisions made the right balance. some people thought they made the wrong balance. but in the end, we are in the same exact place as we were then. except that we are not. because there has been 50 years of water under the bridge, 50 years of decisions saying that this is part of our law, that this is part of the fabric of women's existence in this country. and that that places us in an entirely different situation than if you had come in 50 years ago and made the same arguments. >> if a teama, i want to bring
1:22 pm
it back to john heilemann's point. we are in the same place except the republicans on the supreme court are not the same as the republican appointees on that supreme court. these republican appointed justices do not appear open to the possibility of preserving precedent. of preserving roe. so we are just talking about how badly it will be decimated. to come back to justice sotomayor's point, what do they do about the stench of now being clearly seeing and acting as a political body. >> i think it's a thing they are looking at. the legitimacy of the supreme court is for sure on the line. and to the point of not much changing in these last five decades, it is still the case that pregnancy is a situation that can be dangerous. i say this as someone who had high-risk pregnancies. so that idea that it is just sort of a cavalier no big deal
1:23 pm
thing to carry a pregnancy to term -- it was really disturbing to hear how they talked about it. it is still the case that women in this country face tremendous barriers when parenting. and it is still the case that our constitution for good reason has said that to be equal in this country, to be -- to have access to abortion, they are bound up together. so the only thing that has actually meaningfully changed is the composition of the court. and people will not forget that. >> if a teama, god's greatest, thanks for starting us off today and being part of our coverage. when we come back, video of the interrogation of a capitol
1:24 pm
rioter. plus a new book paints a picture of former president donald trump who selfishly and recklessly put an untold number of people at risk for covid. that now includes president joe biden. details from his former chief of staff's book that no one should be surprised about but that we should all be surprised by. the committee investigating the january 6th insurrection will vote on a criminal contempt deferral for mark meadows. all those stories and more after "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
1:25 pm
that's your grandma. she was the best at the holidays. your plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. vazalore... is the first liquid-filled aspirin capsule clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. try new vazalore. aspirin made amazing! ok everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, now introducing ensure complete! with 30 grams of protein. ♪ ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience,
1:26 pm
you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪
1:27 pm
1:28 pm
a new rely leased fbi video shows a january 6th defendant confessing to what he says was an answer to the expresident's call to battle at the u.s. capitol where he was seen on video repeatedly tasing officer michael fan own shocks that fan own thought were going to kill him. here is some of danny rodriguez's stunning interrogation confession from march as he faces nine federal counts now, including conspiracy to commit violence. >> what doupt me to tell you, that i tased him? yes. >> explain -- >> [ bleep ]. >> why did you tase him? >> i don't know, i am a piece of [ bleep ]. i'm sorry. i don't know. >> how do you get to january 6th? like how -- what else happens in that period of time?
1:29 pm
>> drug problems. >> tell me about that. how -- >> trump called us, trump called us to d.c. >> tell me. how do you me that he called you to d.c. >> if he is the commander in chief and leader of our country and he is calling for help. i thought he was calling for help. i thought he was -- i thought i was doing the right thing. >> we are back with joyce and john heilemann. he was calling for help. i thought we were doing the right thing. let's go with the legal analysis side for a second. is that in your view a representative sort of psychology of an insurrectionist? >> this is one defendant making a very specific statement during interrogation by the fbi about what his motivations were. so as you say we have to set
1:30 pm
aside the legal issues. will that statement for instance be admissible at trial is a big one, i think. but woe know, because we have heard people say this, not people who have been charged necessarily, that they went to washington because the president called and we saw it in real time. we saw his tweets. you know, january 6th. >> it is going to be wild. >> summoned the faithful. >> i can't watch that without hearing sort of the split screen testimony of officer fan own in that first televised hearing of the 1/6 committee. we have it. can we play that? >> i was electrocuted again and again and again with a taser. i'm sure i was screaming, but i don't think i could even hear my own voice. during those moments i remember thinking there was a very good chance i would be torn apart or shot to death with my own weapon. i thought of my four daughters who might lose their dad.
1:31 pm
>> he goes on to say, i told them that i had kids, because i thought they would stop short of killing me. so right before i sort of cross into any sort of sympathy for this, you know, defendant who said i was there for trump, i think of the brutality, described as medieval hand to hand combat by officer harry dunn. and i think throw the book at these guys. >> it is not just the testimony -- although in addition to fanone's testimony you have others who were taunted, they faced racist taunts and slurs on that day. you have to abstract this. in general, away from this one defendant. we don't know this guy -- what we have -- we have a lot of video that tells you what the vast majority of people were like that day. we have a lot of statements. we know what they were saying to the police. we know when these police were beaten you could hear what they were trying to stay.
1:32 pm
calling them traitors, this all say stand by the blue and then they were beating them, dragging them down steps and hurling racist comments at black officers. this guy turns out to be an outlier though he doesn't strike me as wholly sympathetic to begin with. but it's kind of irrelevant -- it is relevant to his criminal case and his personal moral case. it is not relevant to the overall picture. it is overwhelmingly clear. it is one of the most photographed most videoed events. we know there was blood lost and people who overwhelmingly en masse decided they were ready to trample, stomp, and kill, potentially police officers who were protecting the capitol. >> and mike pence. >> it is incontrovertible. there is not any individual interrog that's going to change our minds about that if we are willing to just watch the video. >> i guess where there is a disconnect now in the way we talk about this and cover it, we pose it as a question whether
1:33 pm
donald trump is under investigation by d.o.j. whether donald trump will be subpoenaed by the 1/6 committee. to go back the your earlier point, those are political decisions. donald trump is the only reason they were there. the only reason this defendant thought it was okay to tase officer fanone, he was there because he thought donald trump needed help. it seeps like we should be more honest about the questions we have here whether donald trump will be investigated as part of the d.o.j. probe, whether or not he will be subpoenaed by 1/6. without donald trump, there is no insurrection. >> i think that that's technically correct. i think it would be very difficult to maintain anything to the contrary. for this particular defendant, mr. rodriguez, his crime is committed wrout reference to the motive. it doesn't matter what his motive was if the evidence established yawned a reasonable doubt he engaged in the assault he will be convicted.
1:34 pm
with there was an authority who told you to do that told to you do -- you might see that in a place where someone is asking you to work undercover. we are in no place where he can rely on the argument that the president summoned him. the question is what accountability is there ultimately for president trump? you and i have had this conversation many times, and with hilemon. there has to be some form of accountable for a president who leads an insurrection whether technically he violates the law or not? yeah. joyce, thank you for being at table. it is nice to have -- this is the most people that have been here in 18 months -- >> is this the first time you have of two of us? yeah, i haven't had one. >> i was here last week, two of us this week. it is kind of getting back is this slowly. >> i know we would all rather be home with our dogs but i am happy you are here.
