tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC December 23, 2021 5:00pm-6:00pm PST
felt this way. it's like we have been out there in oblivion just so separated from the people we love. >> oh, listen, it is a tough time right now. we know that you are all tired and hurting and facing difficult decisions about the days ahead. and we are not here to be pollyanna about 2021 at all. but good has a way of showing up. proving that kindness and resilience can always prevail, even in a time like this. so be safe out there. riedout fans, we love you, and happy holidays. that's tonight's riedout. "all in with chris hayes" starts now. tonight on "all in," donald trump appeals to the supreme court. jim jordan begins his own delay tactics and why legal scholars are getting loud over the inaction from the justice department. then why the first cooperation agreement for a proud boy could
be a big deal. alarming new reporting on the non-stop multi-state pressure campaign to overturn the 2021 election. why the verdict in kim potter's manslaughter trial surprised so many and four months after our last troops left afghanistan why america and the world need to act to end the afghanistan hunger crisis. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. donald trump is now trying to run out clock on the investigation into his coup attempt. he wants to stop the january 6th committee from getting access to his records by claiming dubiously executive privilege. now, as i noted there, that claim was already rejected by the sitting president who gets to decide, one would think, president biden, also by a federal judge, then by an appeals court earlier this month. trump was then given two weeks to appeal his case in the supreme court before the documents were released, and so today exactly two weeks later
trump's lawyers finally filed that appeal to the supreme court on the last possible day. that is, of course, intentional because it is all part of a larger strategy to drag the process out as long as possible. something that has been incredibly successful throughout trump's long career. to try to stop the delay tactics, the house is asking for the supreme court to expedite its decision on whether or not to take the case. lawmakers are planning to file a brief next week asking the court to make a decision no later than january 14th. if the court were to follow their normal rules, they wouldn't discuss the case until mid-february. even if they expedited that, the trump stacked supreme court, a third of which was appointed by the former president, could still hear the case. it would require formal arguments, if this were the normal schedule, there wouldn't be a decision until june of next year. a further six-month delay for records for the bipartisan committee investigating the
insurrection. that's the goal, to delay accountability as long as possible which with is why trump's allies and right-wing media keep pushing this claim of executive privilege. >> we have had executive privilege since 1794. so this is not for protection of the president, not the chief of staff ort white house counsel, the national security advisor and the top advisor. it exists so we, the people benefit of having the conversations. it's wrong what they are doing. >> george washington was president at time that he assert it. but of ours that man giving that justification jim jordan of ohio has motivations for wanting to stonewall the january 6th committee. as we outlined on the show, he was a material witness directly involved in the plotting of donald trump's coup attempt.
starting months before the irnz itself, when he suggested that democrats were stealing the election in august of 2020 and culminating in a text message he forward to mark med outlining how mike pence could unilaterally throw out the results of the election on january 6th. just yesterday the january 6th committee sent congressman jordan a letter requesting information on, quote, at least one and possibly multiple communications with president trump on january 6th as well as meetings with white house officials and the then-president about strategies for overturning the results of the 2020 election. jordan, who is has called the committee a sham, will likely ignore that request. we'll see. but committee members have indicated a willingness to subpoena him if he doesn't cooperate because there are questions that jordan needs to answer, specifically about meetings with top white house officials where according to "the new york times" he help craft the strategy that would become a blueprint for trump
supporters in congress, announce legal actions taken by the campaign, bolster the case with allegations of fraud. we saw all that play out in real time of course. at a minimum, jordan could shed lye light on the true nature of the effort to overturn the election in question. a kwee question. to what degree did participants fully intend for fake claims of voter fraud which trump and others corruptly pressured the justice department to help validate. it's been, of course, almost a year since the attack on the capitol. so far despite hundreds of cases against the insurrectionists themselves, the people that were actually in that building, there has been almost no accountability aside from a historic second impeachment for the people who attempted the coup incited the attack on the first place. the january 6th committee has been signaling it could go after trump. the latest today, the committee chair telling "the washington post" that trump's inaction for the hours during the insurrection could itself
