tv Hallie Jackson Reports MSNBC January 5, 2022 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
service our communities have been targeted with extraordinary levels of violence. flight crews have been assaulted, journalists have been targeted, school personnel and their families have been threatened, a member of congress was threatened in a gruesome voice mail that asked if she had ever seen what a 50 caliber shell does to a human head. another member of congress, an iraq war veteran and purple heart recipient, received threats that left her terrified for her family. and in 2020, federal judge in new jersey was targeted by someone who had appeared before her in court. that person compiled information about where the judge and her family lived, and went to
church. that person found the judge's home and shot and killed her son, and injured her husband. these acts and threats of violence are not associated with any one set of partisan or ideological views, but they are permeating so many parts of our national life that their risk becoming normalized and routine if we do not stop them. that is dangerous for people's safety. and it is deeply dangerous for our democracy. in a democracy, people vote, argue, and debate, often vociferously, in order to achieve the policy outcomes they desire. but in a democracy, people must not employ violence or unlawful threats of violence to effect that out come.
citizens must not be intimidated from exercising their constitutional rights to free expression and association by such unlawful conduct. the justice department will continue to investigate violence and illegal threats of violence, disrupt that violence before it occurs, and hold perpetrators accountable. we have marshalled the resources of the department to address the rising violence and criminal threats of violence against election workers, against flight crews, against school personnel, against journalists, against members of congress, and against agents, prosecutors, and judges. in 2021, the department charged more defendants in criminal threat cases than in year in at least the last five. as we do this work, we are
guided by our commitment to protect civil liberties, including the first amendment rights of all citizens. the department has been clear that expressing a political belief or ideology, no matter how voiciverly the crime, we do not investigator prosecute people because of their views. peacefully expressing a view or ideology, no matter how extreme, is protected by the first amendment. but illegally threatening to harm or kill another person is not. there is no first amendment right to unlawfully threaten to harm or kill someone. as justice scalia noted in rav versus city of st. paul, true threats of violence are outside of the first amendment because laws that punish such threats, quote, protect individuals from the fear of violence, from the
disruption that fear and engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. the latter point is particularly close to home for those of us who have investigated tragedies, ranging from the oklahoma city bombing, to the january 6 attack on the capitol. a time to address threats is when they are made, not after the tragedy has struck. as employees of the nation's largest law enforcement agency, each of us understands that we have an obligation to protect our citizens from violence and fear of violence. and we will continue to do our part to provide that protection. but the justice department cannot do it alone. the responsibility to bring an
end to violence and threats of violence against those who serve the public is one that all americans share. such conduct disrupts the peace of our public spaces and undermines our democracy. we are all americans. we must protect each other. the obligation to keep americans and american democracy safe is part of historical inheritance of this department. as i've noted several times before, a founding purpose of the justice department was to battle violence extremist attacks on our democratic institutions. in the midst of reconstruction following the civil war, the department's first principal task was to secure the civil rights, promised by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. this meant protecting black
americans, seeking to exercise their right to vote from acts and threats of violence by white supremacists. the framers of the civil war amendments recognized that access to the ballot is a fundamental aspect of citizenship and self government. the voting rights act of 1965 sought to make the promise of those amendments real. to do so, it gave the justice department valuable tools with which to protect the right to vote. in recent years the protection of the voting rights act have been drastically weakened. the supreme court's 2013 decision in the shelby county case effectively eliminated the clearance protections of section five which had been the department's most effective tool, for protecting voting rights over the past half century. subsequent decisions have substantially narrowed the reach
of section two as well. since those decisions, there has been a dramatic increase in legislative enactments that make it harder for millions of eligible voters to vote and elect representatives of their own choosing. those enactments range from practices and procedures that make voting more difficult, to redistricting maps drawn to disadvantage both mine orts and citizens of opposing political parties. to abnormal post election audits that put the integrity of the voting process at risk. to changes in voting administration, meant to diminish the authority of locally effected or nonpartisan election administrators. some have even suggested permitting state legislators to set aside the choice of the voters themselves. as i noted in an address to the
