tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC January 19, 2022 6:00pm-7:00pm PST
safeguard u.s. national security interests. >> of course, your brief at the national security council was exactly this part of the world. and yrb know it's been one you followed very closely. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow" show is right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris. i'm in a weird place. >> you sound weird. >> thank you very much. i'll explain. thank you for joining us this hour. i know this does look a little different and sound a little different than it usually does. i'm at my home studio in all of its cabiny glory. there have been time thins past i appeared with no notice because something was desperately wrong. this is not one of those times.
nothing is really wrong. there's nothing serious going on. we've just been beset with technical gremline as little bit. something about the internet not working in an ice stormish days ago. i don't know. for it's technical gremlines. this has always been our back-up plan if the studio went cuput, and there we are. aside from looking like the great pumpkin, we're all systems go. as you know president biden held a big press conference today on the occasion of the start of his seconds year in office. he took reporters' questions for a couple of hours almost. which is almost twice the lengths of the longest press conference he had done before this one. at this press conference, he warned russian president vladimir putin that he will
regret the consequences. but provocatively, president biden also says he thinks putin will try it in ukraine. which caused headlines around the world. the president saying again, putin will regret it if he does it. but if he had to guess, he thinks putin will. president biden said he is not giving up on voting rights. he said it was unthinkable, effectively, that zero republicans support voting rights anymore. something that, at least until recently, had been a fairly bipartisan thing. he said what republicans are trying to do with election submersion efforts, he said that absolutely poses a risk of delegitimizing future elections and on purpose. and said this about the recent reporting on republicans in multiple states forging fake certificates of electors, trying to get them counted in the electoral college.
this is something we've been reporting on a lot recently. the president referred to it in his press conference. >> i never thought we'd get in a place where we're talking about being able to -- what they tried to do this last time out, send different electors to the state legislative bodies to represent who won the election, saying i didn't win but republican candidate won. i doubt anybody thought that would ever happen in america in the 21st century but it's happening. >> and president biden today saying, in effect, nobody would have believed they would try to do the stuff like this in our elections, sending in fake slats of electors from multiple states to cast votes for the losing candidate. says it's essentially unimaginable they would even try this. but as unimaginable as it might have been, even very recently. that is what they tried and
therefore where we are. the senate debate on voting rights has been frenetic today, including the interesting decision, interesting spectacle in which democratic senator, joe manchin, who is one of two conservative democratic senators, who's actually blocking the voting rights bill with republicans. he made his antivoting rights speech in the senate while president biden was giving his press conference. i'm sure that timing was purely coincidental. i don't know. we're going to check in live with the united states senate and their progress tonight in just a moment. but we had to make a late adjustment to the show. in addition to having me broadcast from home. because when it rains, it pours. and tonight we did get a big canon ball of news. an 8/1 ruling against donald trump in his efforts to try to prevent the january 6th
commission from assessing documents from his time in office. only justice clarence thomas would have sided with trump. the rest of the justices, including the three very conservative justices that trump appointed to the court, they came down against this. on the face, it is a straight forward thing. as far as i can see, the basic through line is pretty straight forward. i will. happily stand corrected if i'm over simplifying this. basically started this past summer. august last year. the started to talk about millions of documents, hundreds of pages, potentially thousands of pages.
we know from for court filings that the documents they want toads see included draft speeches and talking points for communicating to the public about the election. one of their requested documents that always seemed particularly worrying to me. was this one, quote, a draft executive order concerning election integrity. trump drafted some kind of executive order on election integrity? really? also this one. quote a document containing presidential findings concerning the security of the 2020 election after it occurred and ordering various actions. i have no idea what that means. ordering various actions. but i would love to see it. or accurately, i would love frb the january 6th investigators to see it. we have very specific court filings as foowhat they've been
seek sooing from the white house. former's, he said he documents the committee is looking for should not be handed over. that being said, he is no longer the sitting president biden. president biden is. it's only the sitting pg president that gets to wield that privilege. and it can be handed over to the january 6th investigators in october of last zeer. he stopped them from being he prusk said in the investigation. and he stewed in october. the first judge ruled they could be given to investigators. he sued in october. that district judge in d.c. ruled in november. trump appealed that up to the federal d.c. court of appeals.