warrant a criminal referral. something that we have been covering here on the program. as of now the department of justice has apparently chosen not to pursue criminal charges against trump and his allies as my next guest points out. it is a chilling effect on the future of our democracy. "new york times" op-ed which he coauthor he says, to decline from the outset to investigate would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers. without forceful action we will like any not resist what some retired generals see as a march to another insurrection in 2024. lawrence tribe joins me now. professor, first, i guess, let's start with the argument you're making in the piece along with your co-authors. what do you think the department of justice under attorney general merit merit, former
student of yours, should be doing that they are not doing? >> we don't know for sure what they are doing because merrick garland is very good at holding his cards close and he is very good at following the normal rules of not revealing things. but by this time in the mueller investigation a great deal had already happened. manafort and gates had been indicted. papadopoulos had been charged and was cooperating fully. bannon and miller had been interviewed according to media reports. so it looks like the department of justice is waiting and waiting is playing into trump's hand. as you pointed out in the setup to this piece, his strategy is to run out clock. the committee itself may not exist after the next election because we are told that if the republicans take over the house,
first thing they will do is dissolve the committee. you can stonewall a congressional committee and, as we have seen, trump is running out clock on something as simple as, obviously, invalid claim of executive privilege to withhold presidential papers that every judge who looked at it so far say need to be turned over. it's not so easy to stonewall a grand jury. it seems to me that the key point, because the blueprint for all of the criminal offenses that may have been committed by trump and by others at the top, has already been carefully laid out by a number of scholars and former prosecutors. the key point is not to try to decide right now whether to indict trump. there are all kinds of arguments about maybe should be shouldn't be indicted because maybe a jury would buy his claim, he was so
deluded that he thought he won the election. all of that is premature. what we need to do is not to wait before conductk a full-blown department of justice investigation with a grand jury and all of the rest of it. an investigation of everybody at the top, getting the foot soldiers, including some who pleaded guilty as long ago as april, to cooperate. at that point, rather than waiting and waiting and waiting for the january 6th committee to reach its conclusions, maybe criminal referrals, you know, we can have two things going at the same time. when a ship is leaking, you don't say i am going to try to plug the hole, let somebody else do it first. a lot of people say time is really of the essence. it's never too late to start. and if merrick garland is not already begined up a full-blown
investigation he should have done so yesterday, if not yesterday, tomorrow. the investigation doesn't need to decide in advance whether all of the down sides of an indictment should or should not prevent us from indicting. that's for a later day. but the investigation has to go full speed ahead. and when you are being investigated for criminal activity and maybe informed that you are a possible target, that tends to focus the mind, and the mind of the country needs to be focused on this because however important other things are, we really are running out clock on democracy itself. the leading expert on the civil wars around the world, barbara walter of the university of california and san diego has a book which she says by all objective measures we are 50% away from a civil war. not the standard blue, you know, blue costumes versus gray costumes civil war, but utter chaos, breakdown of the rule of
law. and the rule of law depends on having institutions that we can trust. that depends on the idea that no one is above the law. if you don't start holding everybody at the top accountable at least to the point of being subject to full-blown investigation, then we're really giving up and i don't think we should give up on that democracy. >> so the big question here, right, i mean, obviously, it's a novel -- there is not really great precedent in any direction, right? the actions taken by the president were unprecedented. what happened was unprecedented. so when you are trying to sort of figure out, you know, if you are merrick garland or the folks in the department of justice are approaching this question in good faith, one question is, is there sufficient factual predicate to open a criminal investigation knowing that doing so would be very hard to keep close, right? and my understanding of reading your op-ed and, like, what is entering into the public record, the actioning taken by the president in public are
sufficient to open a criminal investigation into specific possible crimes in the u.s. criminal code that he committed. >> it's very clear that there are specific crimes of which even the public evidence is very, very strong. we saw him foment an insurrection. we saw him give aid and comfort to those who did. we watched while, for three hours, he did nothing. we now know that all kinds of messages were reaching him through meadows saying, you've got to do something. we know that he was engaged in a plan or at least it certainly looks like he was engaged in a plan, there is enough evidence to have an investigation, the point of which is to generate further evidence if it exists, a plan to overturn the election. he was asking brad raffensperger, just find me votes. he was pressuring people in the justice department, just say the election was stolen.