civil rights division last june, many of those enactments have been justified by unfounded claims of material vote fraud in the 2020 election. those claims, which have corroded people's faith in the legitimacy of our elections have been repeatedly refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both the last administration, and this one as well as by everyone court, federal and state, that has considered them. the department of justice will continue to do all it can to protect voting rights with the enforcement powers we have. it is essential that congress act to give the department the powers we need to ensure that every eligible voter could cast a vote that counts. but as with violence and threats of violence, the justice
department, even the congress, cannot alone defend the right to vote. the responsibility so preserve democracy and to maintain faith in the legitimacy of its essential processes lies with every elected official, and with every american. all americans are entitled to free, fair, and secure elections that ensure they could select the representatives of their choice. all americans are entitled to live in a country in which their public servants could go about their jobs of serving the public free from violence and unlawful threats of violence. and all americans are entitled to live in a occurrence in which the transition from one administration to the next is
accomplished peacefully. the justice department will never stop working to defend the democracy to which all americans are entitled. as i recognized when i spoke with you all last march, service in the department of justice is more than a job, and more than an honor. it is a calling. each of us, you and i, came to work here because we are committed to the rule of law, and to seek equal justice under law. we came to work here because we are committed to ensuring the civil rights and civil liberties of our people. we came to work here because we are committed to protecting our country as our oath says, from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. together we will continue to show the american people by word and by deed that these are the principles that underlie our work. the challenges that we have faced and that we will continue to face are extraordinary, but i am moved and humbled by the extraordinary work you do every single day to meet them. i look forward to seeing more of you in person soon and to our continued work together. thank you all. [ applause ] >> you have been listening to attorney merrick garland delivering remarks from the department of justice just one
day before the commemoration of the january 6 attack, a year ago tomorrow. i'm hallie jackson in washington wore joined by pete williams and josh letterman and leigh ann caldwell and joined by two former u.s. attorneys, now msnbc contributors chuck rosenberg and barbara mcquade. and we've been listening to this speed from attorney general garland in which he made clear that the department of justice will follow the facts as it relates to the investigation into the january 6 insurrection, but said something interesting, pete that stands out which is that the department of justice remains committed to holding all january 6 perpetrators at any level accountable, which seems to be a signal that there are bigger fish to fry yet to come. what stood out to you? >> well that is undoubtedly true. but who those bigger fish are is unknown, i think it is safe to say. for starters, we know that there are potentially are bigger fish on this central question that has yet to be answers, which is
did somebody actually have a plan in advance to storm the capitol. now there have been conspiracy charges against many of the white supremacists groups, the oath keepers, the proud boys, the three percenters and their attending to have violence in the street and make enough noise and cause enough trouble that they thought would have congress have a second thought about approving the electoral vote but there has never been an allegation that any specific leader of the group had a plan in mind. so one way to read what you just read is that if there were any members of those groups that did have such a plan, even though they weren't in the capitol, those will be charged. now, you know, you could read a lot into this. you could read it to say that even if somebody in the white house had -- was involved in the plan, that the facts would go there. what else could the attorney general say in a sense. i mean, he's well aware of the pressure from the hill that he isn't doing enough even though
700 people have been charged so far. they want to see a broader set of charges and i think the simple answer is we don't know where this is going to go yet for a couple of reasons. there is till encrypted communications among the rioters that the justice department hasn't seen yet and there are still people that will plead guilty and perhaps give them more information. there is still more to learn from the trials that will be unfolding. so we're a long way from knowing what the justice department would need to know in order to go where i think you were suggesting that that statement might go. >> chuck, what did you make of the remarks from merrick garland as someone familiar with the department of justice and attorneys general. >> i think pete is exactly right. this is what you would expect the attorney general to say. imagine an attorney general who said we will not follow the facts wherever they may lead or we will not hold people accountable who should be held accountable. so this is a signal to the men and women of the department of justice and i think to the
