Skip to main content

tv   The Rachel Maddow Show  MSNBC  December 1, 2021 9:00pm-10:00pm PST

9:00 pm
about the behavior of the u.s. government. one of just the oddest, strangest, we are just sticks with you. kind of thing that i have ever had to cover in the news. it was a trump administration story about this man, who will likely not be recognized by site. his name is scott loyd, not a
9:01 pm
very high-profile person in the trump administration, but this is who president champ appointed to run the office of refugee resettlement in the federal government. now this man had no experience with refugees with resettlement, so sure he's perfect. it's the office of refugee resettlement he has no experience with either of those words are concepts, but he did know his way around the office. >> when he did have his way experience in, as a hard-core antiabortion anti contraception activist. it turns out, we learned, that whether or not your main life experiences being an eye ty bush an activist, if in fact we get the kind of government where you get the job running the office of refugee resettlement, what that means in practical terms is that you get to run the shelters that the government run holding facilities in which immigrant teenagers, immigrant kids are
9:02 pm
locked up if they get picked up while they are crossing the border. well during the trump administration, because of who is in charge of those kinds of facilities, because of that particular guy being in charge of the facilities holding teenagers and proteins. because of what that guy's experience and life was, why he was into personally, what's the whole system turned into under the trump administration was as strange a news story as i ever could have conjured. i never could've imagined something like this before it actually happened and we had to cover here on the show. what we learned about that guy, that trump administration official, and how he ran that part of the government during those years is that he personally kept a spreadsheet that track the menstrual periods of individual teenage and preteen girls that the federal government was holding in custody are his agency.
9:03 pm
he kept track of their periods, one by one, by name, by individual girl, in a spreadsheet that was regularly updated by government employees for his use. and the reason that he has head of the agency, the reason he had his employees collect that information on each girl and send it to him in the form of this spreadsheet, is because it emerged that his priority at that agency was that he sought to personally block any girl who was pregnant in one of those facilities from being able to get an abortion if she wanted one. now, this is obviously a very specific population in a specific type of federal custody, but this is what this guy had control over so he figured he would use what he had, right? well on comfortably for this project, in america, whether you are an immigrant or not, whether behind bars or not, as
9:04 pm
of right now there is theoretically a constitutionally protected right for you to get an abortion if you want to have one. the government is not allowed to stop you from getting an abortion if you want one. it is your right to decide for yourself. but during the trump administration, here was a senior official political appointee with no experience at all with the experience he was put in charge with. in fact girls were being held, he used government employees, his control of that agency to track their menstruation on a spreadsheet to track their pregnancies. he even tracked whether or not they were thought to have been raped, that was a call him on his spreadsheet rape yes or no. he used that information to personally try and block any effort that one of those girls might make to get an abortion. part of the reason we ended up covering that story is that in the fall of 2017, there arose
9:05 pm
the case of jane dough. that was the court approved anonymizing name for her. she was a 17 year old girl, she was picked up by the trump administration at the border, she was put in a shelter overseen by mr. menstrual period spreadsheet, while she was at that facility she found out that she was pregnant, 17, she did not want to have the baby, she did not want to go through with the pregnancy. she was firm in that decision and express their firm decision about what she wanted to do, that she did not want to continue in the pregnancy and wanted an abortion. she got the money to pay for the procedure herself, she went to a texas court and got a texas judge to express a plea grant her permission to make that decision for herself without parental consent because she wasn't an adult under law. she got a judge to okay. she arranged for transportation
9:06 pm
at her own expense to get her to and from the doctor's appointment, she did not need any help with any of it. but the trump administration blocked her. they physically constrain her from getting. she was being held at this shelter overseen by the trump administration, the guy with the menstrual period spreadsheet with the girls in this facility. he apparently decided, that even though this girl technically had the right to get this procedure done, they would not let her exercise that right, they would not let her go. they would physically not allow her to leave that shelter to go to her appointment to get the abortion. now, to be clear, the shelter was not a jail. people held at that shelter were allowed, frequently, to go to outside medical appointments of all kinds. legal, appointment social services, appointment stuff like that all the time. this facility holding her even specially did bring her out of
9:07 pm
the shelter one day, and they brought her to a texas christian crisis pregnancy facility, where they made her listen to antiabortion counseling against her will. so they were happy to take her out of the shelter for that, but they would not let her out of the shelter to attend her actual appointment to get an abortion. again, she had a constitutional right to get. and so, this story came to our attention, it became news when the aclu sued on her behalf. the case went to federal court in washington d.c.. and so it was the aclu on one side arguing on behalf of this girl, and the trump administration on the other side arguing for what they had done for their continued, continued desire to block the abortion. this trump administration lawyer, pop administration lawyer just got destroyed in that federal courtroom.