1:35 pm
coming up next for us, there are new revelations about trump's reckless but not surprising behavior at the height of the pandemic and the height of the presidential campaign and how in one at all did anything at all to stop him. that is next. i've spent centuries evolving with the world. that's the nature of being the economy. observing investors choose assets to balance risk and reward. with one element securing portfolios, time after time. gold. agile and liquid. a proven protector. an ever-evolving enabler of bold decisions. an asset more relevant than ever before. gold. your strategic advantage. [uplifting music playing]
1:36 pm
♪ i had a dream that someday ♪ ♪ i would just fly, fly away ♪ when traders tell us how to make thinkorswim even better, we listen. like jack. he wanted a streamlined version he could access anywhere, no download necessary. and kim. she wanted to execute
1:37 pm
a pre-set trade strategy in seconds. so we gave 'em thinkorswim web. because platforms this innovative, aren't just made for traders - they're made by them. thinkorswim trading. from td ameritrade. emergency planning for kids. we can't predict when an emergency will happen. so that's why it's important to make a plan with your parents. here are a few tips to stay safe. know how to get in touch with your family. write down phone numbers for your parents, siblings and neighbors. pick a place to meet your family if you are not together and can't go home. remind your parents to pack an emergency supply kit. making a plan might feel like homework, but it will help you and your family stay safe during an emergency. earn about covid-19, but it will help you and your family stay safe the more questions we have. the biggest question now, what's next? what will covid bring in six months, a year? if you're feeling anxious about the future, you're not alone.
1:38 pm
calhope offers free covid-19 emotional support. call 833-317-4673, or live chat at calhope.org today. there is a new book that reveals a shocking admission from a rather shocking source. that the expresident may have
1:39 pm
been infected with covid five days earlierst than was known to the public. and to the many people that he came into contact with. here's why that matters. the guardian is reporting about a book which nbc hasn't seen or independently verified written by donald trump's former chief of staff, mark meadows who said that donald trump tested positive for covid and then negative on september 26th three days before taking the debate stage with joe biden. meadows writes, although trump knew each candidate was required to test negative within 72 hours of the start time nothing was going to stop trump from going out there. meadows also writes that trump saw the negative test as full permission to press on as if the positive never happened while meadows instructed everybody else in his circle to treat trump as if he was positive throughout the trip to pennsylvania later that day. today trump is denying the first positive test and calls the
1:40 pm
story by in meadows fake news. joining us, david jolly and you mean daniels. john heilemann is still here. look, donald trump never did the right thing when it came to covid. maybe his campaign wouldn't have takd if he hadn't pulled a no-show for debates, david jolly. >> i think the takeaway is it confirms the sociopathy of donald trump, the lack of concern for his own health or the health of others. and particularly, listen, if you have two tests in conflict -- donald trump is suggesting today it is fake news, i got a negative test as well. i don't know what medical test you might take in which you take it device and there is a conflict where you don't take a third. that's the most telling here. this president who was supposed to be transparent about his health even while engaging in the war on science and false thing on all things covid here he was likely knowing he was
1:41 pm
infected and the fact is three days after the debate he ends up hospitalized with covid. there is it's clear there are indications he was experiencing covid affects but ignored them and put other people's lives in jeopardy. it also says, interestingly, mark meadows becomes an intriguing figure in the story telling. is there more in the book about donald trump? he wants to keep his conservative bona fide -- he is likely cooperating with the january 6th committee. there might be more coming from mark meadows in the coming days. want to pick up on the sociopath beat and lay out the time line of what donald trump did after getting the first positive test. on september 26th donald trump tests positive for covid. there is a rose bar again event for amy coney barrett on september 26th, the day donald trump tests positivetive. meadows writes he treats the
1:42 pm
negative one as full permission to press on. donald trump holds a rally in middletown, pennsylvania. the next day, september 27th, he holds an event with military families. september 29th he goes to the debate. 11 cases of covid are later tied to the debate. october 21st, trump tested positive again, the third test, positive, negative, positive, on the 1st. on the 2nd he checks into wallet ear reed medical center. it is clear that the positive was real, the negative, if there was one, was a false negative. but all the people put in danger is just a staggering window into his indifference to disease and death. >> no. absolutely. and i think the thing that's really interesting is that piece that you said that meadows wrote, is that nothing was going to stop trump from going out there. right? that speaks to so much of who we have learned donald trump to be, right, from when he was a reality tv show star to being
1:43 pm
president. nothing is going to stop him from doing what he wants, right? he doesn't -- he has not allowed the truth to stop him from continuing to lie about the election. all of the things that we know that happened during that white house is, as people start to write their books and people start to feel free to talk, is that donald trump did what he wanted to do when he wanted to do it. and it seems in this case he did it at the possible -- you know -- putting other people's health at risk during a pandemic when a lot of us were still very scared about what was going on and more importantly hundreds of thousands of people who live in this country have died. i think what's interesting is reporters who heard that trump tested positive before that debate asked meadows and also donald trump. and john carr for example, said both trump and meadows told him that positive test never happened.
1:44 pm
now we have this book excerpt from meadows. i think jolly is right that head owes is going to be an increasingly interesting figure because if in his book is filled with things like this, from one of the staunchest supporters of donald trump we are going to learn a lot more about him than we have in the fast. it is going to increase the odds of donald trump moving forward. >> i know there was a debate over whether or not to call trump a liar. i want to show you a tape of him lying to savanna guthrie about his last positive and they gotive test. >> your first positive test was thursday, october 1st, okay. >> uh-huh. >> when was your last negative test? when did you last remember having negative test? >> i test quite a bit. i can tell you before the debate, which i thought was a very good debate and i felt fantastically, i had no problem
1:45 pm
before. >> did you test the day of the debate? >> i don't know. i don't remember. i test all the time. >> so the 26th was his last -- he took a negative and a positive test that day. >> nicolle you are a opportunity of communications. i want to read the statement today. i want to quiz you, what was missing from the statement. >> he says the story of me having covid prior to or during the debate is fake news. what is missing in there? an actual denial what have mark meadows said. he never addresses the question whether there was a positive test. all he says is it is fake news. then he says a test revealed i did not have covid prior to the debate. he is pointing to the negative test and not even saying anything about the positive test. that's a contradiction. trump is essentially confirming the story here. it is interesting that he and meadows could be at odds now
1:46 pm
because trump is clinging to these allies of his going forward. meadows is now cooperating with the 1/6 six. what happens if trump turns on meadows? does it help the 1/6 commission to get even more information out of meadows. this continues to be one of the most stunning things that ever happened in a presidential campaign, this thing, and there was a lot of speculation about the possibility. they were taking rapid tests in the days when rapid tests were not very good. no one took a negative test after a positive test at noz being a possible false negative. and no one -- in the circus of when we had these kinds of protocols you would never have not taken a first positive test because false positives were less frequent than false negatives. >> right. >> so it is -- you know, the whole thing is so outrageous. and the biden people at the time were pair for identification that trump had disregarded joe
1:47 pm
biden's health something they had vouch safed with intense, intense care throughout the campaign to make sure he did not get covid. to have donald trump walk into the debate. they knew he hadn't tested that day. which the debate officials instructed them to do. that's why savanna was asking that question. the wanton savage kind of putting people at risk in his own orbit, and his opponent walking into that debate. it is an astonishing thing. i think this story makes clear that -- i think we will get confirmation from others that this is in fact -- the meadows story is in fact a real story. we don't need further evidence that trump is someone who does not care at all about the welfare or lives of others. this is further confirmation of that fact. >> seasons we have been on the air, msnbc has confirmed that first positive test that meadows reports on in his back. david, you mean, and john all
1:48 pm
stick around. should racist remarks be condemned. that story is next. condemned. that story is next i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! (sighs wearily) here i'll take that! (excited yell) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health.