broader public that the department of justice is doing exactly what it ought to be doing, they're investigating. and by the way, it takes time. as he said, there have been 300,000 tips to the fbi and to other law enforcement agencies. it takes a long time to work through a cloud like that. so we shouldn't be surprised that big things haven't happened yet. but it is reassuring too know, it is good to know that folks are working on it. it is exactly what i would skpek the attorney general to say and if i were still a part of the department of justice, it is exactly what i would want to hear. >> i take, pete, and chuck, both of your points not to overread into what the attorney general has said. did he also comment about how there are people who have been charged, and he said initial charges are often less severe than larger charges defenses, this is purposeful as investigators sift through more evidence. pete, you alluded to some corners on the hill, barbara, i
wonder how you heard the attorney general speaking there? >> well i heard him to be saying that they are looking at everybody to the highest levels that may be possible here. that could include president trump, though of course i never expected merrick garland to say so out loud. i think the mere fact that he had this press conference and detailed all of the details about how they work cases and the member and women in the department know that. he's speaking clearly to the american people. and responding to the criticism of what is taking so long, why aren't you doing anything about the highest levels and people at the white house. i think he says we start small and work our way up that is prudent to do. but let me assure you, we won't stop at just the people inside that day. we're looking even at people who weren't there that day, anyone who could be held criminally responsible involved in the attack. the strength of the words suggested that he gets it. i thought the quote that you read earlier is the money quote and it assures me they're on the job. >> he laid out where the
investigation stands now. 700 plus defendants charged and arrested, 5,000 plus subpoenas and search warrants that are out there. 2,000 devices seized, 20,000 plus hours of footage, you could see the graphic here on screen and as pete williams noted, other information yet to be collected. and yet there have been complaints from house democrats that garland is not moving fast enough. congress gallego said he was weak and adam schiff was frustrated about this just 24 hours ago on this show. do you believe that one year, or 364 days in, that this investigation by the department of justice is about where you would expect it to be? >> well, i think they're moving rather rapidly. i think criticism that they're not moving quickly enough is silly. i mean they've charged 725 people in under a year. as i mentioned before, they have 300,000 tips to work through and 15 terabytes of data. also, we don't what they're
doing behind the scenes. to barbara's point, this is a very important speech. even though it is what i would expect him to say, it is an important speech. because he's saying, we're on it. we're working. be patient. justice takes time. the worst thing you could do, hallie, is rush to charge somebody. you have to charge when you have the requisite facts and the law supports the charge, when you could bring a case in court and win it and sustain it on appeal. and that takes time. it is only been a year. in part what i think he's saying is we're on it, be patient, we're working. >> pete, the speech was delivered expressly to employees at the department of justice, this was in some ways a staff speech from the boss, one that was televised nationally here in this country. talk about the importance of the message to the audience that the attorney general was trying to deliver it to. because there were a couple of different audiences here. >> the justice department officials have been urged by those of us who cover the department to say something, to
do something about the investigation. we have -- this is the first time we've actually heard from the attorney general about this large investigations in the history of the justice department and we've been urging him and other officials to do this. so, to give us some sort of accounting of what they've been up to. so i think that the fact that he make this is speech, he's speaking to a broader audience and let's not forget part of what he wanted his message to be today, which is taking note of these public opinion polls that show something like a third of respondents in one poll say that violence against the government in some situations is acceptable. and he's saying, no, it's not. and he spent a good deal of time on that. about documenting attacks against airline pilots and people who conduct elections and elected officials saying, you know, we just can't tolerate this. we can't allow that to happen. so i think that is also a significant message that he wanted to emphasize. but coming back to your first
question, you know, i guess i would read -- there is two ways to read what the attorney general said here, which is, yeah, we know who you're interested in and we're looking at that. i think the other way to read it is, we'll go wherever the facts lead us, we just don't know where all of the evidence is going to point yet and we're not done. >> but you were all making what i think is a critical point here is that merrick garland was trying to in a muscular way showing that the department of justice is outside of politics. regardless of who is in charge, the doj will do its work unimpeded as you say by following the facts. i thought, barbara, that he did invoke watergate and 40 years later we are an agency and a department that will follow the facts where they lead. >> yeah, i think that was probably a purposeful reference. we know where that came from. but i think it was important that he tied together not just the january 6 attack, but put it into a larger context.