9:08 pm
just destroyed by the judge. we know because we have the transcript of what happened. i will give you a taste. the judge. i would like the government to explain to me how, since jane doe is entitled to an abortion under supreme court law, such as fall through on the regulations to obtain her legally entitled abortion meaning getting a guardian ad light him, getting -- how in the government so you could she now receive the services to which she is entitled. trump administration lawyer. your honor, i would respectfully disagree she is entitled to an abortion under existing law. she is entitled to make the choice to have an abortion. she is not entitled to have the government take facilitating steps to have her. the judge. --
9:09 pm
9:10 pm
9:11 pm
the judge in that case that she was, quote, astounded by what that trump administration lawyer was trying to argue. she said quote, i am astounded by the position, she said it was quote, remarkable when he was trying to get the court to agree to. she did not mean remarkable in
9:12 pm
a good way. and so, that with us you might expect. that lawyer for the trump administration got his hat handed to him in the courtroom. he lost that case. the aclu one. the 17 year old girl, jane doe, ultimately was able to get an abortion. now there was a little blip in the case. two federal appeals court judges stepped in, one arguing that you didn't have any rights because she was an immigrant, which is not the way the constitution works. the other one arguing that, basically, the trump administration lawyers should be rescued and the trump administration should be allowed to continue to at least delay this girl on the way to her getting an abortion. that one appeals court judge briefly intervened and said the trump administration was right, they should block or from getting an abortion. that was a blip in the case, it ended up being a short-lived speed bump in the case because
9:13 pm
that appeals cord charge -- his ruling was quickly overturned by the full d.c. circuit court of appeals. so again, the bottom line here is the aclu one. that girl was able to get her abortion. -- from the government official regularly updated spreadsheet shacking girls menstrual periods. forcing them into anti -- trying to physically hold a girl hostage until it was too late, until it would be illegal for her to get an abortion in texas. that whole episode, and the legal debacle and humiliation that came in the end, it was one of the weirdest things i have ever covered. but that story is now where we all live. because that trump administration lawyer, who got his hat handed to him in court, we defended the trump
9:14 pm
administration's behavior in that case, who insisted to that judge's case that sherrie woman technically has a right to choose an abortion, but doesn't have a right to actually get one. that lawyer was the top enumeration lawyer at the trump administration, forced pregnancies, the rest of it. his new job as he is the filibuster general of mississippi. in that capacity, he was the lawyer who today in the united states supreme court argued the court that is expected to and roe v. wade, to criminalize abortion in this country. and i mentioned there was an appeals court judge that jumped in to try and save that, lawyer and say that case after it had lost in the lower court while it was on its way to losing again at the full d.c. circuit court of appeals. that appeals court judge that try to save that kind of horrifying case that was then charged, now supreme court justice brett kavanaugh. that in fact was the one abortion case brett kavanaugh ever ruled on as a judge before
9:15 pm
trump dominated him to the united states supreme court. a case in which he bent over so far backwards to try and let the trump administration block a girl from getting an abortion that he ended up getting reversed by his own court. well, what they tried to do two one immigrants alone 17 year old girl. they are now doing to the whole country. because if i first you don't succeed, after today's arguments in the mississippi abortion ban case that has been teed up after hearing that antiabortion side he tried to rescue was before on this issue. today justice brett kavanaugh is expected to be in the majority of the supreme court. that really does appear poised to and roe for all intents and purposes. two and legal protections for
9:16 pm
women to get abortions in. this country here he was today to characterize that prospect in like an and dime terms as possible, characterizing it as the court simply becoming neutral on the issue of abortion. no longer playing a role in the issue. by which he means, states will not be free to make abortion a crime. mrs. kavanaugh, it's your voice that you will hear, and this is a lawyer that answers him here who is arguing for abortion rights. he is arguing on behalf -- >> 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 where they say that the constitution is neutral on the question of abortion, the texas
9:17 pm