the three-panel of judges, who also lumed against him. the appeal came down against him in december. this is incredibly quick for the federal court system these days. trump had a choice after the three-judge pag. turned him down. he could have asked, not just the three-judge panel but the whole d.c. appeals court to take a look. but he decided to go straight at the supreme court. he appealed to the united states supreme court and filed an emerge aengs application to get them, even before theyandal the sgnls. and it's that emergency
ookuization. moments like this is jaulgs and describe tonight's ruling as the, most kifrant moment yet for the january 6th committee for the attacken the capital. >> i want to know why they think that. i'm no lawyer and what we're talking about is the -- the title of the document is application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review. those are all words i understand individually and alone but not necessarily when they're all put in that order. i think the basics are pretty straight forward. but i have some questions for
which we need expert help. same question you have. is this it? is this it? trump was waiting to hear from the supreme court is going to get ahold of the documents. what we've got tonight is a clear 8/1 no skp a ruling in response for app his application for a stay, vus is different. so, how can we understand that? to us nonlawyers, does the fact that this is a ruling on that emergency application for a stay, does that mean its impact is more limited, either in terms of duration or what documentess it applies to? bottom line, is this going to be the last word from the united states supreme court on this issue. or is there something else we're
waiting to hear from that could go in his and i'll tell you the january 6th investigators put out a statement saying the skmity has already received former records the former's wish to deemp pep pipal. does this mean they're going to get them all or a selection and there's rulings yet to be made on the rest of them? if they are going to get them all, when? how fast does this happen? especially because it looks like it's starting to happen tonight. joining us to help sort me out on some of the issues is long-time supreme court reporter and lecturer at law school as well. her latest book, "justice on the
brink. linda greenhouse, i'm always grateful when you can be here and particularly grateful you could be here on short notice. please. . >> the documents have been in the custody of the archivist of the united states, who had taken the position that yes, this stuff is releasable but i'm not going to release it until i be sure a court is going to stop me. this is, for that bunch of documents, i think it's 700 some off pages. em and certainly, the opinion that came down tonight is just important. it could bow thouchb --
>> and this would apply to 700 some odd pages that archivist had come to the end of their office's handling of it and it's a matter of settling the privilege question and president trump's claims to the court on this. for types of claims he's made to try to block the handing over of these documents, does this ruling settle them all? the arcivist may have some other processes unrelated to the claims trump was making. but as it matters, this will apply to all the documents? >> i think that's a fair guess. it technical matter not yet. the court asks for an emergency action like this, a stay, an injunction, it balances the two sides. the compelling need to ask the
applicant putting forward and trump says it's my right as president. have this executive privilege claim. and the compelling meat on the other side. sfrrms and what they said is there's a compelling meat on the other side and shown by the fact that congress is asking for the material. and president biden, the incumbent president has waved any executive privilege. it was the combination. the entire architecture of the government. and the current white house saying yes, this is releasable. on the supreme court did something kind of interesting in this unsigned opinion. interpreted took one way of reading the d.c. circuit opinion, which is that it
doesn't really matter that trump is the former president, not the incumbent. it doesn't matter that president biden has waved privilege. in what way a former president or you were making those claims, it's not good enough to overcome the compelling public need to get this nuterial. sfwlrls we're not going to fight whether he's had more or less of a right than the former president. we believe in fact the d.c. circuit's findings that he vident have the righting to do it. what title he was cloaked in when he made the claim. >> and one of the other things we've watched unfold over the last few months, a lot of people have received subpoenas related
to the january 6th investigation. most have complied, but a handful have sued the january 6th committee. as you know appearver some off by the knees foreign minister do you have expect this ruling will have cascading implications for those refusing to testify or hand over documents? >> i would certainly hope so. if i were one of those people, i would not be heaping easier. if there was a compelling public pea. >> and wrote i'm just a little fish and nothing about my role here. he does not justify that kind of thing. certainly we've seen the courts from, as you said the district
court all the way up 93, eight justices taking a very dim view of any kind of claim of privilege here. so, i think this will find out mo what happened a janary 6th. >> lecturer at yale law school. i appreciate you making the time to be here on short notice, this momentous short ruling. thanks for being here. you know, all day long yesterday and all day long today, and live right now as we speak, the united states senate has been democratic ledgeilation to block the subversion of election results. with republicans unanimously opposed, the question at hand is
whether democrats would, as you say, go nuclear and pass with a simple majority vote? i was just looking back today at when republicans were in the muskrort in the senate president trump was in office. mitchell mcconnell is running the senate. they went nuclear and decided it would be a majority vote only. 50 votes only to confirm supreme court nominees. then mitch mcconnell went nuclear another time and decided it would be a majority vote only, 50 votes only needed for lower level executive branch nominees. and then a third time and decided he would change the filibuster rule and enly a 50-vote threshold for federal district court judges. even since president biden has been president, they've decided to go nuclear, as they say, to
require just a 50 votes on a bill to fund the government last year. they went nuclear and decided just 50 votes for a random vote that didn't go anywhere about vaccine rekwierms. we go the phrase, go nuclear because it's going to be the end of the world, mutually assured destruction. turnz out they go nuclear all the time and decide a 50-vote majority is enough, that we can't have a 60-vote threshold for a particular type of legislation or amendment or vote. they do that all the time, even when the republicans were in control with trump in the white house. it happens all the time. but democratic senators joe manchin and kirsten sinema keep saying this would be an unprecedented thing to do. no, that's absolutely not true.