he also talked about the threats to public officials and a service workers, as well as voting rights. and i think he pulled them altogether because they represent an attack on democracy. and he wanted to show the connections between those three things and the justice department strategy to try to protect all of those things, that end, that all americans should feel they have the right to free and fair elections, the right to be free from attacks and the right to be safe. so i think he sees those as all one and the same. and i know that he is concerned about protecting the independence and integrity of the justice department, that is a relic of watergate and he wants to make sure that we get back to that place of public confidence in the justice department. >> he also reitier rated, chuck, there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election. he went out of his way to make that point in highlighting both current and previous administrations and where the department of justice has been on that front, too, which is
important as we come now this anniversary, this commemoration of a year since january 6 when of course the so-called big lie about the 2020 election drove those insurrectionists to the capitol. >> you know,y, my mentor at the department of justice a gentleman named david margolis used to say you're entitle to your own opinion but not to your set of facts. the facts are there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election and as the attorney general said today, every court, state and federal, that looked at that issue has come out exactly the same way. now, look, i don't think the attorney general is going to dissuade the hard core trump supporters of their closely held conspiracies. that isn't going to happen. but that is not the audience here. the audience is those americans who understand that we have an obligation to one another to protect this great democracy of ours. he said the department of justice can't ensure or protect
voting rights by itself. that is true. the fbi has 13,000 special agents that makes them one-third the size of the new york city police department that has about 38,000 sworn officers. we are each responsible to one another for protecting this great democracy. the things he said today go right to that. public service, voting rights, integrity, fair elections, barb made the point earlier, he drew this together and wove it together because these are the things that we need to do in order to ensure the survival of this thing that we have. it was a good speech. it is exactly what i would expect from a attorney general. i would say in television speak, stay tuned. >> chuck rosenberg, you should be in my seat sometimes. thank you. one of themes that i think we're all hitting on here is the issue of accountability. that is where merrick garland decided to make this speech today, to pete's point, he was encouraged to do so by many who wanted to hear something from
the doj about this sprawling investigation. and on that point, i want to play what barb called the key from the attorney general a few minutes ago. here it is. >> the justice department remains committed to holding all january 6 perpetrators at any level accountable under law whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. we will follow the facts wherever they lead. >> and however long it takes was another piece of his remarks there, pete. realistically, do you have any sense of the timeline of an investigation of this scope and scale, as you mentioned, it is in many ways historic for the doj. what is your sense of that in. >> yeah, no, i don't, because i've never covered one this big. it is been a year now and there is still at least 300 people that the fbi this very day is trying to figure out who assaulted police officers.
they've got something like 250 videos and still photos up on the fbi website right now of people that they want to identify that you could see in these pictures and videos, striking police officers with metal poles or spraying chemical sprays at them or punching them or zapping them with cattle prods and they're trying to identify those people. they've charged 700. so you add to the 250 and 300 more, you're talking at least a thousand people charged with crimes inside and outside of the building and they're not done. and then the larger question of the conspiracies, who all was involved, how extensive was the planning, this is -- this is got a long way to go. >> when you talk about the issue of accountability, pete, as you well know, it is not just the department of justice investigation, members of congress, leeann, are trying to get some answers to what led up to and on january 6 and we have new information on the house
select committee as we come to the one year mark. tell us about it. >> reporter: yeah, hallie, so the congress is involved in two separate forms of investigating and trying to fix what happened on january 6. there is what the capitol police have done, and had to reform that body, but then there is the select committee investigating what actually took place and how it happened on january 6. and there is some new news. stephanie grisham, former press sect for the former president, former close adviser to melania trump is coming in to speak with that committee tonight. we know that she's been highly critical of the trumps in the former president since january 6. so that could be a really interesting and important interview for the select committee. now separately, in addition to that, getting back to the capitol police component, there was a big hearing on kpil today in the senate where the new chief of place tom manger, in the job about six months, talked
about the reforms and changes that have had to happen in order to keep this building safe in case something should happen again. and he said there has been progress but there is a lot of challenges. let's listen. >> the biggest challenge i think we have is keeping up with the number of threats. we have -- we've doubled the number of officers that investigate these threats, agents that investigate these threats and if they continue to go up the way they have, clearly we're going to need additional officers to assign to this responsibility. >> reporter: so they doubled the number of officers for that reason, but the number of threats against lawmakers, hallie, have increased ten fold, from about 900 in a normal year, to 9,000 just in this past year. and they're having trouble recruiting officers and keeping them on the force, hallie. >> josh, i want you to bring you into this conversation because i think it was chuck that made the
point, while the attorney general referenced voting rights and tomorrow president biden will not be a voting rights speech, it will be on where we are one year later and its unlike from what we saw from merrick garland who pete points out never mentioned the person -- everybody are thinking about, donald trump, president biden is going to take aim at the former president for his culpability here. >> when he speaks tomorrow on the hallowed ground, expect it to lay out the -- to shore up our democracyic institution and to fight the hatred and lies of january 6. but as you point out president biden will lay hard into his predecessor, former president trump, describing the events that attorney general garland laid out in such detail as the tragic culmination of four years under president trump. now whether or not biden will
actually name check his predecessor, the white house won't say. but spokesperson jen psaki saying there won't be any ambiguity about who he's talking about. take a listen. >> i expect him to lay out the significant and the sing lal responsibility president trump has for the chaos and carnage that we saw and push back on the lies spread by the former president in an attempt to mislead the american people and his own supporters. >> the white house has been under a lot of pressure to really use the events of tomorrow to hit home that that voting rights issue hard, particularly from progressives who want to see a new focus on this legislatively. now the white house said that is not the focus of the speech tomorrow. that the president will touch on it, he will not focus on it. but they are promising that biden will have more to say specifically about that voting rights issue very soon, hallie. >> josh letterman and leigh ann caldwell and barbara and chuck, thanks to all of you.