and history, that the constitution's neither pro-life nor pro-choice. on the question of abortion, we and they would say, therefore, it should be left to the people, to the states or the congress. and i think they also then continue, because the constitution is neutral, that this court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor for life. but, because they say that the constitution doesn't give us the authority, we should leave it to the states and we should be scrupulously neutral on the question. and that they are seeing here, i think, that we should return to a position of neutrality on that contentious social issue rather than continuing to pick sides on that issue. so i think that's, at a big picture level, their argument. i want to give you a chance to respond to that.
9:18 pm
>> yes, a few points if i may your honor. first, of course, those very same arguments were made in casey, and the court rejected them. saying that this film blows off occult disagreement can be resolved in a way that a woman has no choice in the matter. and second, i don't think it will be a neutral position. the constitution provides a guarantee of liberty. the court has interpreted that liberty to include the ability to make decisions related to child bearing, marriage, and family. women have an equal rights to liberty under the constitution, your honor. and if they're not able to make this decision, the states can take control of women's bodies and force them to endure months of pregnancy and childbirth, then they will never have equal status under the constitution. >> if women are not able to make this decision, if states can take control of women's bodies and force them to endure months of pregnancy and childbirth, then women will never have equal status under the constitution. back >> julie riggleman, for the center of constitutional rights, today, making it blunt.
9:19 pm
this really is about american women being forced by the government to give birth against their will. and this is what the supposed government conservative movement has brought us, right? this very big government. the idea that the government will decide whether or not you get an abortion. the government will decide whether or not you stay pregnant. the government will decide whether or not you give birth. it is not your choice. the government gets to decide on the other side of the court. justice stephen breyer and alina kagan all pointedly raised the same issue today in slightly different ways. obviously there was a lot of arguments, there was a lot of different points made. but i was struck by the fact that they all made the point questioned, essentially, their fellow justices. about what it will do to the perceived legitimacy of the court. if in fact they overturned roe v. wade.
9:20 pm
not because it would be unpopular. it would be very unpopular. a large majority of the population says don't overturn roe v. wade. that has been that for decades, it is still like this now. but the liberal justice effectively make this judgment that the court is going to have a real problem on attend not because it will be an unpopular decision, even though it would be. it would be a problem for the court if they overturn roe because roe is -- . nothing about the country has changed since roe. that would meaningfully affect the terms on which roe was settled. nothing about the constitution has changed since roe. that would meaningfully effect which was settled. nothing about science has changed enough to materially impact the way that roe was decided. none of those things have changed in any way, materially, that was worth throwing out generations of prospects around which americans have built their lies and expectations through what it means to be a free person living in this country. if the only reason to throughout that settled precedent is because --
9:21 pm
is here. now then won't that make americans think that the court isn't actually about looking at the law. and it isn't about looking at the constitution. it's just a mini congress with ropes on. and it's about republicans putting enough votes were their chosen preferences are. or democrats putting impart their own. here is a washington post editorial made in case today. in the editorial was published after the arguments included, you see the headlines, they're getting rogue with devastated millions of americans. and the cord itself. very little has changed since the court handed admiral besides the fact that the americans rely on their facts to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. the shift since roe has been a makeup of the court. reshaped after the addition of several conservative justices due to the mixture of underhanded politics and pierre happenstance. the courts authority derives not from its ability to enforce its declarations. it lacks any such power. the courts authority derives
9:22 pm
from the fact that americans respected's decisions. those decisions must reflect something greater than your win or raw political power in the senate. the justices should have no illusion, partial, or total reversal of row would devastate not only americans that rely on the abortion rights that have been theirs for nearly 50 years, but it would also be devastating for the court itself. undermining its legitimacy. that is how the washington post puts it tonight. here is how the more liberal justice put it today in court. >> general, justice breyer started with story this isis, an important principle in any case and here, for the reasons that casey mentioned, especially so, to prevent people from thinking that this court is a political institution that will go back and forth depending on what part of the public yells