1:49 pm
1:50 pm
[microwave beeps] [ahh] ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm so defensive, i got bongos thumping in my chest ♪ ♪ and something tells me they don't beat for me ♪ ♪ i love romance, but i got eggshells around me ♪ ♪ don't step on 'em, don't step on 'em ♪ ♪ don't step on 'em, don't step on me ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ he'd better not take the ring from me ♪ riders, the lone wolves of the great highway. all they need is a bike and a full tank of gas. their only friend? the open road. i have friends. [ chuckles ] well, he may have friends, but he rides alone. that's jeremy, right there! we're literally riding together. he gets touchy when you talk about his lack of friends. can you help me out here? no matter why you ride, progressive has you covered with protection starting at $79 a year. well, we're new friends. to be fair. eh, still.
1:51 pm
breaking news. republican party continues to slip into further disarray as
1:52 pm
gop house leader kevin mccarthy appear to lose any and all control of his caucus, which is seemingly being led by its bizarre members who modelled themselves after the twice impeached ex-president. mccarthy tried to step in yesterday to break up a fight between two members. the fight stems in part from mace's condemnation of the racist and anti-muslim remarks from another member of his caucus. a person named lauren bobert who essentially called ileana omar a terrorist. her words about omar have led to omar receiving disgusting, life threatening voice mails, one of which she played for the press last night, demanding that mccarthy do something. we should warn you this voice mail is disturbing. >> we see you muslims [ bleep ]
1:53 pm
we know what you're up to. don't worry, there is someone who would love the opportunity to take you off the face of the [ bleep ] earth. come get [ bleep ] muslim piece of [ bleep ] jihadist. >> your gop, ladies and gentlemen. we're back with our panel. so, david, there are crazy people that leave nasty messages, but the difference here is not a story about her, this is about kevin mccarthy who revealed himself in full when he spent his day picking out donald trump's starburst flavors. he went through and picked out only the flavors trump wanted. we should have known what was going to happen after that. that was his ball game. wasn't about policy. wasn't about integrity. the only person he sought to hold accountable for anything is
1:54 pm
liz cheney for not lying about the insurrection. >> islamophobia is not just anti-muslim, it's anti-american. it's antithet cal to every american value. but to mccarthy, he does not agree. i think what we're seeing in realtime, i mean this, i think the speakership is slipping away. it is easy to get the nomination within the gop caucus. he has done that before. just requires 51% of your republican colleagues, but you have to get to 218 votes on the house floor which means you cannot lose even a handful of republicans how the house is currently situated. i don't think mccarthy has those votes. what we're seeing is the fish flopping around before he dies. it's that scenario. he is calculating enough to try to do this. he is hoping for a big enough republican win next november in
1:55 pm
the congressional midterms that he does not have to worry about the marjorie taylor greenes, the matt gates and others whose votes he won't have. >> eugene. >> this is what happens when the leader of the party is a former president who's been spreading lies about the election and demands ultimately fealty and one-sided loyalty. the temperature in washington we all know has been turned up for years and has been racist, sexist, homophobic, but the difference now is that whoever made that phone call and the others who have made phone calls, feel like they have permission to do so now. because their lawmakers are doing it themselves. then you have kevin mccarthy not really doing anything about it up until this point and it's december 1st and it's been a year of this. you know what i mean? of all of this kind of stuff. since donald trump left and so what that means is that the
1:56 pm
horse has left the barn and it's almost too late for any of the, all of that genie to be put back in the bottle. >> in june 2016, way back then, mccarthy was on a recording, was captured saying, there's two people i think prudent pays. he mentioned dana or backer and donald trump. we lambaste lindsey graham for becoming a lackey of trump's. who could forget, kevin mccarthy was claiming that trump was on prudence payroll and now he's picking out the star burst. >> we've known who he is for a long time. and the reality is that i think david's right in this political analysis. i think there's no one this weak and pathetic who will end up
1:57 pm
being the speaker. it's been around for a long time. >> david, eugene, john, thank you all so much for spending some time with us. the next hour of deadline white house starts after a quick break. don't go anywhere. we're just getting started. nywh. we're just getting started our sleigh is now ready, let's get on our way. a mountain of toys to fulfill many wishes. must be carried across all roads and all bridges. and when everyone is smiling and having their fun i can turn my sleigh north because my job here is done. it's not magic that makes more holiday deliveries to homes in the us than anyone else, it's the hardworking people of the united states postal service. (man 1 vo) i'm living with cll and thanks to imbruvica (man 2 vo) i'm living longer. (vo) imbruvica is a prescription medicine for adults with cll or chronic lymphocytic leukemia. imbruvica is not chemotherapy- it's the #1 prescribed oral therapy for cll,
1:58 pm
proven to help people live longer. imbruvica can cause serious side effects, which may lead to death. bleeding problems are common and may increase with blood thinners. serious infections with symptoms like fevers, chills, weakness or confusion and severe decrease in blood counts can happen. heart rhythm problems and heart failure may occur especially in people with increased risk of heart disease, infection, or past heart rhythm problems. new or worsening high blood pressure, new cancers, and tumor lysis that can result in kidney failure, irregular heartbeat, and seizure can occur. diarrhea commonly occurs. drink plenty of fluids. tell your doctor if you experience signs of bleeding, infection, heart problems, persistent diarrhea or any other side effects. (man 2 vo) i am living longer with imbruvica. (vo) ask your doctor if it's right for you. learn how we could help you save on imbruvica.
