tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC December 24, 2021 12:00am-1:00am PST
tonight, on all in. donald trump appeals to the supreme court. jim jordan begins his own tactics, as the night -- legal scholars get loud on over the inaction of the justice department. lawrence tribe joins me on that. then, why the first cooperation agreement for a proud boy could be a big deal. alarming new reporting on the nonstop multi-state -- to overcome the 2020 election. the verdict of kim potter's manslaughter trial surprises. many four months after our last troops left afghanistan, america in the world need to act to end afghan hunger crisis. this starts right now.
>> good evening, from new york, i'm chris hayes. donald trump is now trying to run out the clock on the investigation into his new attempt. he wants to stop the january six committee from getting access to his records, by claiming, dubious executive privilege. as i noted there, that claim was already rejected by the sitting president, who gets to decide. also, by a fraternal judge, then by an appeals court earlier this month. trump was then given two weeks to appeal his case in supreme court, before the documents were released. so, today, exactly two weeks later, trump's lawyers finally fully appealed the supreme court, on the last possible day. that is of course, intentional. it's all part of a strategy to drag the process as long as possible. something that's been incredibly, incredibly successful during trump's career. trying to stop the delay tactics, the house is now asking the supreme court to expedite its decision on
whether or not to take the case. lawmakers plan to follow brief next week, asking the court to make a decision no later than down january 14th. if the court were to follow their normal rules, they wouldn't even discuss the case till mid february, even if they expedite that, the trump stacked supreme court, which was appointed by the former president, could still hear the case. if they, do it require arguments on their normal schedule. if this was a normal schedule, there wouldn't be a decision until june, of next year, most likely. a further six month delay for records, and the bipartisan committee investigating the committee, was asked back in august. you see the how this works. very effective actually. -- to delay accountability as long as possible. which is why trump's allies, in congress, keep pushing this dubious claim, of executive privilege. >> we've had executive privilege since 1794, when george washington -- relative to the -- so, this is in exists not for
protection of the president, not for the rights of the chief of staff or, the white house counsel, it exists so that we the people benefit. by having this kind of conversation between the president and his top advisers. >> one will know that george washington was president, when he asserted, it but of course, that man, giving that -- has his own motivation, for wanting a stonewall the january six committee. as we've outlined on this, jordan was a material witness, directly involving the -- starting months before the insurrection itself, when he suggested that the democrats were still in the election, in august of 2020. and culminating in a text message that he forwarded to then, chief house -- outlining how mike pence could essentially unilaterally, by himself, throughout the results of the election on january 6th. just yesterday, the january six committee say jordan a lender,
requesting information, quote, at least one and possibly multiple communications with president trump on january six, as well as, quote, meetings with white house officials and then president about strategies for overturning the results on the election. jordan was called the committee's sham, will likely ignore that request. but, committee members have -- because their real question that jordan's answer. specifically, about meetings with top white house officials. according to the white house, -- that would become a blueprint for trump supporters, in congress. that, is hammer home the idea the elections tainted, and now legal action is being taken on the campaign, and both of the case with allegations of fraud. as greg sergeant puts the, could shed light on the true nature to overturn the election on congress. he questioned, to what degree the participants fully intend for fake claims of voter fraud, with trump, and others --
to be fabricated as a deliberate -- it's been of, course, almost a year since the attack on the capitol. so far, despite hundreds of cases against the insurrection themselves, the people that were actually in the building, there has been almost no accountability, aside from a historic impeachment, for the people who attempted the coup, inciting the attack in the first place. january six committee has been signaling it could go after trump himself. the latest just today, -- telling washington post, that trump's inaction for the hours during the insurrection, could itself warrant a criminal referral. something that we've been covering here, on the program. as of now, the department of justice apparently chosen not to pursue criminal charges against trump and his allies. as my next guest comes, there's a chilling effect on the future of our democracy. the new york times op-ed, -- to decline from the outset of
two of us k would be appeasement, pure and simple, and appeasing bullies and wrongdoers only encourages more of the same. without forceful action to hold the wrongdoers to account, we will likely not resist with some retired general see as a marched together -- mr. trump or another demagogue loses. and lawrence tribe joins me now. professor, first i guess, let's start with the argument that you're making with your co-authors, what do you think the department of justice, under merrick garland, should be doing right now, as far as we know, from the outside, that they are not doing right now. >> well we don't know for sure is, what they're doing right now maryland is very good at holding his guards close. he's very good at following the normal lose, and not revealing things. by this time, in the mueller investigation, a great deal had already happened.