9:23 pm
loudest. and preventing people from thinking that the court will go back and forth depending on changes to the courts membership. >> we have to have public support. and that comes primarily from people believing that we do our job. we use reason. we don't look to just what's popular. and that's where you're seeing the paradox. the problem with the super case like this, the rare case, the watershed case, where people are really opposed on both sides. and they really fight each other. is there going to be ready to say, no, you're just political, you're just politicians. and that's what kills us as an american institution. now the sponsors of this bill, the house bill, in mississippi,
9:24 pm
said we're doing it because we have new justices. the newest band that mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the senate sponsors said we're 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? i don't see how it is possible. if people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive? >> will this institution survived the stench that this creates in the public perception? the court has nothing to do with the actual law in the constitution, it's just about who's got political power in washington and our rights don't
9:25 pm
count for anything beyond that. the headlines about the supreme court case today were essentially unanimous. the broad perception ick -- at least, but maybe it will be wrong. but the broad perception, at least, both expert and league observers believed that the republican important did conservative antiabortion super majority on the supreme court is going to do when it was put there for. they appear to be ready to other overturn roe v. wade or get it so much that it doesn't mean much of anything anymore, anyway. and i mean, here in the real world. particularly those of us outside the legal academy, we can see that as the predictable outcome of what republicans and conservatives have been working on for years, for decades. to remake the judiciary in such a way that what happens today is the death of a right foretold. they will put a scott lloyd in
9:26 pm
the administration job that he is not qualified for, but one season that job, he will track girls periods on a spreadsheet and physically lock them up to prevent them from being able to go get themselves an abortion to which they are technically and legally entitled to. but they will also put a brett kavanaugh on the [inaudible] . in order to do the judicial equivalent of that. because they will it be counted on for that same reason and that same person. and that is why they were giving the job they were given. to those outside of the legal world, and those of us who i think are operating in real politics environment we are already seeing it that way. but to hear all three legal justices today, tell the rest of the court, tell the other justices in the same language, in the same way, hey, if you do this this will be the end of the court as we know it. this court, which doesn't have a police force. this court which doesn't have a budget,. this court which doesn't have any way to enforce its ruling other than the fact that the
9:27 pm
american people believe that we interpret the law based on the constitution and our rulings are binding. you will weaken that and the country will no longer believe that about us as a court if you do what you are setting out to do here. to hear all three liberal justices make the argument today to their colleagues. well. do they know something we don't? about how the argument will end with their colleagues? about what those justices might be afraid of? whether those justices might actually be afraid to do what they were put there to do? we'll have some expert help on that and much more tonight, stay with us. stay with us t just a cold. unlike other cold medicines, coricidin provides powerful cold relief without raising your blood pressure be there for life's best moments with coricidin. now in sugar free liquid.
9:28 pm
feel stuck with credit card debt? move to sofi and feel what it's like to get your money right. ♪ move your high-interest debt to a sofi personal loan. you could save with low rates and no fees. earn $10 just for viewing your rate and get your money right. ♪
9:29 pm
♪ limu emu... & doug ♪ ♪ superpowers from a spider bite? i could use some help showing the world how liberty mutual customizes their car insurance so they only pay for what they need. (gasps) ♪ did it work? only pay for what you need ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ spider-man no way home in theaters december 17th introducing the biggest advancement in the history ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ of small business bookkeeping. having someone else do your books for you. i'm linda, your quickbooks live bookkeeper. let's do this linda! sounds good! a live expert bookkeeper who understands your business. felipe, i've categorized last month's hair gel expenses.