1:59 pm
emergency planning for kids. we can't predict when an emergency will happen. so that's why it's important to make a plan with your parents. here are a few tips to stay safe. know how to get in touch with your family. write down phone numbers for your parents, siblings and neighbors. pick a place to meet your family if you are not together and can't go home. remind your parents to pack an emergency supply kit. making a plan might feel like homework, but it will help you and your family stay safe during an emergency. earn about covid-19, but it will help you and your family stay safe the more questions we have. the biggest question now, what's next? what will covid bring in six months, a year? if you're feeling anxious about the future, you're not alone.
2:00 pm
calhope offers free covid-19 emotional support. call 833-317-4673, or live chat at calhope.org today. just the public reporting alone on the senate judiciary report clearly shows that jeffrey clark was a key effort within the department of justice. using the brand of the department of justice to
2:01 pm
continue to stoke the fear and the misinformation campaign that the former president waged and the fact that his two superiors have already spoken publicly to the senate committee as well as to us you know, shows us that he shouldn't have anything to hide. but unfortunately, that's what he's afraid of. so we'll exercise the next steps and we'll bring it to the full house floor after the business committee this evening. >> hi, again, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york with perhaps one single exception. donald trump himself, no one did more from inside the cabinet agency charged with maintaining the rule of law in this country to orchestrate a failed coup in the aftermath of the 2020 election than a little known one-time deputy to bill barr, man named jeffrey clark. think of him like this. an in-house legal architect of trump's sinister scheme.
2:02 pm
the one guy working deep inside the department of justice turning the levers and applying pressure in an effort to overturn the results of a free and fair american election. tonight, just two hours from now, in fact, he will find himself squarely in the sights of the bipartisan january 6th select committee as they're set to begin contempt proceedings for him. mr. clark already appeared before the committee but refused to answer the questions and failed to fully cooperate with the subpoena, citing a seemingly bogus game of executive brif privilege. remember what happened to his fellow schemer steve bannon? he's been indicted by a federal grand jury, but there are some differences starting with the man himself. in january, katie benner published a detailed account of what people thought about him. unassuming, quiet, detail oriented. making no effort to hide when he had little respect for his
2:03 pm
career subordinate's opinions. then came to understand the full picture of what happened. from the times reporting in october, quote, clark repeatedly pushed his colleagues at the justice department to help trump undo his loss and was involved with efforts to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power, to deliver a letter to the state legislature in georgia and others to delay certification of election results. in a damaging new report released last night, the select committee highlighted much of what they know about clark's conduct and what exactly he witnessed of donald trump's attempt to subvert democracy, quote, in violation of doj policy and after a direct admonition, mr. clark met with white house officials including then president trump to discuss efforts to delegitimize, disrupt or overturn election results. trump considered installing
2:04 pm
clark as the acting ag, a plan that was abandoned after much of the doj leadership team and white house counsel threatened to resign. and quote, if clark had conversations with others in the federal government including members of congress regarding efforts to delegitimize, disrupt or overturn the election results, the select committee expects such testimony will be directly relevant. its report for other legislative and other action. the potential for a second contempt charge in the january 6 investigation is where we begin this hour with some of our most favorite reporters and friends. neil is here onset with us. former acting solicitor general. also joining us, katie benner, new york times justice reporter and tim miller. lucky for us, all three msnbc
2:05 pm
contributors. katie, your reporting for me brought jeffrey clark to light and life. tell me the significance of his now sort of being at this intersection of a 1/6 committee perfectly willing to refer him to the justice department. >> sure, so i think there's a lot of significance in this contempt vote. jeffrey clark, he was an official during this time after the election when it seemed trump was trying to overturn the results. if he has held in contempt, it will send a really strong message to this very long list of people that the committee has already said, has already requested come in. another way as well. he was a former justice department official. so this would be the department saying one of our own has really done something wrong and i think that that is a line that congress has asked the justice department to lay down again and again and now we're just starting to see that happen. >> neil, talk about jeffrey
2:06 pm
clark. it's not hyperbole anymore to describe him as sort of the coup plotter at doj. >> i think you're right to say he's the legal architect of this. at least according to the draft letter. this guy wrote a letter saying basically, using the -- justice department, trying to send it saying that the georgia election results were wrong and so on to the point to which this has been debunked by analysts, courts, anyone with a brain. so yet he wanted to use his status as a justice department official to try and get the department to do this. and it's one thing if the acting attorney general wants to do this. it's another if you're jeffrey clark. he's kind of a constitutional nobody. he's well out of his lane. he's doing so for one reason. he's sucking up to donald trump to try and become the next acting attorney general.
2:07 pm
en i can't think of something more destructive to the justice department, to the constitution, than what this guy did. i mean, trying to maneuver for your own private ends and uses the legacy of the justice department to do that? that is unforgivable. that's why this contempt vote has to happen. there isn't a choice and it's why clark can't do anything in terms of answering the questions. if he answers the questions, he locks like a traitor or close to it. that's not what he wants to do so he's going to fight this in court. >> the clark reporting i think came to light before the eastman memo was revealed. just talk about the importance of these two legal architects of what add was called a failed coup plot.