-- they had been indicted, -- they were cooperating fully. ben, and miller had been interviewed, according to media reports. so, it looks like the department of justice is waiting, and waiting -- playing into trump's hand, as you pointed out for, the setup of this. peace this whole strategy is to run out the 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'll do is dissolve the committee. you can stonewall a congressional committee, and as we've seen, trump is running out of clock on something as simple as, obviously an invalid claim of executive privilege, to withhold presidential papers that every judge, who has looked at so far, a saying to
turnover. it's not so easy to stonewall a grand jury. it seems to me, the key point, because the blueprint for all of the criminal offenses that may have been committed by trump and others at the time, is already being carefully laid out by a number of scholars and for more prosecutors. the key point, not to try to decide, right now, whether to indict trump. there are all kinds of arguments, maybe he should be indicted, because maybe a jury would buy his claim that he was so deluded that he really thought he won the election. that is all premature. what we need to do is not wait to before conducting a full blown investigation. with a grand jury in all the rest of it. an investigation of everybody at the top, getting the footsoldiers, including some who pleaded guilty, as long ago's april, to cooperate.
at that point, rather than waiting and waiting and waiting, for the january six committee to reach its conclusion, so that they could give criminal referrals, we could have two things going on in the same time. -- you don't see i'm going to try and plug the, whole let somebody else do a first. a lot of people who have looked at this say that time is really of the essence. it's never too late to start. if merrick garland is not doing a full blown investigation, he should've done so yesterday, if not tomorrow -- whether or all of the downsides of an indictment should or should not prevent us from indicting. that's for a later day. the investigation has to go full speed ahead. when you are being investigated for criminal activity, and
maybe informant or a possible target, that tends to focus them on this. however important other things are, we really are running out the clock on democracy itself. the leading expert on civil wars around the world, barbara walter, from the university of california, san diego, has a book, in which she says, by all objective messengers, we're about 50% of the way toward a civil war. not the standard old blue costume, versus gray costume civil war. utter chaos. breakdown of the rule of law. 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 start holding everybody at the top accountable, at least to the point of being subject to full blown investigation, then we are really are giving. up i don't think we should give up on this democracy. >> the big question here,
obviously, it's a novel -- there's not really great president, in any interaction. the action taken on president were president. what happened was unprecedented. when you're trying to figure out if your eric garland, if you are approaching this question in good faith. one question is, is there is sufficient factual predicate to open a criminal investigation, knowing that doing so would be very hard to keep close. my understanding of reading your op-ed, what isn't entered into the public record, the actions taken by the president, in public, are sufficient to open a criminal record, that -- in the criminal code, that he committed. >> it's very clear that there are specific crimes of which, even the public, -- we saw him -- we saw him give aid and comfort
to those who did. , we watch while, for three hours, he did nothing. we now know that all kinds of messages were reaching him, through meadows, say you have to do something. we know that he was engaged in a plan, or at least it looks like he was engaged in a plan. there's enough evidence to have an investigation the, point of which is to generate further evidence that exists. a plan to overturn the election. he was asking to find 780 votes. he was pressuring people in the justice department, just to say that the election was. stolen all 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. if any other person in the world did when 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 he didn't do it as effectively as they might. we've got to learn lessons as well. >> final question for you on the court and the petition for search from the president's attorneys. i mean, this is not, as far as i can tell from the legal minds that i trust, including my wife, a particularly close. will call but, i guess there's a question of, the court could just not grad certain -- just not touch it. if you were anyone else, they probably wouldn't do that, they get all grants or to a lot of cases. there is no controversy here. would you think the likelihood is that they'll do that? >> if they care more about seeming like a real court, and several of them have indicated over and over again, steve breyer, others have said, we're
not political hacks. we are real judges. if they want to prove that they're real judges, they would do it when any real court would do, that is when nonexistent claims of executive privilege are evoked to keep secret information, that is vital, not only for exposing and upholding accountable for. planning with you. legislation. any normal court would say,, get out of here. there's no legal claim worth it. now, if this court doesn't do that, that will reinforce my belief, that is hardly a court at all. and that would be >> tragic. can professor laurence tribe, thank you so much for your time and enjoy the holidays. >> you as well. >> all right. for the first time, a proud boy is now cooperating with investigators. what he told them about the group's plans to overturn the election on january 6th.