9:30 pm
steve, i just closed your books. great, how are we looking? profits are up! on to next month. on to next month, linda! get your books done for you by trusted experts. intuit quickbooks live bookkeeping. it's another day. and anything could happen. it could be the day you welcome 1,200 guests and all their devices. or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutions give you the power of sd-wan and advanced security integrated on our activecore platform so you can control your network from anywhere, anytime.
9:31 pm
it's network management redefined. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. on the abortion ban case from comcast business powering possibilities. mississippi that is designed to overturn roe v. wade are arguing on behalf of the last abortion clinic in mississippi, a clinic that is soon to block the abortion ban in question. julie rikelman of the alliteration directive for reproductive rights joining us now is nothing north of putin's president and ceo of the -- eve of these arguments and i'm happy that she's able to join us again now that has happened. , nancy thanks for joining us, thanks for making the time to be here today. >> thank you, has been an intense day in and outside of the courtroom. >> yeah, how do you think it went? >> well i am pleased that both julie rikelman arguing for the
9:32 pm
health organization, and the -- maid exceptional arguments. very strong arguments that made two things unstable obliquely or. one, if the court does overturn roe v. wade the impact of the solicitor general will be swift and severe, this is about women 's bodily autonomy, it is about control over their health lives and future. second, you talk about just a few moments ago, the legitimacy of the court is on the line. nothing has changed since roe, in any appreciable way. since they looked at this 30 years ago and reaffirmed roe in planned parenthood case. today was an intense day because it is an existential one in this argument for women, and the legitimacy of the court. >> in terms of the legitimacy of the core argument, how much weight do you think that argument carries among the
9:33 pm
justices. it is one thing to hear those kinds of arguments made by, from the gallery, people like me and other people watching this process, it is something else, it feels difference to hear a version of the argument made intensely by three of the justices today here and that court speaking pretty directly to their colleagues asking them to be afraid if they really are going to go ahead with what they want to do. should that indicate to us that it is an important internal dynamic among the justices? >> it is a very, very, important consideration for the entire court. i mean yes, there were questions today from some of the justices that sounded skeptical about the standard in roe v. wade, about whether it would -- overturn roe v. wade. but at the end of the day, they have to wrestle with those questions that -- kagan and justice breyer
9:34 pm
brought up. which is existential, will the core survive this? that was the worth of justice sotomayor. if there is the stench of just politics with disagree with it will go to the fundamentals of what the judge does, so whatever the justices were asking today whatever they might think about the president they will take it very seriously this question about the legitimacy of the court. >> in terms of your work and, the work of other organizations, i know there's nothing like the center for constitutional rights, but you have colors working in the same space, if we end up in a new world of abortion right leg geisha at the end of this, in which there isn't the existing standards for white counted as a
9:35 pm
constitutional abortion ban. -- are lifted, there is no clarity on what is still allowed, roe is not completely overturn, but there is no clear standard to replace that -- how do you think that work will proceed? how do you think that landscape will look for organizations like yours, and people who have devoted so much of their lives and work to try and stand up for reproductive rights? i feel like an observer, i feel like it's a wild rest i had in terms of what the law will be here. >> well it would be, again, devastating, as was made clear in the courtroom today. devastating for women and people who need to access abortion care. but also devastating for the law. the center for reproductive rights will continue to litigate cases at federal court, and state court, and continue legislatures to get strong rights protection, continue to work for initiatives where people have the right to vote on this themselves.