they keep saying they won't do it for voting rights. tonight in the senate, they're not even voting to go nuclear like they have on so many other issues. they're voting on the narrowest possible way to do this. a rule to require a talking filibuster too, hold the floor for a long time, if you want a filibuster voting rights specifically. and presumably senator manchin and sinema will vote against making that change too. but just in case, vice president, kamala harris is available to cast the 51st vote to pass voting rights legislation if it comes to that. all day long, senators have gone back and forth on voting rights and whether to change senate rules to have a 50-vote margin to protect them. senator cotton of arkansas, at one point, tried to say democrats were hypocrites because he read a letter from 2017 which several democratic
senators said they supported keeping the filibuster as it is. one of the senators who signed the letter is democratic senator, maggie hasken, who's talked a couple of times about how her position on the filibuster has evolved and why. after senator cotton evoked her and the other democrats senators who wrote that letter, she got up for an impromptu response. watch. >> i know i was not scheduled to speak but i do want to respond as one of the signatories of the letter. i associate myself with the things the other signatories talk about, about extended debate on issues of grave importance to the american people. let me be clear about the reason that i now support an adjustment to the long-standing rules of the senate. and it is because i never
imagined, when i signed that letter, that not a single member of the republican party would stand up for our democracy since january 6th, when we saw an acceleration of state laws that would allow partisans to over turn the impartial count of an election. but if we do not have a functioning democracy, where people know that when they vote, that vote will be impartially counted and upheld, and the people who are defeated will accept defeat so that they can have an accountable elected representation in washington, then there is no democracy. and when i signed that letter, i never imagined that today's republican party would fail to stand up for democracy. >> new hampshire senator, maggie
hassan, with impassioned remarks. i never imagined that today's republican party would fail to stand up for democracy. when president biden was giving his press conference, democratic senator, joe manchin, chose that moment to defend his decision to block voting rights with republicans. and interestingly he gave that speech in front of a big sign that he and his staff made that said the united states senate has never been able to end debate with a simple majority. implying that what democrats are trying to do in terms of majority vote on voting rights is implying, stating there, that is completely unheard of, this kind of thing has never been done before. that is deeply, deeply wrong. deeply ahistorical and wrong. it's just not true. but don't take it for me. here was senator klobuchar of
minnesota, speaking, in part, in response. >> there are 160 exceptions. 160 exceptions to the filibuster rule. things have been changed to benefit my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. somehow it only takes 51 votes to put in place the trump tax cut or the bush tax cuts. somehow, it only took 51 votes to put amy coney barrett on the supreme court of the united states. a change by them. made by them. somehow it only takes 51 votes to try to over turn a regulation. or try to mess around with the affordable care act. but then when it comes to something like voting rights, suddenly everyone on the other side of the aisle is hugging that filibuster tight. knowing that so many times in history, including most recently with the debt ceiling, changes
have been made to allow a vote with less than 60 votes. the national gas policy act in 1977, in 1995 the endangered species act, 1996, a change to the reconciliation process. 160 times. i think by voting this down, by not allowing us to even debate this to get to the conclusion of a vote, that is silencing the people of america. all in the name of an arcayic senate rule that isn't even in the constitution. that's just wrong. i yield the floor. >> in the name of an arcayic system. i know you're in the thick of it. thank you for taking the moment to give us your perspective. tell us what happened. this happened today and into tonight.