plus new 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 away our -- you are not going to take away our votes and the freedom armand died for. this is [inaudible] and we the people will never give up. >> from trumpy bear to plea deal, how a salon owner from beverly hills ended up storming the capitol and what she told prosecutors. next
where's mom? she said she would be home in time for the show. don't worry, sweetie. she promised she'd be here for it. ooh! nice shot! thanks! glad we have xfinity, with wifi speed faster than a gig! me too! woah, look! mom is on tv! she's amazing! (cheers) xfinity brought us together, after all! power your whole home this holiday with wifi speeds faster than a gig. click, call, or visit a store today. give me a name? sing 2
>> why proud boys? >> proud boys, stand back and stand by. but i will tell you what, i will tell you what, something has to be done about antifa and the left. >> in the immediate aftermath of january 6th, it was obvious that the maga loving proud boys did anything but stand by during donald trump's attempted coup. in fact, they were a big part of it. for the first time, yesterday, 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 greene of syracuse new york says he now disavows his membership in the group, where he was described as a low level member. he put in a statement of defense upon entering a guilty play. he described top-down orders to
not where the members black and yellow garb and the walkie talkie system these to coordinate movements. green's intent in conspiring with others to unlawfully enter the we're strictly the area of the capitol grounds was to send a message to legislators and vice president pence, according to court documents. greene knew they were inside conducting the certification of the electoral college vote at the time the riot occurred. ryan riley has been a valuable reporter on every aspect of the investigation for have post. and carrie halle has a piece in new york magazine profiling different mega footsoldiers. i suggest that you read it. ryan, let's start with matthew green. if you can give me a bit of who he is and what his cases and the development of him now saying that he is entering a guilty plea to cooperate. >> yeah. marcy wheeler, i think, accurately described him as a flub. he is this low level defendant. he is from syracuse, new york.
and it sort of is, if you compare this to a drug deal, this is sort of a guy who was very low on the chain of command. the only joining of the proud boys before the attack on the capitol. he wasn't a member for that long. but what's significant about this is that he is laying out with the purpose of the conspiracy. was he is saying what their intent was, to stop the certification of the election, to go into the capital and to influence and have an impact on what was happening that day. so that is a very important part and important component of this overall investigation. because you need to have this intent sort of laid out. i don't know if he will have be the highest person. because there are other people higher up in the chain of command who probably have more information. but i think it's significant and really confirms up this conspiracy as prosecutors move forward. >> yes, and just to put that together with benny thompson
saying today that they are investigating donald trump's quote unquote action or delay for those 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 entered into the record and thereby transferring power. that's the same thing the mob wanted. and so 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, it was a feature, not a bug. everyone is texting saying, oh no, you have to do something. but look, it's working, it's working. they have delayed it. so for him, they say, yes, they knew they were in there, we wanted to stop it. that's key in that regard. your piece focuses on three different people, kerry, people who are not masterminds, including gina bisignano, and i want to play that sound of her again because it was so
striking to me and can you tell us a bit about how she got from beverly hills to the capital and the insurrection with a bull horn? take a look. >> we the people are not going to take it anymore. we are are not going to have our trumpy bear taken away. you are not going to take away our vote and our freedom that our men died for. listen up. we will never give our country -- >> how did she end up there? 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 lockdowns. and about where shook shuns.