as we get ready to mark one year since at tack, coming up later in the show, including my interview with one member of congress. but first right now, this hour, a cdc committee is expected to vote any minute on boosters for 12 to 15-year-olds. plus a potential turning point in talks about how to prevent a future constitutional crisis. what mitch mcconnell said is worth discussing. and then the story that i mentioned a moment ago, dan kildee sharing more about his mental health journey after the insurrection. what he's telling me now about the trauma he's still working through a year later. llaboratioy for romeo and i to find the right home together. - 'cause we can see each other's favorites all in one place. - and go back and forth with comments. oh romeo, romeo, i love our new home. - realtor.com, to each their home.
now $1 delivery. retirement income is complicated. as your broker, i've solved it. that's great, carl. but we need something better. that's easily adjustable has no penalties or advisory fee. and we can monitor to see that we're on track. like schwab intelligent income. schwab! introducing schwab intelligent income. a simple, modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. oh, that's cool... i mean, we don't have that. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.
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. any minute now we're watching for the cdc to sign off on covid booster shots for kids. the panel that advised the agency on these decisions set to vote, we think sometime maybe this hour, maybe next hour. we think soon. on whether or not they feel kids 12 to 15 should be okay to get pfizer boosters. the cdc still dealing with pushback over the new evident guidance which lets people leave
isolation if they got covid just five days after they tested positive for it. but the director trying to respond to the critics trying to do some clarification today. >> the fda has authorized these rapid tests for early in the disease, of course the first seven days. they've clarified or said that these tests are for quality purposes, not quantitative purposes, meaning we can't tell how transmissible you are based on a positive or a negative test. so if one is to take an extra step and perform a test at the end of their five-day isolation period, we wanted to make sure that people understood how they should be interpreted. >> in new york hospitalizations are at the worst peak since may of 2020 with lines for testing stretching around the block and even still. and then new reporting out from "the washington post" said lawmakers are in the early stages of discussing, yet another relief deal. a new one this time. targeting the countless businesses that are dealing with so much in this 20-month long pandemic and omicron surge. i want to talk about both of those things with gabe gut gut
in new york and tommy rahm. gabe, let me start with you. i know you're getting this interesting inside look at a testing facility in new york that is processing pcr tests. talk about what you saw and learned there. >> hi, there, hallie. this prosing facility is handled about 25,000 pcr tests aday. it is northwell court and has hundreds of outpatient centers across the region and we got an inside look and saw how much they were scrambling to really meet up with this demand that has been rising not just here in the northeast but across the country. and yes, 25,000 tests per day. about a third of them are coming back positive. virtually all of them are omicron and, hallie, something interesting, about half of the tests that are coming back positive are from asymptomatic
people. now i asked the executive director of that lab what he would tell people who are frustrated that we don't have a better handle on testing, two years into this pandemic. take a listen. >> yeah, i think it is taken a while for government to get on its footing and to have a coherent response to this. i think we're more on the right track now than we were before. but we're still catching up to this. >> now that particular lab just outside of new york city, again, northwell health, the typical turn around time for that pcr test is about 48 hours, a little less than 48 hours. however, hallie, as you know, smaller labs, not just here in the northeast but across country, they're having a much tougher time with this and taking much longer. it is stretching, five, six, seven days in some parts of the country in smaller labs. >> gabe guiterrez, thank you. tony, let me turn to capitol
hill. the new talks over a relief package, context check, give us a gut check. they have a lot going on, right? how real is this, how premature is this or how not? >> yeah, it is really early days. that is the message i was getting from democrats and republicans alike. now, that being said, there is some bipartisan support here. the endeavor that we're beginning to hear about is coming from lawmakers including senator ben cardin and roger wicker, a democrat and republican respectively, who are looking at small business relief, things that would target restaurants and gyms and performance venues and restaurants in particular is something that democrats and republicans have alike have looked to channel money towards because those restaurants used up prior stimulus aid so quickly. you had republicans earlier in the this process championing money from the american rescue plan that they voted against because they saw it as benefiting restaurants back in their districts and states. but you're absolutely right to question how far this is going to go.