i'll take care of the rest. he was, obviously, doing any number of things in public that, if they don't warrant an investigation, nothing would. and if any other person in the world did what he did, they would be the subject of a criminal investigation already. so we have to pray that this guy is because he should not be above the law, and what happened last time is going to be multiplied because certainly they've learned lessons from how they didn't do it as effectively as they might. and we've got to learn lessons as well. >> final question for you on the court and the petition for cert interest the president's attorneys. this is not as far as i can tell from the legal minds that i trust, including my wife, particularly close call, but, you know, i guess there is a question of the court could just not grant cert, allow the appellate court's ruling to
stand. if it were anyone else they would probably do that. there is no real controversy here. what do you think is the likelihood they will do that? >> if they care more about seeming like a real court, and several of them have indicated over and over again, steve breyer, amy coney barrett, others have said we are not political hacks. we are not politicians in robes. we are real judges. if they want to prove they are real judges, they would do what any court would do with any other precedent in any other circumstance, when non-existent claims of executive privilege are invoked, to keep secret information that is vital not only for exposing and holding accountable but for planning how to strengthen our democracy with new legislation, any normal court would say get out of here. there is no legal claim worth it. now, if this court doesn't do that, that will reinforce my
bebelieve that it's hardly a court at all. and that would be tragic. >> professor lawrence tribe, thank you so much for your time. enjoy the holidays. >> thank you. you, too. to. all right. for the first time a proud boy is now cooperating with investigators. what he told them about the group's plan to overturn the election on january 6th and insight into the thousands of other people who showed up at the capitol. >> we, the people, are not going to take it anymore. you are not going to take aware our trump-y bear. you are not going to take away our votes and our freedom that our men died for. we, the people, will never give up. >> from trumpy bear to plea deal, how a salon owner from beverly hills stormed the capitol and what she told prosecutors next. what she told prosecutors next
clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. try new vazalore. aspirin made amazing! when it comes to autism, finding the right words can be tough. finding understanding doesn't have to be. we can create a kinder, more inclusive world for the millions of people on the autism spectrum. go to autismspeaks.org.
>> white supremacists. >> proud boys. >> proud boys? stand back and stand by. i tell you what. somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left. >> in the immediate aftermath of january 6th it was obvious that the proud boys did anything but stand by during donald trump's attempted coup. they were a big part of it, the members were. yesterday for the first time one of those proud boys admitted he
was there to stop the transfer of power as part of a cooperation agreement with the government. matthew green disavows his membership with the group where he was described as low level member. in a statement of offense upon entering a guilty plea he described different ways proud boys coordinated actions on the day of the insurrection, including top down orders not to wear the identifying black and yellow gash, the walkie-talkies they used to coordinate their movements. conspiring to unlawfully enter the restricted area of the capitol grounds was to send a message. they knew they were inside the capitol building conducting the certification of the electoral college vote. ryan riley has been a reporter for huffpost and an incredible new piece profiling maga foot
shareholders and their path to radicalization. let's start with matthew green. give me a little bit of who he is and what his case is and the development of him saying that he is entering a guilty plea and cooperating. >> yeah, you know, marcy wheeler accurately described him a low level defendant, from syracuse, new york, and it sort of it that you compare this to a drug deal. he is very low on the chain of command here. he joined the proud boys a little bit before the actual attack on the capitol. he wasn't a member for that long. but what is significant about this is he's laying out what the purpose of the conspiracy was. he is saying exactly what their intent was, to stop the certification of the election to go into the capitol and to influence and have an impact on what was happening that day. so that is a very important part of this overall investigation
and this conspiracy because you need to do have that intent sort of weighed out. i don't know if he will be the highest person who will flip under this because there are people higher up in the chain of command so to speak in the proud boys who probably have more valuable information and probably their best out is still flipping. but i think it's significant and definitely really firms up this conspiracy as prosecutors move forward. >> yeah, and just to put that together with, you know, bennie thompson saying they are investigating donald trump's, quote, unquote, inaction or delay for three hours while this was happening, the point -- the thing that donald trump wanted that day was for the vote not to be counted and turned into the record thereby transferring power. that's the same thing that the mob wanted. when the mob is there succeeding in causing everyone to not do that thing, i mean, it was actually delayed until that night, the question of, well, why didn't trump do something, well, it was a feature, not a bug. everyone's texting saying, oh
no, like, you have do something. no, no, this is working. they have delayed. and so for him to say, yes, the point was we knew they were in there, we wanted to stop it, is sort of key in that regards. your piece focuses on three different people who sort of, you know, were not masterminds, including gina bisignano and i want to play that sound of her again because it was so strike to go me and have you tell us a little bit about how she got from beverly hills to the capitol in an insurrection with a bullhorn. take a listen to what she had to say. >> we, the people, are not going to take it any more. you are not going to take away our trumpy bear. you are not going to take away our votes and our freedom that our men died for. this is -- we, the people, will never give up. we will never let our country go to the globalists. >> how did she end up there?