she had gotten into conspiratorial thinking through pizzagate and started listening to, i think, more radical podcasts. and on january 6th she believe that the president had called her to be there. that the election was stolen and that it was her responsibility and that of others to be there that day to support him and do what he asked. >> yeah. the key part of the belief -- just a follow-up on that. and i want to ask ryan this. i do get the suspicion as i go through ryan's reporting of these cases, that if you had administered a perfect lie detector test, a magical one that could truly divine whether a person is lying, and said, was the election stolen and is joe biden -- did ounce trump defeat joe biden? i think they would say, yes, now that it matters in some ways. for what they did. but that was also the sense that i got from what had happened to the minds of the people that you profiled. >> yes, absolutely.
all three of those people, i think, absolutely believe that they were there dealing with the president, what he asked them to do. this election has been stolen from you, that's a quote. you can't take this country back with weakness. when there's a fault in balls, the rules change. >> yeah, and ryan, i have to say that this pops up a lot of times in the filings of the folks that you have been covering. this again brings us back to this weird bifurcation of responsibility here, which is, to the extent that you were to buy the premise that, essentially, an unlawful coup coup is taking place and joe biden was installed against the will of the people, that would justify fairly radical action. and in many of the pleating documents that have appeared in the courts that i have read from your reporting, that is precisely what lawyer say about the motivation of their clients. >> yes, precisely. and i think i am a bit of a broken record on this. but if you actually believe the
election was stolen and you follow that logic, the actions make sense in their own mind. danny rodriguez, the insurrectionist who drove a stun gun into the neck of officer mike fanone, he's actually an associate of gina. and they knew each other subsequently and went over to her house after this attack took place. they were at some of these rallies together in california. they knew each other well and gina is actually cooperating against him and two other defendants. but his video and his confession to the fbi, it really lays this out. he really believed the election was stolen. he believed that the commander-in-chief was calling him to d.c., to basically take over the government. and he got the mentality that he went into this with. so i think it is not shocking when you realize that these people actually believe that they took action that make sense in their own mind, if they actually believe that the election was stolen. so certainly, the moral
responsibility here is separate from the legal responsibility. and i think ultimately it could be that we are in a situation where they are ponds in this investigation, the ones who ultimately who face the longest consequences, as opposed to those who are actually spreading the lies. >> yes, so the early on in this, i mentioned the abu ghraib model of accountability. and i've been thinking about that ever since, the people who saw punishment were those who implemented it at the highest levels. and those at the highest levels escaped. ryan, riley kerry hallie, thank you both. >> thank. you >> -- still trying to overturn the results of the last one, this week they. we're the nonstop pressure campaign at the local level, next.
officials to constantly continually have to debunk false election fraud claims, about the last election. according to reason -- the onslaught is exhausting and troubling, officials said, as they launch preparations for the 2022 midterm elections, and is further eroding faith in the election. systems -- tells the post if we want to continue to provide safe, secure and accessible elections, constantly running down absurd conspiracy theories is not sustainable. one of the reporters on that story, can be gardner, for washington post, joins me now. i didn't quite -- follow this quite closely, i didn't realize how much active work there was around, literally, going back to undo the results of last election. make it go away, get a redo. one of this effort look like, who spearheading, and what are they doing? >> sure. i actually didn't realize that either, until we dug in and
reported this during the last couple weeks. there are two principal figures at the helm of this, one is mike lindell, the founder of my pillow. and one of his associates, douglas frank, a longtime math and science teacher from ohio. who has claimed, without any evidence, that an algorithm was used to change trump votes to biden votes. they've been going around the country talking to, what they say are, doesn't's of state officials, secretaries of state, as well as local election officials, trying to persuade them to let them examine their data, their systems and claiming 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 for what they're claiming.