because while it is bipartisan at the moment, you ultimately need ten republicans in the senate to sign on to this and we don't hear any indication that there are 10 republicans willing to sign on to this. we had bipartisan deals in the past so it is still possible. we are looking at a deal to potentially fund the government into september that could provide an avenue. so it is definitely something to watch. but lawmakers say you have to take with a bit of a grain of salt right now. >> we often do. tony rahm, thank you very much. next up, we're talking about what americans believe about january 6 one year later. steve kornacki is at the big board with statistics, including fears about the future of america's democracy. and mitch mcconnell sparking another round of talks about election reform. the reporter who just spoke with him and rare interview joins me what w what might be on the table. that is next. trelegy for copd. [coughing] ♪ birds flyin' high, you know how i feel. ♪ ♪ breeze driftin' on by... ♪
if you've been playing down your copd,... ♪ it's a new dawn, it's a new day,... ♪ ...it's time to make a stand. start a new day with trelegy. ♪...and i'm feelin' good. ♪ no once-daily copd medicine... has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy, and save at trelegy.com. how bout sushi? i just had sushi for lunch yesterday. indian? ehh, maybe... how bout seafood?
you know i don't like seafood. [collision beeping warning] [silence] how bout tacos? tacos. automatic emergency braking — one of six advanced safety features standard on every 2022 chevy equinox. find new technology. find new roads. chevrolet. wondering what actually goes into your multi-vitamin. at new chapter. find new technology. find new roads. its innovation organic ingredients and fermentation. fermentation? yes, formulated to help your body really truly absorb the natural goodness. new chapter. wellness well done. ♪♪ you pour your heart into everything you do, which is a lot. so take care of that heart with lipton. because sippin' on unsweetened lipton can help support a healthy heart. lipton. stop chuggin'. start sippin'. ♪ i see trees of green ♪ ♪ red roses too ♪ ♪ i see them bloom ♪
walk us through the numbers about how americans view the 6th one year after the riot. >> difrgss along party lines. this is a usa today suffolk poll, asking folks how they think about january 6. it is a slight majority there. 53% who say january 6 was a protest that was trying to overturn a legitimate election. there are though nearly 30% who say, no, january 6 was actually a protest that was aimed at preventing a fraudulent election. there is also a fair number of people, you are don't see if here, that are unsure or undecided. but when i say this story here is particularly a partisan divide, this is what we're talking about. look at this question here among democrats, 85% say january 6 was about overturning a legitimate election. among republicans, it is actually a majority. 56% who say no it was about stopping a fraudulent election. and that partisan divide becomes even more stark when you move the question to this, this is about the january 6 committee, house committee investigating. how do you think about that.
again you see that 53% who say it is important for the future of democracy. more than 40% though say, no, it is a waste of time from other important issues. and check this out. it is nearly 90% of democrats who say the committee's investigation is important for the future and nearly 80% of republicans who say it is a waste of time. they couldn't be more apart on that. here is the one place that you look at in some of the numbers where the two parties do come together, it is when you ask this question, how worried are you about the future of american democracy? and look at that, over 80% of americans say they are worried about the future of democracy in this country. and it is consistent across the board. democrats, republicans, and independents, more than 80% of all of them say they are worried about where democracy is going in this country, where it beaks down, hallie, is when we ask them why are you worried, what are you worried about, then they couldn't be further apart. >> steve kornacki, thank you for
that big board breakdown. in the aftermath of the attack, there is a little known law getting big attention and a big endorsement today to change it from one of the most powerful men in washington. we're talking about the electoral count act since just after the civil war after the presidential election of 1876. you remember that one. remember what happened? here aquick refresh. four states delivered different selectors, a commission was formed and they decided which batch of lectors were the real ones, yada, yada, rutherford hayes became president. and hence the electoral counts act. saying basically the only valid slate of electors are the ones confirmed by the governor unless the house and senate vote to reject them for whatever reason. and it is that part that supporters of former president trump were hanging their hats on when then vice president mike pence went to the hill to provide over the counting of the votes. so now, more than a hundred years after this act was put in place, there seems to be some growing bipartisan support for