9:36 pm
but most importantly, work for congress to take action. congress can solve the problem of this crisis and abortion access. the woman's health protection act can address this law, the texas law, that dozens of other laws that have been passed and litigated in courts right now. the house of representatives have passed -- the senate the biden administration supports it. people are going to wake up and realize that pressure has to be put on congress. >> nancy, the president and ceo for the center for reproductive rights, nancy, thank you so much for making time to be here. it's an understatement to call this momentous, thank you for being here. >> i want to turn now to our friend -- who is senior editor at slate .com. her piece on today's arguments is called scotus will gaslight us till the end. or arguments today make this clear that the court will overturn roe, and they will
9:37 pm
insist on their own reasonableness the whole time. dalia, thank you so much for being here with us, i know it has been an intense day. >> hi, rachel. >> so tell me about that clarity. oral arguments today made clear that this court will overturn roe, you are not in the minority in asserting that, but what is the basis for that clarity that you feel? >> i think going into arguments today, there was a narrative that went, this is not really a -- [inaudible] amy coney barrett, brett kavanaugh, chief justice care what people think. they worry about those legitimate questions you and nancy were just talking about. there was no reason to believe, other than the chief justice who was trying to figure out a way not to overturn roe, maybe move the liability line and be okay with a 15-week instead of
9:38 pm
24-week ban. there was no reason to believe, rachel, that he had a single other person on board with him on that project. i think anyone who could count, counted all of the conservative justices except for roberts gunning for roe. >> you said today, -- in your piece that is just posted, dahlia, perhaps it would be refreshing if the conservatives on the u.s. supreme court no longer felt the need to lie to us. the lie after all is being untenable, for an institution that relies on public confidence. after hearings where they promised that -- was a deeply felt value and roe v. wade was -- there is something soothing about knowing the lying to our faces will soon to be over. they were all six of them installed in the supreme court to put an end to roe v. wade after all, and that is exactly what they intend to do. i wonder if you feel like this moment does feel like the lying
9:39 pm
and artifice around this issues over? under president trump when he felt about supreme court nominations, he chop the guys and said whoever put on their will overturn roe, and i that is why put them on their, role will be overturned. are we are a new layer, a new place, where it is an open combat on this issue? we are no longer coaching it? >> yes and no. let's be grateful that all of the fancy law professors, susan collins, and people told us these folks really meant 20 said bro with president, they meant that is the artifice of saying that let's be neutral, we will pretend to be neutral we will not ban abortions. so we just won't view it as a right, that middle, place that
9:40 pm
mutual place is to just let states decide. we saw that same artifice in the amy coney barrett, insisting that because there are safe haven laws that allow you to more readily allowed to give your child up for adoption, it is not a problem for women to be forced to term, because they can give their babies up. so for me the artifice of we are being neutral, we are being reason, this is just a tiny tweak around the margins, nothing earthshaking happening here, not to worry about other presidents when we are gunning for roe, just throw. the pretense that this is a big nothing, and everyone has worked up. >> dahlia, do you think we are going to get an answer on the texas span, or the ruling of this short order may be months before we get the ruling on the mississippi case? >> i think so and i think again i put it again in the bucket of,
9:41 pm
it will look like a wash, right, we said that texas can't do what texas did. that is crazy, it is rachel talent he has them. so it is a wash, everyone can get something. the court is navigating a little pat, when in fact all they were worried about is that vigilante kind of enforcement mechanism that could be used to take guns in california. we have to be apples and apples, apples and oranges, i think we will get texas in the next couple of weeks and it will look like a big win for abortion whites, and then we will get a wall in june on that. >> julia lithwick, senior editor at, dahlia, thank you so much for your clarity. >> thanks, rachel. >> we have much more ahead tonight, stay with us. stay with us.
9:42 pm
we have to be able to repair the enamel on a daily basis. with pronamel repair toothpaste, we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. my go to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair. >> man: what's my safelite story? my go to toothpaste my my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ [uplifting music playing] ♪ i had a dream that someday ♪
9:43 pm
♪ 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.