2:08 pm
>> it's true in every administration who have yes people who say oh, i've got a clever way for you to get ahead. what's different is those people never get anywhere. those are the people far outside of the room for any one of the number of reasons. here, you have the outside lawyer, john eastman, working in cahoots with the inside person, jeffrey clark, to basically launch this coup. you know, i think both of them have a lot to answer for. but just you know, i think there is something distinctive about a justice department attorney doing this. that's kind of the pinnacle of disrespect for the rule of law that you can imagine in our country. >> takes jeffrey clark to make john eastman to look less terrifying. tim miller, i want to press you on what i think congressman kinsinger sort of put in the lexicon about what their legal paperwork reveals they were
2:09 pm
plotting. they were laying out the legal pillars to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which was protected by lifelong republican chris krebs, who said it was the most secure election in our country's history, who bill barr, who seemed very willing to do all sorts of bidding for donald trump, the top doj, he left before he would carry out any of these ridiculous attempts to say there was fraud when there wasn't. jeffrey clark was in there, subverting the rule of law, as neil said, inside the department of justice. he was held up and propped up by donald trump. do you think that anywhere in sort of what he may face, he decides to tell his story? i didn't do it. donald trump told me to do it. >> to me, jeffrey clark seemed like a person, sure, he might say that. he might say donald trump told me to do it and try to pass the buck, but to me, this seems like a classic person that you see in any story, real or fiction,
2:10 pm
about a strong man who finds a flunky that is willing to aaced to their most outrageous demands. they go up the ladder past what their skills, their talent and what their experience would call for because they're willing to go to extreme ends on behalf of the president. so you know, i would defer to the other legal experts on the panel on what they would face and what his defense might be. to kinsinger's point on a political standpoint, he was clearly part and parcel of a multifaceted coup attempt. it might have been a ridiculous one. a preposterous one. might have had crazy characters like the my pillow man involved in it. but it was one. and it was inside the doj with clark outside with the folks at claremont. it was in the states with what
2:11 pm
trump was trying to do to pressure the georgia secretary of state. it was in the state legislature in places like michigan. it was in pennsylvania where rudy was at the four seasons laundromats. this was a multifaceted effort to overturn the election and frankly all of those efforts, clark's was the most serious because to neil's point, he was right there inside the justice department trying to make the wheels turn and trying to subvert the law in a way that the kind of bozos on the outside could get away with. >> katie, the same podium that i think bill barr stood out when he described mueller's findings before he could get them out. we saw a lot of i think things that were disturbing to long time doj watchers and officials. i want to show you what congressman adam schiff said this morning on "morning joe" about claims of executive privilege. >> they're trying to come up any
2:12 pm
kind of a basis they can with an effort to stone wall the subpoenas. >> with the aim of dragging it out until the next midterm elections, is that what you're thinking? >> they realize their claim is weak but they hope to draw things out until they can delay justice enough until it is denied. clark was involved with an effort to use the justice department to overturn the election in georgia and perhaps other states. to use the weight of that department to urge georgia to withhold electors and send a different slate and also put out false claims of investigations into massive fraud. someone like that needs to be deposed. >> so katie, the committee not blinking. what do you think happens next? >> so i think what will happen is we'll follow process.
2:13 pm
that's what garland's justice department is all about. the complaint will go to the attorney's office in washington, d.c. prosecutors will look at it and decide whether or not it should be brought before a grand jury and the grand jury will decide whether or not to indict jeffrey clark. when the career employees make this decision that they want to bring it before a grand jury, they will have to run it up the chain and merrick garland has shown when career people bring him a decision, he does not push back. so i think that the career prosecutor say that this does need to be brought before a grand jury, garland will give it the go ahead. one question i have when i speak with legal experts about this is why the committee wants to only use the criminal prosecution tool in these cases. i understand criminal contempt is very powerful. it sets a strong example for other witnesses saying you could be, you could face steep fines and jail time. but at the same time, it does not guarantee that any of the
2:14 pm
witnesses will actually have to give information or testify. legal experts say civil suits could accomplish that. so i wonder if the committee will eventually turn to civil litigation in order to get actual information and not just send this very strong signal. >> what's your theory? >> i think they could and they could do it down the road, but i think the criminal thing is really important. particularly here unlike for example, even bannon or someone like that because clark was a justice department official. >> right. >> and there's something really important about having the justice department examine this contempt thing. he was one of their own and he betrayed them and betrayed them profoundly. so i think if you're trying to think about what is the right and appropriate response, the right response comes from his former department. the department of justice and i have no doubt what the justice department is going to do here. >> tim, i want to just read a little from the committee's reporting on clark. this is what we, what has been
2:15 pm
testified to presumably by rosen and others that have been before the committee. against mr. rosen's instructions and doj policy according to the senate report, mr. clark continued having direct contact with then president trump who offered to appoint mr. clark acting attorney general. during a meeting on january 2nd, 2021, clark told rosen he might be persuaded to turn down the president's offer to have him replace rosen if rosen sent out the proposed letters. after he refused to send the letters, clark informed rosen on january 3rd that clark intended to accept the president's offer to replace rosen. doj leadership threatened to resign if the president appointed clark as acting ag and the plan to replace rosen and proceed with clark's efforts did not advance. so it was this threat of a mass resignation in this period these days before the insurrection. that stopped this from happening
2:16 pm
and it's another sort of sliding doors moment for me of how close we came. we came really close to a guy named jeffrey clark to being the acting ag. he wrote a letter on doj letterhead telling georgia to do what donald trump told ralphensburger to do, find the votes for him. at what point do we stop saying ah, coup plot, barely, it didn't happen. it almost happened. here's another place where donald trump's totety was almost in charge of the justice department. >> this is a complex system and there were a couple of places where people stood up and michigan and georgia and now with these career officials that stopped this from getting really far down the field. when i listen, i hear clark, a man that is just mad with power. the gall of this person to threaten the acting attorney general with his own job if he
2:17 pm
doesn't go along with the coup attempt. that is what the deputy attorney general was doing. mid level flunkie at that point. you get that power crazy when you know you have the backing of the man in the oval office and to me, not only is this a lesson of how close we came last time, but it should be just another bright flashing warning sign about 2024 because clark was the type of person who chose that he would go along with it. that he would be in trump's circle. now trump is now demanding that of everyone who goes along with him. so there will be a lot fewer, of course there will still be some career justice officials, but a lot of these other places where there were checks and balances, there were be a lot fewer political appointees with officials willing to do the right thing and a lot more jeffrey clark's next time because that's the opening
2:18 pm
ante to get involved. >> katie, thank you for starting us off. tim and neil, stick around. when we come back, we'll ask neil what he heard in today's oral arguments at the united states supreme court and whether a ruling to strike down roe versus wade in the mississippi case would open a pandora's box. plus, tragic news from michigan where the death toll in yesterday's school shooting has risen to four and on capitol hill, passionate calls for republicans to stop protecting gun manufacturers and put our kids safety first. and there's a ton of questions about omicron now confirmed to be in california. there's a case there as of today. we're getting new threads of information that maybe reason for a little optimism, at least today. our medical expert joins us later in the hour. deadline white house continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. ontinues after a quick break. don't go anywhere.
2:19 pm
an official message from medicare. did you try it yet? comparing plans? oh yeah. they sure can change year to year.
2:20 pm
i found lower premiums and lower prescription costs. that'll save you money. so uh, mark? on medicare.gov now. open enrollment ends december 7th use the plan finder at medicare.gov to compare medicare health and prescription plans. comparing plans really pays. paid for by the u.s. department of health & human services (gong rings) - this is joe. (combative yelling) he used to have bad breath. now, he uses a capful of therabreath fresh breath oral rinse to keep his breath smelling great, all day long. (combative yelling) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores. no one can deliver your mom's homemade short ribs. that's why instacart helps deliver the ingredients. and you add the love.