>> first of all, i love that you played that clip of maggie hassan. she stood up and made the case like no one ever could. secondly, what's happened tonight is we had a first vote to get on the bill. and both senator manchin and sinema, that are cosponsored on the freed team vote act and they did vote for that because they do support the bill. i think that's important for people to know. but now it's going to be the second vote. and that is where the argument really pivots. because to me, if you're serious about voting rights and you so well pointed out, rachel, how many times there's been exceptions and i note 160 times we changed the process. i could add to that compensation for victims of space accidents. that we changed the numbers for. you could go through history its
and it's repleat with examples. why because when they saw an obstacle in their path, still allowing the fillbuster to stay in place, they made practical changes to get things done. sometimes on small things and sometimes on really, really big things. like supreme court justices, which mitch mcconnell did, like the bush and trump tax cuts, the trump tax cuts, the recent ones for the wealthy, all on 51-vote margins. >> senator klobuchar, you have been telling this history in various ways throughout the debate and particularly as the debate has become more and more heatd and focussed on this point. i find myself frustrated by the assertions from senator manchin and sinema that it's never been done before, that there's nothing in history that suggests you can have a 50 vote threshold
for voting on a bill like this. like it would be something you'd need to be able to move mountains. i wondered if you have perspective on that. manchin put up a board on the floor of the senate giving an untrue statement about these things. i wonder how you and your colleagues are handling it. >> we keep making the case. i think we know we're pretty sure how it's going to end tonight. what's important to me is we have every other senator on board. your viewers should know neither of those two are up. but there are strong possibilities for taking over senate seats across the country. if we get to 52, that's a whole different ball game when it comes to the senate rules and getting this done. your viewers should know that we have justice department filled with people like kristen clark,
who are committed to enforcing the voting rights act and the bills that are right now on the books. we're going to be mobilizing in state legislatures across the country. we're going to work to fund elections, something we can do with mail-in ballots and the like. so, there is so much work we can do, including fixing the electoral college. but none of the -- i want to make clear, none of it will be a replacement for the freedom to vote act. everyone knows what's happening here. get rid of same-day registration in montana. 8,000 people used that, been in place 15 years. get rid of it in the run off period of georgia. 70,000 registered that time. they were put into law what one court described as surgical precision. we're going to continue to see that and i will not give up this fight.
>> minnesota senator, amy klobuchar, busy night for you and your colleagues. thank you for helping us flds it. understand it. >> dr. martin luther king said the disappointment is finite but hope is infinite. let's not forget that. >> i couldn't say it better and i have nothing to say in response. thank you, senator. good luck. thank you. we have much more to get to on this busy night again. i apologize for the set here looking a little different than it usually does. for it's because it's not a set, it's my house. there's nothing weird going on, other than technical gremlins. late-breaking supreme court ruling. huge filing overnight in the trump family business case. that's being pursued as a civil matter in new york state. there's lots going on. big show. still lots to come. stay with us. stay with us
i recommend nature made vitamins, because i trust their quality. they were the first to be verified by usp, an independent organization that sets strict quality and purity standards. nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. it's been nearly two years since the pandemic started. our students and teachers tried their best, but as a parent, i can tell you that nearly 18 months of remote learning was really hard. i'm so angry that instead of helping our kids get back in the classroom, the school board focused on renaming schools schools that weren't even open . please recall all three school board members now. for the sake of our kids, we can't wait one more day, never mind a whole year for a fresh start.
get a quote here. with are espect to mr. trump's triplex apartment, the office of the attorney general has discover said that the valuations of this assets were based on the assertion that the triplex apartment was 30,000 square feet incise. 30,000. the actual size of trump's triplex apartment was only 10,996 square feet. he lied about the actual square footage of his apartment. and not a little bit. not like he added an extra room. he said it was three times as big as it actually was. and if you're thinking maybe he wasn't lying. how many square feet is my apartment. in this case, documents demonstrating the actual size of the triplex apartment was only
10,996 square feet were easily accessible and signed by mr. trump. quote, the supporting data reported the value of his triplex apartment as $327 million. this assertion was repeat thipd supporting data for trump's 2016 financial statement. the valuation in the 2015 and 2016 financial statements were overstated almost by a factor of three, as the trump organization's cfo conceded in his testimony at the attorney general's office. he admitted that the valuation of trump's personal apartment amounted to an over statement of, quote, give or take, $200 million. give or take. the error there, the over statement was give or take $200 million. just for context here, as of
last year, the most expensive apartment on the market, not just in new york city but the entire nation, the most expensive apartment in the nation was $169 million. trump said his apartment was worth almost double. year after year said his apartment was worth nearly twice as much as the most expensive apartment in the country and three times larger than it actually was. which is wild and flagrant and almost impressively dishonest. and it does make you think back to him bragging about his hand size at the debate. i mean, it's just too on the nose, right? but, it's not just an interesting, like, personality pathology. it was part of a pattern of behavior by donald trump and his company that was potentially illegal. quote, since moving to compel the testimony of eric trump in august 2020, the osof the
attorney general has significant additional evidence that the trump organization use obtained a host of economic benefits including loans, insurance coverage and tax deductions. new york attorney general has been investigating the potentially fraudulent practices for nearly three years. she's laying it out there, bank fraud, insurance fraud, tax fraud. there is a parallel criminal investigation being run by state prosecutors in the manhattan d.a.'s office. but this investigation by attorney general leticia james, she can bring a lawsuit, which is a bigger deal than it might seem on the surface. similar ones have succeeded in shutting down trump's scam university, also his scam charity. now they've apparently got their sights on his family business.