9:44 pm
unleash the freshness... [upbeat music] still fresh ♪ in wash-scent booster ♪ downy unstopables >> i want to know that around for people living with h-i-v, keep being you. and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in certain adults.
9:45 pm
it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it cannot be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take h-i-v treatment every day and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv, keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you. 8:00 last evening, mr. clark's
9:46 pm
attorney sent a letter to the committee. another in the long series of long letters stating that mr. clark now intends to assert his fifth amendment privilege. this is, in my view, a last ditch attempt to delay the select committee's proceedings. however, a fifth amendment privilege assertion is e waiting one. i am informed mr. clark's of turning that i am willing to convene another deposition, of which mr. clark can assert that privilege, but we will not allow any one to run out the clock. and we will insist that he must appear on this saturday. >> he must appear this saturday, where we are advised he will plead the fifth. that was mississippi congressman benny thompson tonight, on a surprising new development in the january six investigation that congressman
9:47 pm
thompson share. 's investigation, members of that committee, did vote tonight unanimously former trump justice department official just jeff clark, for prosecution over his refusal to comply with subpoenas from the committee. that mr. clark's are also, apparently, going to be pleading the fifth, invoking his fifth amendment rights to avoid a incriminating himself. that was something we did not see coming and i'm not sure how that factors into this potential content proceeding and what happens next. luckily, congressman bennie thompson, the chairman of the investigation, is now able to join us live. mister chairman, sir, thank you so much for joining us tonight. and it's been a busy evening. >> thank you for having me, rachel. >> can you explain to us in layman's terms what this means? what we have been prepared for was a vote by your committee on whether or not to refer mr. clark to be prosecuted by the justice department for ignoring subpoenas. four to thank the committee. for being in contempt of congress. this fifth amendment commitment
9:48 pm
that you made tonight at the proceedings, i'm not sure i understand what the implications of what happens next. >> the implications are we will give mr. clark his right to assert his fifth amendment before the committee should he choose. we have been negotiating since october with mr. clark. we're doing everything we can to show that we're not partisan. that this committee is just trying to get to the facts. as you said, we voted unanimously, tonight, to hold him in contempt. i will go before the rules committee in the morning to propose a rule to go to the floor. we'll call that in advance until saturday. so, this will be mr. clark's last chance to come. he can come and assert himself.
9:49 pm
but you know, if you say you haven't done anything wrong, but on the other hand you want to assert the fifth amendment in terms of so the prosecution. it says that you have something to hide. so, we're going to give him an opportunity to do it. a lot of other people have come before the committee. they've done what's right. they talk to us. and we thank them for it. our churches to get to the facts. mr. clark, through his attorney, has been deliberately avoiding us. this is his last chance to come, if he wants to assert it, rachel. he can do it. but it will be under oath and he is still subject to certain penalties should he decide do not tell us anything. will go forward. it just delays it.
9:50 pm
if we're not satisfied with what happens on this saturday, we have all next week to bring this issue before the congress for the contempt citation. >> as you say, there's implications of invoking the fifth amendment. the fifth amendment is a right that protects us against self incrimination. and in the context of an open investigation like this, i think the questions that you raise about what it means that he's invoking his fifth amendment rights. what it needs to be pleading the fifth in a case like this, is a pretty pretty pointed question. bluntly, does this decision imply that jeff clark and his attorneys believe there was some kind of criminal activity committed by that president or people around him? mister clerk, on the matters that you want to question him about? >> it could very well mean that. but obviously, he is aware that something went on. that's illegal.