but, it's true that there are trying to decertify the 2020 election, even now, 13 months later. >> they are getting meetings. they're getting audiences, and meetings with fairly high ranking state attorneys, if i'm not mistaken, right? >> that's correct. and secretary of state. i spoke with several secretaries of state, and some attorneys general. i think, look, if you are a republic this is a very difficult political situation to be. and you're heading into a midterm election, where you might be up for reelection, where former president donald trump has signaled, if you're not all in on the, some times fabulous theories of how the elections were stolen last, year he's going to campaign against you. so, there are state officials who don't believe the election
was stolen, who believe joe biden is the duly elected president, but who are trying to thread a little bit of a political needle. they are taking the meetings, saying, all meet with anybody -- i'll meet with anybody who claims to have evidence of election fraud. but, they are not following through on their demands. >> right. there is a little bit of, i think, yes-ing them, and then showing them the door. so far, nobody has done a lot with it. there's not much to do. this is, of course, your point is, it's just one star removed from what donald trump says. so, they kind of have to take it seriously. doug frank, you know, has said some pretty controversial things about their having to be a trial, apply for executions, and he is somebody who has a fairly color full public
history. >> sure. the comments that he made over the weekend on social media, are calling for jocelyn benson, secretary state of michigan, to be tried by a jury with the power to sentence her to the death penalty, or a firing squad, and it is rather dramatic. this is the rhetoric that south. 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 things. new laws in 2022 that go even further than some of the new laws regarding voting. and about getting particular candidates to run for office, as we head into the midterm elections, who will take a different tact.
>> yeah, i think, that's very true. it's a reminder of the threat, in some ways, at a political level. it's like putting a loaded gun on the table, when mike lindell calls you up, and you are like okay after go meet with mike lindell, who's got some math teacher body who says there is an algorithm -- the hot breath of that is on your neck. that i think, has real consequences, for how all these political figures are operating, in that environment. amy gardner, great reporting. thank you very much >> thank you, chris. >> still ahead, the verdict with the case of kim potter. -- an unarmed black man, during a traffic stop, this year. that's next. that's next.
♪ it after a night like this, crest has you covered. crest, the official toothpaste of santa. follow us @crest to celebrate the 12 days of crest smiles. this afternoon, minneapolis courtroom for up loose officer, kim potter was found guilty on all charges, in the shooting death of 20 year old, dante
wright, last april. potter, a 26-year-old police veteran was training other offices, when she pulled wright over. -- an outstanding warrant there, was a brief struggle. body cam footage shows potter repeatedly yelling the word taser, as she pulled out her firearm, and shot dante wright once in the chest, killing him. potter claimed the shooting was an accident, but a jury found or guilty of first and second degree manslaughter. kim potter now faces up to 15 years in prison. the judge ordered her held in custody, without bail, until sensitively, in mid february. henderson, -- and he joins me, now. david, i think a lot of people were somewhat surprised by this outcome. not necessarily -- and the facts, as stated, and the leniency, or charitable interpretation, that juries tend to give police officers.
what's your read on the outcome? >> chris, i think calling the surprising is an understatement. you have to remember, this is the same city that refused to convict a police officer who wrongfully killed philando castillo. when you put it in that context, in my lifetime, this goes all the way to the rodney king case. the police resolve ways take in the case of, it's a dirty job, if we make mistakes, we're just going to have to look the other way. for the most part, that has succeeded. this verdict says, this is not the case any longer. not only are we going to hold you accountable if you do something wrong on the job, but also if you make a mistake, though it is a result of wrongdoing. that results come from bad intentions. we're going to hold you accountable. at least, in jurisdictions. we've got prosecutors who are going to claim to that. >> describe for me the difference. she was charged for manslaughter not a homicide. there's a different legal standard for each, and with the legal standard was here.