>> so, gina is based in beverly hills where she owns a salon, owned a salon, and she, like a lot of people in southern california, became more politically involved during the pandemic. she attended anti-masking events where she connected with other people who were very upset about the lackdowns, about restrictions. she got into conspiratorial thinking through pizzagate and listening to radical podcasts. on january 6th she believed that the president had called her to be there. the election was stolen and it was her responsibility and those of others to be there that day to support him and do what he asked. >> you know, the key part of the belief, just to follow up on that and then i want to ask ryan in, i mean, i get this as i go through ryan's reporting these cases, that if you administered a lie detector test, a perfect
lie detector test, a magical one that could throughly say whether a person was lying and saying was the election stolen and is joe biden -- you know, did donald trump -- you know, they would say yes. like, i think -- i mean, not that it matters in some ways what they did. that was the sense i got from what had happened to the minds of the people that you profiled. >> yeah, absolutely. all three of those people i think absolutely believed that they were there doing what the president told them to do. i mean, he said this election has been stolen from you. that's a quote. he said, you can't take back this country with weakness. he said, when there is a fraud involved, the rules change. >> yeah, and, ryan, i mean, i got to stha this pops up a lot of times in the filings of the folks that you have been covering. i mean, which again brings us back to this, like, weird bifurcation of responsibility here, which is to the extent that you were to buy the premise that essentially an unlawful
coup is taking place which an election had been stolen and joe biden installed against the will of the people that would justify radical action and in many of the pleading documents in the reports, that's what lawyers say about the motivation of their clients. >> yeah, precisely. i feel like a little bit of a broken record on it. if you actually believed the election was stolend and you follow that logic, their actions make sense in their own minds. danny rodriguez, the insurrectionist who drove a stun gun into the neck of officer fanone, he was an associate of gina and they knew each other and subsequently actually he went over to her house after this attack took place, they were at a bunch of these rallies together in california, they knew each other well and gina is sort of cooperating against these -- him and two other defendants he is charged along with. but his video and his confession to the fbi really lays this out. like, he actually believed the
election was stolen. he actually believed that the commander in chief was calling him to, you know, d.c. to basically to take over the government. and that's the mentality that he went into this with. so i think it's not shocking when you realize that these people actually believed that they took action that makes sense in their own minds if they actually believed that the election was stolen. so certainly, you know, the moral responsibility here is separate from the legal responsibility, and i think ultimately it could be we are in a situation where a lot of these pawns, so to speak, in this investigation are the ones who ultimately faced the longest consequences as opposed to the people spreading the lies about a stolen election. >> someone mentioned the grave model of accountability. i have been thinking about that ever since, where the people that saw punishment were the people implementing at the lowest level and the higher up you got, the most the people escaped accountability. thank you both. >> thank you. joe biden won the election
more than a year ago, but trump people are still trying to overturn the results, like -- like this week they were. the non-stop pressure campaign at the local level next. gn at the local level next. something epic! so we're giving every business, our best deals on every iphone - including the iphone 13 pro with 5g. that's the one with the amazing camera? yep! every business deserves it... like ones that re-opened! hi, we have an appointment. and every new business that just opened! like aromatherapy rugs! i'll take one in blue please! it's not complicated. at&t is giving new and existing customers our best deals on every iphone, including up to $1000 off the epic iphone 13 pro.
[first responder] your son's fine. [driver] thank you. there was something in the road... [first responder] it's okay. you're safe now. 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: it's free, it's easy, we come out and mark your lines, we provide you the information so you will dig safely.
just in case you thought donald trump and his supporters attacks on the 2020 election were bluster, there is right now an ongoing day-to-day effort for state election officials to constantly continually have to debunk false election fraud claims about the last election. according to "the washington post," it's trouble for officials as they launch preparations for the 2022 midterm elections and this further eroding faith in the nation's systems. a north carolina spokesman says, if we want to provide safe, secure and successful elections, constantly running down absurd conspiracy theories is not sustainable. one of the reporters on that story amy gardner joins me now.