9:51 pm
and rather than be responsible and answer, he's pleading the fifth. the question is, did you participate in these illegal activities in the white house, as you know. he recommended a process by which the elections could be manipulated in certain states. well, that's clearly illegal. but we need to hear from him whether or not he said it. we have reasonably reason to believe he did. but if he is of the opinion that if i come before the committee and acknowledge that, then i have contributed to the january 6th insurrection. in part, simply because i made a recommendation that ultimately led states to believe that they could overturn the election. look at what went on in arizona. look what tried to go on in
9:52 pm
michigan. look at georgia. we have the secretary of state in georgia basically see the president called me and try to get me to somehow find and of votes to change the outcome of the election. well, this is part of what we believe mr. clark knew about and part of his recommendation. that's why he needs to come before the committee. but if he saying, okay, i'll come, but will plead the fifth, that in some instances, that says you are part and parcel guilty to what occurred. >> congressman bennie thompson, chairman of the january 6th investigation. this is a fascinating pivot point in this investigation, sir. we'll be watching closely. thank you for helping us understand tonight. >> thank you, rachel. >> all right, we've got much more to come to us tonight. stay with us.
9:53 pm
9:54 pm
cough cough sneeze sneeze... [ sneezing ] needs, plop plop fizz fizz. alka seltzer plus cold relief. dissolves quickly. instantly ready to start working. so you can bounce back fast with alka-seltzer plus. now available for fast sinus relief. i just heard something amazing! now for the first time one medication was approved to treat and prevent migraines. don't take if allergic to nurtec. the most common side effects were nausea, stomach pain, and indigestion. ask your doctor about nurtec today. people everywhere living with type 2 diabetes are waking up to what's possible... ...with rybelsus®.
9:55 pm
(♪ ♪) rybelsus® works differently than any other diabetes pill to lower blood sugar... in all 3 of these ways... increases insulin when you need it... decreases sugar... and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. people taking rybelsus® lost up to 8 pounds. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk.
9:56 pm
side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration which may worsen kidney problems. wake up to what's possible with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. >> stacey abrams, one of the
9:57 pm
highest profile democrats in the united states. one of the most talented politicians of her generation. the woman who credited more than anybody else with turning the great state of georgia blue. stacey abrams announced today that she is running for the governor of the great state of georgia. this announcement tonight, she setting up a potential rematch against republican governor brian kemp it what will undoubtedly be one of the most closely watched races in the whole country next year. i'm very pleased to tell you that after making her big announcement tonight, stacey abrams is going to be right here tomorrow night, exclusively. this is going to be her first tv interview after announcing she is running for georgia governor. i know, right? we'll be right back.
9:58 pm
frequent heartburn? not anymore. the prilosec otc two-week challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com. my auntie called me. she said uncle's had a heart attack. i needed him to be here. your heart isn't just yours. protect it with bayer aspirin. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. ♪ limu emu... & doug ♪ ♪ superpowers from a spider bite? i could use some help showing the world how liberty mutual customizes their car insurance so they only pay for what they need. (gasps) ♪
9:59 pm
did it work? only pay for what you need ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ spider-man no way home in theaters december 17th small businesses like yours make gift-giving possible. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ now, comcast business has an exclusive gift for you. introducing the gift of savings sale. for a limited time, ask how to get a great deal for your business. and get up to a $500 prepaid card with select bundles when you switch to the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses. or get started with internet and voice for $64.99 per month with a 2-year price guarantee. give your business the gift of savings today. comcast business. powering possibilities. the xfinity black friday sales event is happening now on xfinity mobile. now new and existing customers can get our best wireless deal of the year - up to $1,000 in savings - for a limited time only. on the most reliable network nationwide, plus nationwide 5g. act now and save up to $1,000
10:00 pm
with xfinity mobile. so you can go all out on gifts for the family - during our best wireless deal of the year... the xfinity black friday sales event. click, call or visit a store today. >> all right, that is going to do all right that is going to do it for us, it for us tonight. it's tonight has been great to been great to have you here. i have you here, i will will see you again tomorrow night. see you here tomorrow now time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. night. now some for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel, guess what this is? elizabeth warren, adam schiff, claire mccaskill. that is just one tv show that we are going to do right here in this hour. with all of those people. >> wow. and you. and you too. >> i have to get out of the way. they have important things today. i just have to turn on their microphones. it is one of those nights. >> i will get out of your, way so that you can get out of their way. >> thank you, rachel. >> thanks, lawrence. >>