with the burden was for prosecution to show to secure that verdict. >> that was one of the tough parts about this case, chris. you heard both prosecution and defense characterize kim potter's actions as a mistake, a different points. basically, for first degree manslaughter, you have to act prove that she's acted with recklessness. -- that the outcome would result from your conduct. an easy example, it's not illegal to make a mistake when you're driving, it is legal if you are while intoxicated. if. intoxicated eco someone you, could be instead. is simply making a mistake. for the second charge, she has to prove that she had acted with negligence. it's really confusing it's gross negligence, plus -- with those two have in common is, you have to prove to some degree unintentional, and conscious conduct.
>> it's also not the first time that, obviously, we have seen police officers shoot someone with a gun when they said they thought they were using a taser. i've covered maybe four or five cases like that just in the time that 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 on training, about the way tasers are used, etc. >> you know, chris, there was one that did turn out, that resulted in a conviction, probably the example most people know. that is the -- station incident from 2009. with michael jordan. in that case, when he was shot and the officer confused a gun for the taser he is laying down with his hands behind his back. we've never seen a case like this one before. and it's not just the matter of
what happened out the door in the field. let's compare this to the chauvin trial. all the police who testified were on the same side. here, the police were divided. you had the police chief who came in said, i was knocked down from my position because i was not going to tell a lie. it had to do with all that evidence and testimony and the jury still said, no, we are not going to cal hold you accountable this time. >> so with the police chief's testimony was again. >> the police chief testified because he stepped down because he was not willing to lie. he used those words. i'm not willing to lie. they also had an expert who testified on use of force issues and said he chose to testify pro bono in this trial. and they typically charge upwards of three to $600 an hour because they feel someone's liberty is at stake. you have to remember, kim potter is a pawn in a way that is going to play out in similar
cases. the officers who killed tatiana jefferson, elation mcclain and others are all going to have trials. >> yeah. >> i think they were virtually auditioning to take a role in those other trials. >> david henderson, always learn a lot from having you give us a debrief on these cases. thank you very much. >> my pleasure. >> coming up, the terrible crisis old folding in afghanistan, four months after the u.s. finally left. that's next. 's next.
xfinity is proud to support the emergency broadband benefit program. for a limited time, you may be eligible to qualify for a credit of up to $50 a month toward your internet service through this program. that's right! you could qualify for a credit of up to $50 a month toward your internet service and equipment. for even more value, switch to xfinity mobile, and you could pay as little as $15 a month for wireless. click, call, or visit a store to learn more. you don't hear about
even if we don't have troops there. and it is facing a in acute and dire humanitarian crisis. this winter, more than half of the country is expected to go hungry. the un warns that nearly 9 million people are at risk of starvation and poverty is soaring across afghanistan, exacerbated by the climate crisis and by u.s. economic sanctions of the ruling taliban. this week, the treasury ease those restrictions on aid groups but much more still needs to be done to prevent a total catastrophe in that country. spencer ackerman has spent two decades covering the war on terror, including in his latest book, reign of terror, how -- and he joins me. now spencer, the basics as i understand them here is that, over the 20 years the u.s. was in afghanistan, a system was produced that was profoundly corrupt. but basically, 80 to 90% of the gdp of the country was foreign aid. the taliban comes in and the
u.s. as, well, we can't give money to the taliban and now you have this massive crisis where, essentially, the totality of the afghan economy is shrunk past great depression levels. >> yeah. and what we should be really clear about is what is at the heart of this, which is, approximately speaking, the banking sector of afghanistan. and you look at where the currency reserves in afghanistan are in august, when the -- took over there was about $68 million that were to be freed up in reserve assets. instead, however, something like seven billion dollars of the afghan central banks reserves are here in the united states. and the united states, after losing the 20-year war to the taliban, took the step of freezing all of those assets. so something like nine plus billion dollars of afghans own