2:21 pm
2:22 pm
if they get rid of the viability line, we're going to see a crumbling across the nation and if roe falls, there's no way to uphold -- half the states are going to ban abortion and that is going to be a crisis across the country. >> that was ceo of the center for reproductive rights laying out the stakes in today's oral arguments in the mississippi case that could lead to roe versus wade being overturned, radically reshaping the live of women and men across america as well as the role and standing of united states supreme court in america. justice sotomayor during oral
2:23 pm
arguments underscored the risks women could face in a post roe world. >> when does the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? meaning right now, forcing women who are poor, that's 75% of the population, and much higher percentage of those women in mississippi. who elect abortions before viability. they are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical computations and ending their life. now the state is saying to these women, we can choose not only to physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer. >> neil is with us joining our
2:24 pm
conversation, katie. neil, i watched your coverage as this was happening and i felt despair watching your analysis. tell us what you made of today. >> you normally hear supreme court folks say you can't predict for moral argument and so and and the justices can surprise you, i agree with that to a certain point, but you can predict. most of the time you can predict. this is one in which yes, something unusual can happen, but the predictions are basically mississippi wins. the only question is do they win hugely big or win only basically one step below that, but still huge. and really, the debate is as mississippi started the oral argument, they came in with a full throated attack on roe versus wade, calling it a poison to the law in the first line then you know, they got some questions from justice breyer and sotomayor saying wait a
2:25 pm
minute, roe's superprecedent, something we've evaluated and studied for a long time. it's baked into the fabric of our law. can we overrule it. the problem is, this is why you hear so much despair from the pro-choice people today is that argument that he was making got very little traction with the court and certainly we couldn't count to five votes out of the nine justices to try and support it and indeed, a key vote, justice kavanagh appeared to basically dismiss that argument. >> and i guess we grapple with how extreme this court is and they seem to publicly grapple with how unpopular and low esteem with which they're held. i think six of them have made public comments viewed as political. the reason why is that kavanagh's so-called moderate approach is overturning roe v. wade in 26 states.
2:26 pm
>> roe v. wade decided a court 7-2 and it was a 7-2 decision to recognize this right to an abortion. planned parenthood versus casey in 1982. a decision by an overwhelmingly republican supreme court court. so these justices are not just conservative, they're far to the right of even where republican party justices have been in the past. so it's not a mystery when one asks well why is institutional legitimacy of the court dropping? it's because the court is out of the mainstream of american society and we haven't seen the effects of that all right now. i think after some very contentious confirmation hearings, what happened was the court decided to take a more incremental approach. not take some cases on hot button issues, but not after justice barrett has replaced ginsburg, i think the hats are off and they are rearing and ready to go and the american
2:27 pm
people are going to feel the consequences. >> there's sort of an if this than that. and if that is the case, then em base the fact that 46% of the country doesn't trust your institution, but they want it both ways. i think six. six of the justices have made comments about this being political. you take justice kavanagh's comments, i don't have a legal analysis of this, but the political analysis of saying who are we to decide, we should send this back to legislatures, the court deals with all sorts of rights without sending it back to the states. >> yeah. clearly on this issue, the court is out of step with the american people and they know they're out of step with the american people and they can't acknowledge that, but this is the very conservative supreme court that
2:28 pm
the pro-life movement of the united states has been waiting for for decades and they're moving incredibly fast. take neil's point that they moved a little incrementally for the first few months, but this is sort of lightning speed since they've managed to gain majority on the court and they're going to change american life. this is why evangelical christians held their noses and stuck with donald trump. this is the court they wanted. but the numbers of people in america who still support roe v. wade has held consistently over the years and this is going to put the court in a tricky position because they're doing something that is very out of step with where america is. the truth abortion in america is it's economic. it's an economic issue and it's going to disproportionally affect minority women and poor women in this country and they won't feel this court is representing them. >> and if they wonder about people feeling like there was a
2:29 pm
bait and switch, i pulled this from their confirmation hearings about what they had to say about roe. >> i would tell you that roe versus wade decided in 1973, the united states supreme court, it has been reaffirmed so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy of treatment as precedent. >> as a judge, it is an important precedent of the supreme court, casey is precedent on precedent. >> roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased but that doesn't mean that roe should be overruled. it just means that it doesn't fall on the small handful of cases like brown versus the board. >> in every case in which there's a prior precedent, the
2:30 pm
first issue of starry desies is and that the court will follow its prior precedence. there needs to be a special justification. >> beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court and those principles applied in the casey case explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not and it is settled as a precedent of court, yes. >> they used their time today to talk about the quote was the stench of the court. that the backers of the law in mississippi said on the floor of the state legislature that they were only putting forward this law now because of who currently sits on the united states supreme court. what's the remedy for the stench, when we put that together today. this does not feel like what they said under oath their views
2:31 pm
were about roe versus wade as precedent. >> it would be interesting to have the opportunity to ask samuel alito how the circumstances have changed since he was going through his confirmation hearing. what he seemed to be saying there is that you would need extraordinary circumstances to overturn the precedent. what's changed since his senate confirmation hearing? the only thing that has changed is that the court itself has changed. that you now have a decisively more conservative supreme court with more conservative supreme court justices who can overturn it. the circumstances in the country haven't changed. the number of abortions has not radically exploded in a way that would demand that the issue be revisited. so you know, you're right to put those clips together because what you're hearing today from the justices is certainly not what they were saying when they were facing senators in their confirmation hearings.
2:32 pm
>> so what are we to make of their states despair about their views of the court that conservatives don't like anyone, anyone in america thinks they're political and yet what justice sotomayor said today about the stench seems to be a real problem that bothers all of them. >> it's 100% a real problem. i've never heard the justices openly muse about it in the context of an oral argument. one will give a speech and say we're worried about this or that, but to do it in an argument and to have the language they used is something really unusual. and i think your right to compare it to the statements made at confirmation hearings. you should watch those hearings made in light of promises that the republican presidents made. donald trump said i will only appoint pro-life justices to the supreme court. so if americans are surprised right now that oh, my god, the supreme court's about to overturn roe versus wade,
2:33 pm
shouldn't be. this has been a programmatic agenda of the republican party for 50 years and it's on the verge of success. whether it happens in this case or next year with texas, one way or the other, that's what we're looking at right now and that's why i think the supreme court is finding itself in the political cross hairs. >> neil, thank you so much for spending some time with us today. it's been a long day for you. katty sticks around. when we come back, another deadly school shooting. top democrat calling out republicans for claiming to be the party of life when their fealty to the gun lobby puts them on the other side of saving lives. we'll discuss that after a quick break. don't go anywhere. discuss atth k break. don't go anywhere. sure you're uo host? yeah! we want to keep it the way it always was, right? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
2:34 pm
that's your grandma. she was the best at the holidays. mm. [ clicks tongue ] i don't know. i think they look good, man. mm, smooth. uh, they are a little tight. like, too tight? might just need to break 'em in a little bit. you don't want 'em too loose. for those who were born to ride there's progressive. with 24/7 roadside assistance. -okay. think i'm gonna wear these home. -excellent choice. [uplifting music playing]
2:35 pm
with 24/7 roadside assistance. ♪ i had a dream that someday ♪ ♪ i would just fly, fly away ♪ one of my favorite supplements is qunol turmeric. turmeric helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. unlike regular turmeric supplements qunol's superior absorption helps me get the full benefits of turmeric. the brand i trust is qunol. ♪ ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪ as i observe investors balance risk and reward, i see one element securing portfolios, time after time.