i have to say i didn't -- until i read your story, and i followed this quite closely, i didn't realize how much active work there was around literally going back to, like, undo the results of the last election. like, make it go away, get a redo. what is this effort looking like and who is spearheading and what are they doing? >> sure. yeah, i didn't realize that either until we reported this out in the last couple of weeks. there are two principle figures at the helm. one is mike lindell, the founder of my pillow, and a gentleman named douglas frank, a long-time math and science teacher from ohio who has claimed without any evidence that an algorithm was used to change trump votes to biden votes in the 2020 election. they have been going around the country talking to what they say are dozens, scores of state officials, attorneys general,
sec stares of state, as well as local election officials trying to persuade them to let them examine their data, their systems, and claiming that they have evidence that there is widespread fraud. in our reporting, we found, among republican and democratic officials, that these gentlemen have not presented any evidence in what they are claiming, but it's true that they are trying to decertify the 2020 election even now 13 months later. >> and they are -- i mean, what was striking is they are getting meetings. i mean, they are -- they are getting audiences, meetings with, like, fairly in some cases fairly high -- like state attorneys general of states, if i'm not mistaken, right? >> that is correct, and sec tears of state. i spoke with secretaries of state and some attorneys general. if you are a republican attorney general or a respect secretary
of the state this is a difficult political situation to be in. you are heading into a midterm election where you might be up for re-election, where former president donald trump signaled if you are not all in on the sometimes fabulous theories on how the election was stolen last year, he is going to campaign against you. and so there are state officials who don't believe the election was stolen, who believe that joe biden is the duly elected president of the united states, but who are trying to thread a little bit of a political needle here. so they are taking the meetings and saying i will meet with anyone, eric holder, the former obama attorney general, anybody who claims to have evidence of election fraud, but they are not necessarily following through on their demands. >> right, i mean, there is a little bit of, you know, i think, you know, sort of yes'ing them and showing them the door. so far no one has done a lot with it.
there is not much to do. but this is -- of course, your point is it's just one removed from what donald trump says and he the most powerful political figure in the party so they have to take it seriously. doug frank, you know, is a, you know, said some pretty controversial things about, you know, having to be like a nuremberg trial and calling for executions and has been -- you know, he is someone who has a fairly colorful public history. >> sure. i mean, the comments that he made over the weekend on social media on the social media website telegram calling for joycelyn benson, the secretary of state of michigan, a democratic, to be tried by a jury with a power to sentence her to the death penalty or a firing squad is rather dramatic. that's one word for it. and this is the kind of rhetoric that's out there. i think it's worth thinking about whether this is really about decertifying the 2020
election or about building the case for a couple of things. new laws in 2022 that go even further than some of the new laws regarding voting that we saw in 2021, and about getting particular candidates to run for office as we head into the midterm elections who will take a different tact than some of these folks who were guardrails for the democracy in 2020. >> yeah, no, that's -- i mean, i think that's very true. and having -- there is also -- it's, like, a reminder of the threat at a political level. it's like putting the loaded gun on the table. when mike lindell calls you up, all right, i got to meet with mike lindell who has some math teacher buddy who says there is an algorithm. the hot breath that have is on your neck. and that, i think, has real consequences for how all of these political figures are operating in that environment. amy gardner, great reporting.
i have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. so i'm taking zeposia, a once-daily pill. because i won't let uc stop me from being me. zeposia can help people with uc achieve and maintain remission. and it's the first and only s1p receptor modulator approved for uc. don't take zeposia if you've had a heart attack,
chest pain, stroke or mini-stroke, heart failure in the last 6 months, irregular or abnormal heartbeat not corrected by a pacemaker, if you have untreated severe breathing problems during your sleep, or if you take medicines called maois. zeposia may cause serious side effects including infections that can be life-threatening and cause death, slow heart rate, liver or breathing problems, increased blood pressure, macular edema, and swelling and narrowing of the brain's blood vessels. though unlikely, a risk of pml--a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection--cannot be ruled out. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, medications, or if you are or plan to become pregnant. if you can become pregnant, use birth control during treatment and for 3 months after you stop taking zeposia. don't let uc stop you from doing you. ask your doctor about once-daily zeposia.