james says that her offices has not yet determined whether they're going to take action. but the investigation appears to be nearing its end. because they're going after the big fish, if you will. the reason we got the filing late last night is because they're asking the court to compel testimony from donald trump himself and from his son, don jr. and his daughter, ivanka, who were both intimately involved in running the family business. the attorney general lay out the most detailed allegations we've seen at the trump family business that the ag is investigating. i think you can see it most easily, if you don't try to look at the patterns more broadly but look at one property. this is san example. the trump family business owns an estate north of new york city in a places called seven springs. well, follow the bouncing ball here. watch the mummy associated with seven springs.
in 2004, trump said it was worth $80 million. three years later, he said it was worth, not $80 million but $200 million. a few years after that, it wasn't worth $280 million anymore, it was $291 million. an enormous flock of geese is laying golden eggs by the millions. where are all the extra millions coming from? and then they brought in an appraiser to value the property and the appraiser said it was worth a maximum of $250 million. i thought it was 281 million. even after that, the trump organization insisted in the official financial statement that the property was worth $291 million. how did they come to that val using? the basis of the valuation was, quote, a telephone conversation with eric trump.
that was the basis for the trump organization's assertion that it was worth $291 million, despite an appraisal that said it was worth 50 max. they asked eric and eric said it was definitely worth $291 million. the attorney general's office writes ask to explain and he repeatedly voked his fifth amendment privilege. in fact, he led the fifth more than 500 times during the testimony to the attorney general's office. and crucially, the attorney general alleges all of the asset inflation was not just bragging rights and puffery and hand size stuff. she says the trump organization, in some cases, was using this information to actively lie to banks or insurance companies about where the valuations were
coming from for the purpose of doing business with the banks and insurance companies. representations that the valuations listed in trump's personal financial statements were prepared by professional representation firms, were false. they were by trump organization staff, contrary to what they were told and believed. so, it's one thing to makeup fantastical evaluations for your properties and another to go to your insurance company, on the basis of the fantastical assertions of the value of the properties and tell them, by the way, that appraisal came from the pros, when in fact, it was not. a call to eric or somebody else working in the trump organization, apparently making these things up. and alleges that they may have lied to the irs. he got tax deductions worth
millions of dollars in the seven springs estate. they based in part on what the trump organization asserted were seven mansions on the property but they're mansions that did not exist. that's just one trump property. the attorney general has filed over 150 pages, covering many, many properties, many which have other stories like this one. there's no charges in the pages. this is still just an investigation. is it going to lead to charges? is it going to lead to the kind of civil suit that could take down the trump family business? what kind of allegations in these kinds of filings? what kind of legal case do allegations like these add up to? i have just the person to ask about all this and she joins us next. person to ask about all this and she joins us next
♪ limu emu and doug.♪ and it's easy to customize your insurance at libertymutual.com so you only pay for what you need. isn't that right limu? limu? limu? sorry, one sec. doug blows several different whistles. doug blows several different whistles. [a vulture squawks.] there he is. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty♪
in late night legal filings last night, new york attorney general asserted that an on going civil investigation into donald trump's business has uncovered evidence that, the trump organizition, quote, used fraudulent or eleagle [ inaudible ] and my next guest has been covering finances since 2015. she was part of the team that obtained trump's tax documents and brilliantly published them for public understanding. thank you for being with us on this story. i appreciate your time. >> thanks for having me. >> did you learn anything in the filings that you did not know or that you didn't anticipate from what you and your colleagues already turned up at the times? >> well, i was intrigued by one of the legal arguments that surfaced in the documents, which
is these cases are difficult because people like donald trump and others often say when they're in the situation i relied on the advice of experts i hire and lawyers and i rely on their advice. and often that can help navigate or a good shield against these charges. and last night we saw, i think, an avenue that the attorney general is going to be going down, which is she said, and i'll just read from it. she said they misstated the purported involvement of outside professionals in reaching valuations. what she's saying is they were much more involved in setting the valuations than we may have thought and i think she's going to use that to say that they have some liability potentially here. and that it wasn't that, they were just phoning the lawyer the accountants. they were very involved in some of the valuations that ended up in banks and insurance companies and elsewhere that could get