changing the law, for tweaking it. and that movement got a major endorsement today. or at least a door crackage from top republican in the senate mitch mcconnell. who told burgees everett from politico, the law is not perfect and changing it is worth talking about. i want to bring in the aforementioned bureau chief. it is great to have you on. it is a super interesting interview. talk to us about what reform would look like and who might be open to having the conversation with mitch mcconnell about this? >> sure, i mean i think the reforms that you're looking at would be pretty modest and it would probably start with clarifying the vice president's role as we know former president trump put a lot of pressure on vice president pence to disregard the election results and then the other key reform that is easy to understand is making it more difficult to force these electoral college votes. as you saw a year ago today, it only takes one senator and one house member to force these votes. and what that did is it gave
time for people to disrupt the counting of the votes a year ago and that is really what led to the insurrection at the capitol. so, there has been some discussion about raising the threshold, would you need a third of the senators to object to something to force that vote. and so this is all very preliminary at the time, at this point in time. but it comes in the context of democrats pushing these broader election and voting reform bills and they suspect senator mcconnell is trying to knock those off course. >> some of the democrats that you spoke with and in your reporting essentially and felt like this would be small ball. this isn't the big kahuna, this is not something that could have as much impact as the broader reforms that you're talking about but there are a number of experts, for a story airing tonight on nbc "nightly news," about this exact thing and she said it is crucial to stopping another january 6 from happening again. i want to play what we heard
from jessica houston. >> the standards by which we object to the electoral college count were set in 1876. like that is a really long time ago. and the law that set them is just absurdly vague and allowed people, again like ted cruz, to object these entirely specious grounds in 2020. and so, we've not shored those up at all. we've not set any standards to prevent what happened in 2020 from happening again. >> so, burgess, given that, why wouldn't democrats want to at least in some ways play ball oar have the conversation with republicans about changing this to prevent another january 6? >> well, look, there is this debate gooding on in the democratic caucus about changing the senate rules to pass big election reform bills and voting act bills by a simple majority. i think a lot of democrats view this as a discretion. the counter point to that and someone like kyrsten sinema or joe manchin would say what is
achievable. the electoral count act could be something that congress could do with 60 votes with the existing rules. it doesn't look like at the moment democrats have the votes to do a rules change and pass these bigger bills. so there is definitely a difference of opinion in the democratic party change and some of the bigger bills. there is a difference in opinion whether this is worth doing. there is no proposal right now from mitch mcconnell. there is definitely questions that would need to be answered before democrats are going to go all in on this. >> burgess, thank you for coming on. we have been talking about one year since january 6th. in the capitol here, even though the broken glass has been fixed the protective fencing gone now, there are still scars, invisible scars, among those processing the trauma. we have been covering that fallout, the fallout you can't see, by documenting the mental health struggles of people who lived through the capitol rite
like congressman dan killede who shared alongside his therapist the post-traumatic stress he faced as part of his mental health struggles after the 6th. >> i have a lot of tension in my chest. breathing was difficult. i became irritable. >> you were feeling stressed, anxious, shurp having chest pain. >> most people who experience trauma don't experience it in real time on every network across the world. they did it privately, quietly, painfully, silently, alone. and so if i can speak to them, that's what i want to do. >> so one year after the attack, i sat down again with congressman killede, this time virtually, to see what changed and what hasn't here we are one year later, almost a year after january 6th. how are you doing? >> you know, a lot better. obviously the first few weeks after the attack were really tough, and i struggled. and we talked about that. but i have been regularly
talking to doctor jim gordon who was on with you and i. that process has been really helpful to me. on one hand, personally, i'm myself again, i feel good. i feel like i was able to get lieu the trauma of that event. but on another level, you know, it's really still troubling, and in some ways more troubling than it was then, because i thought, perhaps naively, that the attack on january 6th would cause the fever to break, that the people who have been contributing to this concoction, this falsehood, would come to their senses realizing what a consequence there is facilitating that big lie, that the consequence was a violent attack on our capitol. surely, i thought, this would be the turning point, where we can kinds of get back to sort of the rational center and engage in a