this afternoon the minneapolis courtroom former police officer kim potter was found guilty on all charges in the shooting death of 20-year-old daunte wright last april. potter, a 26-year police veteran, was training other officers when they pulled wright over in brooklyn center, minnesota, after police found out he had an outstanding warrant, there was a brief struggle. body-cam footage shows potter repeatedly yelling the word taser and she pulled out her firearm and shot daunte wright once in the chest, killing him. potter claimed the shooting was an accident but a jury found her guilty of first and second-degree man slautert. potter now faces up to 15 years in prison.
the judge ordered her held in custody without bail until sentencing in mid-february. a civil rights and defense attorney and former prosecutor joins me now. i think a lot of people were somewhat surprised by this outcome, not necessarily if they were following the jury at least in the facts as stated and the facts people knew and the leniency or charitable interpretation that juries to give police officers. what's your read on the outcome? >> chris, i think calling this surprising is an understatement. remember, this is the same city that refused to convict can a police officer would wrongfully killed philando castile. in my lifetime for me this goes back to the rodney king case. the police takes the position, hey, it's a dirty job. if we make mistakes, you have to look the other way. for the most part, that has succeeded what this verdict says is that's noting case any
longer. not only will we hold you accountable if you do something wrong on the job, but if you make a mistake that results in wrongdoing, you know, bad outcomes result from bad intentions. we are going to hold you accountable at least in jurisdictions we've got prosecutors who are going to cling to that point of view. >> yeah, and describe for me the difference here. i mean, she was charged a manslaughter, not homicide. there is a sort of different legal standards for each and what the legal standard was here, what the burden was for the prosecution to show to secure that verdict. >> that was a tough part about this case, chris, you heard both the prosecution and the defense characterize kim potter's actions as a mistake. for first-degree manslaughter is disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the outcome will result from your conduct. an example, it's not illegal to make a mistake when you are
driving. it is if you are driving while intoxicated. if while intoxicated, you kill someone you could be convicted of manslaughter instead of simply making a mistake. for the second charge, second-degree manslaughter, prove she contacted with culpable negligence which is confusing. it's gross negligence plus recklessness which is the standard i just explained. what they have in common is, you have to prove some degree of intentional and conscious conduct. >> it's also not the first time, obviously, that we've seen police officers shoot someone with a gun when they said they thought they were using a taser. in fact, i have covered maybe four or five cases like that in the time i have been hosting this television show, and, again, as far as i can tell, i think the others did not come out this way. you wonder if that has a downstream effect about training and about the way tasers are used, et cetera.
>> chris, there was one that did turn out that resulted in the conviction, probably the example that most people are familiar with, that's the fruitvale station incident from 2009. they made a movie about it with michael jordan. to your point, in that case, at the time when he was shot, the officer confusing the gun with the taser, he is laying face down with his hands cuffed behind his back. we have never seen a case like this one before. it's not just what happened out there in the field that you have to pay attention to. let's compare this to the derek chauvin trial. what was notable there, all the police who testified were on the same side. here the police were divided. you had a police chief, who came in saying, i was knocked down from my position because i wasn't going to tell lie. through all of that evidence and testimony that the jury still said we are going to hold you accountable this time, you are not going to walk away after having killed this young man. >> sorry. say what the police chief's testimony was again. >> the police chief testified that he stepped down because he
wasn't willing to lie. he used those words. i am not going to lie. he also had an expert who testifies on use of force issues who came into the trial and said he chose to testify pro bono in this trial. typically, they charge upwards of three to $600 an hour because he felt like someone's liberty was at stake. kim potter is a pawn in a game that will play out over the next few years with similar trials like this that will take place. the officers who killed tatyana jefferson, rayshard brooks and elining a will have trials. if you look at the way the defense approached this trial, they were auditioning to take a role in those future trials. >> david henderson learned a lot. thank you very much. coming up, the terrible crisis unfolding in afghanistan four months after the u.s. finally left. that's next. that n'sext. when it comes to autism,
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.