them in hot water. >> that's interesting because it occurred to me that making the misrepresentations to a bank or insurance company or -- would have itself been a problem in terms of your duty to be honest to those types of institutions when you're trying to get money out of them. out of them but it would also, as you say, undercut any claim they made that they were counting on professional advice in order to come up with these numbers. >> we don't know right now. both could be true. you know, it depends on the evidence that's brought forward. it's one thing for donald trump to sign off on a document and say okay on a post-it note that this is great. and it's another thing for them to have been heavily involved. but it seems like they're building toward a case that would say they were heavily involved and were sort of the direct link to, you know, donald trump's forwarding information to a bank or, you know, allen wois'llberg, former cfo who was the cfo for decades, you know, they were deeply involved in discussions on this and in contact with these financial
institutions. and that's the contact that could get them in trouble, is potentially filing false information to financial institutions. >> in terms of the documents and like you mentioned post-it notes, one of the things that surprised me is that there's this reference to a filing cabinet. we know that trump famously doesn't use a computer, doesn't use e-mail, doesn't put his thoughts in a replicable format like that, in a way that investigators would i'm sure like to see. but there's some sort of filing cabinet with his papers and correspondence that the attorney general appears to know about. does that strike you as important? >> i'm not a lawyer, but i would think that would be one. first things i would want to look at if i was an investigator. apparently, there's a filing cabinet that everything's chronological and they've kept all of mr. trump's post-it notes and handwritten notes for years. correspondence to employees. we don't know what's in there. i'll volunteer if they need a
middle man to go look. wow, i'd really like to see that. and that could go to what we're talking about. millions of documents have been turned over already according to the filings, but this filing cabinet still is one of the things that there's still a lot of tension over and they haven't seen it yet. there's other documents as well. this one in particular was just like i'd love to see it. i'm sure the investigators would. >> susanne craig, investigative reporter for the "new york times." susanne, i really appreciate you making time to be here fascina. >> it is. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. it is >> we'll be right back stay with us to stay competitive. i discovered prevagen. i started taking it and after a period of time, my memory improved. it was a game-changer for me.
now, cuellar is a conservative democrat. he often makes headlines for sort of bucking his party. he was texas secretary of state before he was first elected to congress in 2004. but as for why the fbi was at his home today or outside his home today, we don't know. the fbi is saying only this is a "court-authorized ongoing investigation" and they will not "provide any further comments." congressman cuellar's office released a statement had evening just saying that the congressman will fully cooperate in any investigation. but nobody knows what investigation this is. he was not known to be under investigation for anything. this is all very new and quite mysterious. but clearly something's going on. we'll keep an eye on this story tonight as it continues to unfold. watch this space. h this space be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. it's been nearly two years
since the pandemic started. our students and teachers tried their best, but as a parent, i can tell you that nearly 18 months of remote learning was really hard. i'm so angry that instead of helping our kids get back in the classroom, the school board focused on renaming schools schools that weren't even open . please recall all three school board members now. for the sake of our kids, we can't wait one more day, never mind a whole year growing up, bilal was obsessed, obsessed with superman!
not because he could fly, but because superman stood up for people. maybe it's because of our family's own immigrant story, or he's just that nerdy. throughout his career in the obama administration and the private sector, bilal has never stopped helping others. we don't need a superhero to solve san francisco's biggest problems like crime and homelessness, just the innovation and courage to lead. join me. all right. that's going to do it for us tonight, for this show that we have unexpectedly had to shoot from my house because we had -- again, we had technical gremlins. nothing weirder than that is going on. this is always the backup plan if something goes weird at the studio. something went weird. we just had technical trouble. so this is where i've been. any rumor that susanne craig was in a different room in my house is totally not at all true.
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on