2:36 pm
gold. your strategic advantage. if you smell gas, you're too close. leave the structure, call 911, keep people away, and call pg&e right after so we can both respond out and keep the public safe. one of the most important things you can do is to make sure you call 811 before you dig. calling 811 to get your lines marked:
2:37 pm
it's free, it's easy, we come out and mark your lines, we provide you the information so you will dig safely. we're following a tragic news out of michigan where a fourth student has died in a school shooting. the 17-year-old died this morning at mclaren oakland hospital. seven others were seriously wounded including a teacher. the shooting marks the 28th school shooting that has resulted in death or injury this year. 20 of them have happened since august 1st according to education week, highlighting the epidemic of gun violence. senator chris murphy whose speeches including a 15-hour filibuster, took to the senate floor last night.
2:38 pm
watch. >> this only happens in the united states of america. there's no other nation in the high income world in which kids worry about being shot when they go to school. it happens here in america because we choose to let it happen. we're not unlucky. we're back with katty, tim, and shannon watts, the founder of moms demand action. shannon, they're all devastating. until this stops happening, the drills are a way of life. talk about this latest tragedy and where we are. >> you're right. we don't have to live this way. our children sure as hell shouldn't be dying this way and there's so many things we could do. you know, drills are fine, but at the end of the day, those are reactive. we should be doing proactive things like passing red flag laws. we know there are a lot of warning signals before the shooting happened and red flag
2:39 pm
laws have been passed in 19 states now, so it should be a federal law. we can increase the counselor to student ratio so that again, we can catch these warning signs before they happen. but i would say one of the most important things that we can do is to start talking about and encouraging and even requiring secure gun storage in this country. we know about 5.4 million american children lif in homes with unsecured guns and we know that most school shooters are students and the vast majority of those students get their guns from home. that looks like exactly what happened in the situation. an unsecured semiautomatic handgun was just purchased on black friday and you know, i'm heartened to hear that the prosecutors are going to likely hold this gun owner accountable for not securely storing their firearm, but we'll be watching because until that starts happening more and more, these tragedies are going to keep
2:40 pm
occurring. >> you talked about a federal law, chris murphy's been bemoaning a filibuster. is it a fight? are they trying to get something done? is it so under the radar that we don't know about it? >> the only place in this entire country where talking about gun safety is polarizing is in the u.s. senate. they have passed laws with -- we need to senate to act. we need them to pass very basic things that would improve our gun safety system that we know would save lives based on data. things like closing the background check loophole. requiring a red flag law for the entire country. these are things that are common sense, they're shown by data to work and yet, they sit on their hands. and just like senator murphy said, we aren't unlucky. we're choosing not to act and it's incumbent on every american to use their voice and vote on this issue.
2:41 pm
>> katty, let me show you more of senator murphy on the floor. >> i listened to my republican colleagues come down here one after another today and talk about the sanctity of life. at the very moment that moms and dads in michigan were being told their kids weren't coming home because they were shot at school due to a country that has accepted gun violence, do not lecture us about the sanctity, the importance of life when 100 people every single day are losing their lives to guns. when kids go to school fearful they won't return home because a classmate will turn a gun on them. when it is in our control whether this happens. you care about life? >> it's a fascinating argument because you take the republican posture on covid, you take the republican posture and what we were just talking about in the last block, about the mississippi law put forward once
2:42 pm
the republican president's nominees to the supreme court were confirmed. it does render the sanctity of life argument hypocritical at best. >> we just talked with neil about the lengths conservatives are going to restrict abortion laws to protect the laws of unborn in this country and yet at the same time, try to do anything on the issue of guns in america and you are stonewalled by so many in the republican party who just don't accept that there should be any kind of sensible controls on people who can have access to guns with the result that senator murphy said, america is really the only country in the world where this happens in the industrialized world. i think there are 60 times the number of school shootings in america as there are in all other industrialized nations put
2:43 pm
together. it's a choice america makes and it's choosing not life in this case. it's choosing death for too many of its children. that's a choice. >> the choice that chris murphy made to give that speech which i think tim has been seen more than 2.5 million times before it came on air, he explained in a tweet, driving home tonight, i thought about republicans' speeches and how this does not extend today to the kids who were shot. so i turned the car around and went to the senate floor. he knows the structural challenges that shannon and katty are talking about, but i wonder if you think we are still a country that has the capacity to say enough is enough when it comes to our kids not just being shot in school, but being traumatized by active shooter drills, which is every kid in america ages 2 and up.
2:44 pm
>> look, i'm kind of micro targeted by that chris murphy speech and twitter feed as somebody that is pro-life that is frustrated by the republican party by my former party on this. i agree. it doesn't just extend to guns. it goes to covid, the treatment of refugees and people on the border. we used to talk in the republican party about this culture of life, but that has fallen by the wayside in these culture wars. the answer to your question is no, i don't think that red america is capable of responding to these shootings in any way that's going to make a measurable impact. there is one thing. as i was thinking about this segment, we say the same things. what is a new thing that can be brought to the table with this in addition to what senator murphy was saying. i was following a conservative on social media it goes back to that old saw about we should enforce existing gun laws.
2:45 pm
i think this is maybe an area where the democrats if they're frustrated by what's not happening in washington can call their bluff. when you look at prosecutors right now, a lot of the emphasis, for good reason on the left is criminal justice reform and sentencing. i support all that. lighter drug sentences. but maybe one area where prosecutors in cities and really across the country should be cracking down is on these gun laws. i think shannon mentioned. shouldn't the parents of these kids be held accountable? shouldn't a message be sent that way by a prosecutor who says no, you did not store and handle the guns in a way that was appropriate. it was against our laws. your kid got access to it. you knew he was doing this. and maybe the parents can be held accountable. maybe that is an area where we can see change because we're not going to see it from republicans in washington. >> sadly, we do.