money. not ours, afghans own money, is completely off the table for them. and the steps that the biden administration is taking to allow some aid groups to work there, that is going to be round and around the banking system. so unless the united states comes to terms with the fact that it lost this 20-year war and allows afghans access to their own money, money in a system that the united states and the international community set up and shepherded them as pawns in the geopolitical struggle that the u.s. has just -- i reiterate -- lost. how many millions of afghans are going to starve as a result? >> this is such an important point and i'm glad you laid it out this way. the sort of freezing of the foreign reserves that we had custody of that, you know, essentially -- the lifeblood of the banking system, it's been frozen as well. but eventually, it comes down
to that issue, right? which is that the taliban is not a government i would ever want to be under the rain out of. it is not a government i would describe as a good government or a democratic one. but it is the government -- it is 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 is true about afghanistan. and if you want to make sure that people don't starve their, 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 leverages peoples lives. that leverage is the fate of all of these people, who we heard from the united states side, days after the loss of kabul, that the united states
just cared so deeply about. well, now the united states has a chance to really do something and show that it means what it says when it says that it cares about these people. and there are no indications that the united states is going to do that. >> right. this is the thing that has been really infuriating to me. because the coverage of the withdrawal, it was understandable why the coverage was, you know, sort of done in this register. which is that it was awful to watch people try to get out. people sacrificing their lives, being murdered outside the airport, along with u.s. service members. it was brutal and horrifying. but it was all changed with the idea that, like, we are leaving people behind and we care so much about them, and we are failing them. and now you have a very clear cut thing that would obviously be necessary to stop mass misery, if not sufficient.
and it's like, it has nothing to do with the honor of the u.s. and our projections of force. and so there is just not the same focus on it. >> i reiterate, according to the washington post, seven billion dollars of the afghan central banks reserves is here in the united states. not in afghanistan. here in the united states. money that was set aside for afghans, money that could go in a moment of extreme emergency to actually alleviating the widespread suffering among the afghan people that is the legacy of the united states lost 20-year war in afghanistan. it's going to stay in the united states. >> there are people that are pushing and calling on the administration to do this. there are some voices in congress to do this as well. of course, citizens can always make their voice heard on something a specific and as dire as this. i also want to ask you about
this because you have been covering the war on terror for so long and been a remarkable investigative reporter for the new york times. it was on a one the other day. they acquired a bunch of documents about the reviews that went into airstrikes. this precipitated the monstrous lee awful airstrike that happened in the summer in afghanistan, in which it was essentially a case of mistaken identity. civilians were killed by us. and he's hidden pentagon records show that this was not that much of an anomaly, which is not necessarily shocking to those that have followed this closely. but this is some ways kind of a smoking gun. >> that's. right with the united states has been doing for years and years and, years in particular the time stamp that the new york times looked at, post-2014, after the first wave of the afghan surge in afghanistan and after the entire isis were starts in iraq and syria --
since then, the united states has conducted strike after strike, like we saw in kabul in late august that the requirements for determining civilians and not enemy fighters were -- are so lax as to -- for what we saw in that strike. very significantly, every time these kinds of strikes happen, and there were reports of civilian deaths, the pentagon tells us, wait, wait, wait we are investigating, we will determine it and it always takes years to get a modicum of information. with the new york times found is that there is no real investigation at all -- >> right -- >> and there is just a check, that the united states cannot be definitively told that it white 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 in order to keep the wars going. >> great reporting, -- and the team at new york times, spencer ackerman, good to have you want and thank you very much. that is all in on thismuch. that is "all in" on this thursday night. "the rachel maddow show" begins right now. good evening, rachel. >> much appreciated. thanks for joining us this hour. nice to have you here on christmas eve eve. when you settle in to watch the show, by now, you probably know to expect a little bit of the unexpected, right? we might have me reading unusually long portions of court transcripts. sometimes i do, you know, just end up reporting breaking news because the news drives us along, but other times we'll try to do some historical background for understanding what's important in the news today. i recognize that we do weird stuff on this show, and if you've been watching the show for a while, you probabl