woman from my hometown was radicalized. >> american radical, a new msnbc podcast. listen wherever you get your podcasts. you don't hear about afghanistan a ton on tv news since the u.s. pulled out four months ago. the country is still there even if we don't have troops there, and it's facing an acute and dire humanitarian crisis. this winter more than half of the country is expected to go hungry. the un warns that nearly nine million are at risk of starvation, exacerbated by the climate crisis and by the u.s. economic sanctions of the ruling taliban. this week, the treasury used those restrictions on groups but much more needs to be done to prevent a total catastrophe in the country. mr. ackerman has spent two decades following the reign of terror, and he is joining me
now. and spencer, the basics as i understand them here is over the 20 years that the u.s. was in afghanistan, a system was produced that was profoundly corrupt but basically, 80 to 90% of the gpd of the entire country was foreign aid and the taliban comes in. the u.s. says we can't give money to the toll ban taliban and now the economy has shrunk past great depression levels. >> yeah. what we should be really clear about is what is at the heart of this which is approximately the banking sector of afghanistan. and you look at where the currency reserve in afghanistan are in august when the taliban took over. there are about $68 million worth of reserve assets on hand to go freed up. instead, however, something
like $7 billion of the afghan central bank's reserves are here in the united states. and the united states, after losing a 20-year war to the taliban took the step of freezing all of those assets. so something like nine plus billion dollars of afghan's own money, not ours, afghan's money, are off the table for them, and the steps that the biden administration is doing to do aid work there, that will be routed around the banking system. so unless the united states comes to term with the fact that it lost the $20-year war and allows the afghans access to their own money, money in the system that the united states and the international community set up and shepherded, that the geo political struggle that i
reiterate the u.s. lost, however many afghans will starve as a result of this. >> i'm glad you laid it out that way, the freezing of the foreign reserves that we had custody of that essentially the lifeblood of the banking system has been frozen as well. but fundamentally it comes down to that issue. right? that the taliban is not a government that i ever want to be under the reign of, it's not a government that i describe of like a good government or a democratic one, but it is the -- it's the state of afghanistan now, and so like you either recognize that or you don't, and the stakes right now are -- there is no one else to deal with. that's who runs afghanistan. and if you want to make sure people don't starve there, then the only way is through the government that now runs afghanistan which is the taliban. >> that's right. the united states is using what
it considers leverage against the taliban government. that leverage is people's lives. that leverage is the state of all of the people who we heard from the united states's side during the days after the loss of kabul, that the united states just cared so deeply about. and now the united states has a chance to really do something and show that it means what is says when it says that it cares about these people, and there is no indication that the united states is going to do that. >> reporter: this is the thing that has been really infuriating me because the coverage of the withdrawal -- it was understandable why the coverage, you know, was done in this register, and it was awful to watch people trying to get out, people, you know, sacrificing their lives, being murdered outside the airport along with the u.s. service
members. like it was brutal and horrifying and all came to the idea that we were leaving the people behind and we care so much and are failing them. and now you have a clear-cut thing that is obviously necessary to stop mass misery if not petition, and it's like it has nothing to do with like the honor of the u.s. and it's just not the same focus on it. >> i reiterate. according to the washington post, $7 billion of the afghan central bank's reserve is here in the united states, not in afghanistan, here in the united states, money that was set aside for afghans and could go in a moment of extreme emergency to alleviating the widespread suffering among the afghan people that is the
legacy of the united states's loss of the 20-year war in afghanistan, and it's citing in staying in afghanistan. >> reporter: and people are calling this out, and people can make their voice heard on something as dire as this, and i want to ask you as long as you have been covering the war on terror, and it was on a1 in which they required a whole bunch of documents in the reviews of the airstrikes and the monsterously awful airstrikes in the summer in afghanistan where people were killed in a case of mistaken identity, and it was not so much an anomaly this happened but it was in some ways a smoking gun for them. >> that's right.
the united states for years and years and years and in particular the time stamp that the new york times looked at was post 2014 after the first wave of the afghan surge was done and isis was interacting in syria, and it was basically strike after strike like we saw in kabul in late august, the requirement -- for what we saw in that strike. >> reporter: yeah. >> very significantly, every time these kinds of strikes happened, and there were reports of civilian deaths, the pentagon says wait, wait, wait. we're investigating what happened here, and it's months
if not years of the modicum of what they found, and "the new york times" found there is no time at all, and there is basically a series of boxes to check that determines that the united states cannot be definitively told that it wiped women and children off the face of the planet. that's what this is. this is essentially a massive cover up institutionalized by the pentagon to keep the wars going. >> reporter: great reporting and the team of the new york times, and i want to give them a shout out, and professor ackerman, thank you very much, and that is all in on thursday night, and the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. good evening, chris, and much appreciated. it will be nice to have you here on christmas eve eve. when you settle in to watch this show by now you have probably noticed expect a bit of the unexpected. right? we might have me reading