2:46 pm
thank you so much for spending some time with us today on the set. up next, some potentially positive news about that new coronavirus variant was today was detected for the first time in california. our medical expert joins us after a very short break. don't go anywhere. after a very short break don't go anywhere. feel stuck with student loan debt? move to sofi and feel what it's like to get your money right. ♪
2:47 pm
♪ move your student loan debt to sofi— you could save with low rates and no fees. earn a $1,000 bonus when you refi— and get your money right. ♪ hi sabrina! hi jen! hi. so you're the scientist here. i just have to ask. does my aveeno® daily moisturizer really make my dry skin healthier in one day? it's true jen. really?! this nourishing prebiotic oat formula moisturizes to help prevent dry skin. one day? for real! wow! aveeno® healthy. it's our nature.™ i gotta say i'm still impressed. very impressed. new daily moisture for face. everything you love for your body now for your face. your plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. vazalore... is the first liquid-filled aspirin capsule clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. try new vazalore. aspirin made amazing!
2:48 pm
this is the greatest idea you'll ever hear. okay, it's an app that compares hundreds of travel sites for hotels and cars and vacation rentals like kayak does for flights. so it's kayak. yeah, like kayak. why don't you just call it kayak. i'm calling it... canoe. compare hundreds of travel sites for thousands of trips. kayak. search one and done.
2:49 pm
the california and san francisco departments of public health and the cdc have confirmed that a recent case of
2:50 pm
covid-19 among an individual in california was caused by the omicron variant. the individual was a traveler who returned from south africa on november 22nd and tested positive the individual is self quarantining and all close contacts have been contacted and all close contacts thus far have tested negative. the individual was fully vaccinated and experienced mild symptoms which are improving at this point. that was dr. fauci this afternoon confirming the first documented case of the omicron variant being here in the u.s. the announcement comes on the heels of two hopeful reports that could be the early signs that vaccine boosters may continue to provide protection, even against the new variant. while omicron could lead to more infections among the vaccinated "the wall street journal" reports several scientists
2:51 pm
believe vaccines could protect against severe illness and israel's health minister said there are indicators that fully vaccinated and boosted individuals will have some protection against the new variant. when i saw this news, i searched your twitter feed for the best and sort of the most balanced information and i think that it is so interesting. you remained more concerned about delta. just tell me how you are taking in and what questions you are asking about omicron and whether we are shifting our focus too much. >> yeah, thanks for having me back. i would say a couple of things. first of all, i think we have to take omicron seriously. unlike any variant i have seen since delta. delta when i first became aware of it in may or june, i have been concerned. omicron is different. the things i am paying attention to are issues of
2:52 pm
transmissibility and how well our vaccines are holding up. we can't forget that delta is the dominant variant infecting more than 100,000 people and 1,000 americans are dying every day. we have to focus on the threat that is already here and paying attention to the threat that is coming or arrived now with the new case in san francisco. >> and what about preliminary data with other variants turned out to be wrong? what information should we be skeptical about? >> yeah. when we look at variants the two questions i ask myself. there are several. the two key ones, is there any reason to think it will out compete delta? once delta became dominant, that was the variant to beat and didn't look like anything else was close to transmissable. and is there any evidence this variant will have an impact on vaccine effectiveness and i have not seen any of the evidence from the data that has made me
2:53 pm
concerned about either. omicron has concern for both of those features. it may be more transmissable than delta. and it has mutations in key areas that make all of us concerned that the vaccines will take some hit, whether it is a small or large hit on effectiveness. we don't know yet. >> what happens if that is the case? do we all get a omicron booster? how long are we unprotected if it turns out they offer very little protection. >> i doubt they will offer very little protection. now without a lot of data and based on what we do know. if you have not had a booster, you will have such high levels of antibodies you will have a good amount of protection against omicron, but it might not last forever. if there is a hitch in vaccine effectiveness, we will need a omicron vaccine.
2:54 pm
that is the kind of ticket out of that scenario. i think it is not a likely scenario but not impossible we could see a reasonably large hit from this variant. >> do you look at our future fight against covid as -- it seems to me that this news and covering omicron and covering a new variant makes it clear that any time that we think we can wall ourselves off and deal with our own stubborn unvaccinated, we are foolish. until all of us are vaccinated none of us are completely safe. do you feel like enough attention is paid to all of those pieces? >> no. unfortunately not. it is tempting at times to say i have done my part and i am safe. we certainly can make ourselves safer by getting vaccinated and boosted and wearing masks in crowded indoor spaces. fortunately or unfortunately we will all live in one world and
2:55 pm
what happens in other places and what happens with other peoples choices end up impacting ours. until we have a point we have a high immunity, we will be in this phase of the pandemic. then we will manage it and it will fade more into the background, but we are not there yet. >> when you sort of sit down and you game this out for yourself or how long you will be thinking and talking about this, what are you looking for? what questions do you ask? >> yeah. i have to tell you there was a part of me maybe a year ago i thought that this summer we would be in better shape and could start thinking about this not in the acute emergency phase but in the management phase. two things, first of all, nature throws us curveballs. we have to be humble about any of our predictions. the second, i underestimate how many people would be dissuaded by misinformation and all of the nonsense out there.
2:56 pm
until we make progress on that and until mother nature decides to treat us by stop throwing us these variants. these are related. unvaccinated people and variants. until that we will have to be in this and keep managing it. >> the most important person on twitter, thank you for making some time to talk to us. it is really nice to see you. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> it is a sign of the season. rockefeller christmas tree is about to be lit creating all sorts of traffic, but man it is worth it. quick break for us and we will be right back. it quick break for us and we will be right back. the snapshot app from progressive rewards you for driving safe and driving less. okay, what message did you hear this time? safe drivers can save using snapshot? -what's snapshot? -what the commercial was about. -i tune commercials out. -me too. they're always like blah, blah blah. tell me about it. i'm going to a silent retreat next weekend. my niece got kicked out of one of those. -for talking? -grand larceny.
2:57 pm
how about we get back to the savings? [ everyone agreeing ] bye mom. my helpers abound, i'll need you today. our sleigh is now ready, let's get on our way. a mountain of toys to fulfill many wishes. must be carried across all roads and all bridges. and when everyone is smiling and having their fun i can turn my sleigh north because my job here is done. it's not magic that makes more holiday deliveries to homes in the us than anyone else, it's the hardworking people of the united states postal service. dad are you sure you're up to host? yeah! we want to keep it the way it always was, right? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ that's your grandma. she was the best at the holidays.
2:58 pm
♪ ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪
2:59 pm
3:00 pm
there is a big announcement this afternoon in georgia where stacey abrams launched her campaign for governor. she narrowly lost the race in 2018 and the announcement today could set up a potential rematch. if she wins stacey abrams would make history as georgia's first female and first african-american governor. thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary homes. the beat with ari melber starts right now. thank you very much. we are tracking breaking news as congress considers criminal contempt in a committee vote to potentially put another trump veteran in the eyes of the doj. and a report on the historic clash of women's rights. top story is breaking news in the pandemic.

110 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on