big debate about the issues that we says as a country. not double down on this. unfortunately, in the last year it has gone in the wrong direction. >> i wonder what kind of impact that has had on your mental health. are you using some of the practices and techniques that the doctor introduced you to? >> i am. it has been helpful. i encourage people who have any need that deals with their mental health to get the ppe help they need. for me, what continues to be difficult is the fact that i'm still angry at the people who were a part of this attack. but more angry that they continue to pretend that it didn't happen, or to minimize it, or to minimize what happened to us. i resent that. but part of the process has been sort of not allowing that anger to poison me, to cause me to carry that anger around all the
time. i've got to work with these people, look at them every day. i do look at them differently, but i still have to find a way to work with them. so i don't let the anger consume me the way it in in the weeks after the attack. >> when we spoke after january 6th, after that interview aired i know you got praise from a lot of people who applauded the fact you were trying to destigmatize mental health problems. you also got backlash. how much did that affect you? >> i was prepared for it. i expected it. it shows that we have a long way to go. but i was aware that that backlash would come and tried to use it, use that very backlash itself at a moment to point out where they it's so important to destigmatize mental health. why it is so important not to put people in the position if they are doubtful if they want
to try to get the help they know they need because of the stig that that comes with it. it also had the effect of encouraging other members of congress and staff who were in the capitol that day to also seek help. i have had dozens of people come to me. >> really. >> because you said what you said, because you acknowledged that you were having some struggles after the attack and got help for it, i did, too. >> do you feel like this commemoration tomorrow, one year since the 6th is retriggering for you? >> in some ways it is, because watching the video i am reminded of how vicious and violent that attack was. it does bring some of that back. however, more importantly, for those of us who have gone through it -- i mean all of us -- it's important that we commemorate this moment, and we do it in a way that honors the truth of that day. because the most important principle that we are all pursuing right now, for those of
us who are a part of this, it's really important that the truth of that day be told, and it be done in an honest fashion. and that's what we hope the commemoration will achieve. >> our thanks to the congressman for sharing more of his story, continuing to do so. more of his interview is coming up tonight on nbc news now. today in georgia, ng governor brian camp of is pushing a bill that would loosen uhl gun rules in georgia. watch. >> as we enter the campaign season my position has remained the same. i believe the united states constitution grants the citizens of our state the right to carry a firearm without state government approval. >> his republican primary openent former senator david perdue made a similar campaign promise weeks ago with one poll showing a dead heat between them, but only with donald trump backing perdue, which he of course has done.
here is reporter greg bluestein. great to have you back on. nobody knows georgia politics like you. why is governor camp of endorsing this bill now? what makes this part of his trying to match or one on perdue. >> that's part of it. part of it is also -- this is also part of a campaign promise he made in 2017, a constitutional carry, which is essentially letting georgians carry concealed weapons without a state permit. it is going to be a controversial debate but this is the year that camp of thinks it my pass. and with the majority in the state house they might have the numbers to get it through. >> stacey abrams is attacking the initiatives saying, as her opponents go to dangerous extremes and fight to rescue their political careers, abrams
is fighting for georgians and their safety. could this animate some of the democratic voters georgia? >> it is the hope of democrats is that stacey abrams can sit above the fray, talking about expanding medicaid, talking about boosting health care funding and talking about gun control. recent polls have shown a majority of georgia voters support restrictions on guns. it's just among the republican primary electorate it is the opposite. as democrats have moved towards gun control, republicans have moved in the opposite direction pushing for more looser gun rules. >> greg bluestein from the ajca, thank you for coming on i thank you all for watching this hour of hallie jackson reports. find us on twitter. we will have highlights from the show and new reporting there. you can also find me on our streaming platform, nbc news now, tonight and every week night. show number two at 5:00.
i will see you over there with burt our floor director. "deadline: white house" with nicolle wallace starts right now. tide pods dissolve even when the water is freezing. nice! if it's got to be clean, it's got to be tide. see blood when you brush or floss can be a sign of early gum damage. parodontax active gum repair kills plaque bacteria at the gum line to help keep the gum sealed tight. parodontax active gum repair toothpaste inner voice (kombucha brewer): as a new small business owner, i find it useful to dramatically stare out of the window... ...so that no one knows i'm secretly terrified inside. inner voice (sneaker shop owner): i'm using hand gestures and pointing... ...so no one can tell i'm unsure about my business finances. inner voice (furniture maker): i'm constantly nodding... ...because i know everything about furniture... ...but with the business side... ...i'm feeling a little lost. quickbooks can help. an easy way to get paid,