tv Deadline White House MSNBC July 7, 2022 1:00pm-3:00pm PDT
♪♪ ♪♪ hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. it has been almost exactly 18 months since the deadly insurrection at the u.s. capitol, and there are signs that the country may be at a critical inflexion point in terms of our understanding of january 6th and what was an unprecedented attempt by a sitting president to disrupt the hallmark of our democracy. the peaceful transfer of power. the january 6th select committee is set to continue to tell the story of the capitol insurrection with the public hearing set next week reportedly focused on the role of far-right extremist groups like the proud boys and the oath keepers in that attack on the capitol as well as any possible links between these groups and the ex-president and his innermost circle.
that hearing will take place after the committee has videotaped the testimony of pat cipollone. cipollone, think, is the trump white house's top lawyer. he's a man who, at least as far as we know, appears to have pushed back on some of the most dangerous and brazen ideas conceived of by the ex-president and his closest allies as they worked to overturn the results of the 2020 election. cipollone also held the same job as john dean whose legendary 1973 testimony was a turningpoint in the watergate investigation. here is what january 6 investigator john wood had to say right here on msnbc about the tremendous significance of the committee getting an interview with cipollone. >> it was really important that he would eventually end up testifying before the committee and on the record and videotaped so the american people can see it. i'm glad that is coming together this friday so hopefully the committee will show some of the key clips of that interview
during a hearing next week. so it is important that the american people hear from him. i've heard other people say that he could be the john dean of this investigation, but he's different from john dean in a very important respect which is john dean was actually involved in some of the wrongdoing. here, i haven't seen any evidence that pat cipollone was involved in any of the wrongdoing. in fact, he tried to stop it, but he is similar to john dean in the sense that not only does he have the same position as white house council and he was in the room when so many of the conversations took place. he could be a central witness to this whole investigation. >> the room where it happened, and as attorney general merrick garland said last month, the doj is watching as doj's own probe just now begins to inch closer to donald trump and his inner circle. the january 6th select committee makes questions of trump's criminal culpability completely unavoidable for garland and his justice department. politico reports this, the
january 6th defendants have raised questions about trump's own involvement in exacerbating the violence that day. testimony by white house adviser cassidy hutchinson in which she describes trump's awareness of the weapons among the january 6th crowd and his desire to march with supporters to the capitol despite his advisors' repeated against it in stoking the crowd. in that spotlight on the role of the disgraced ex-president and inciting an insurrection against the congress comes as he's mulling another run for the white house and members of the movement he birthed are running on his big lie that led to the january 6th attack in the first place. it's an important reminder that the work of the january 6th select committee is not just about looking in the rear-view mirror, about what happened in 2020 and on january 6th and also about looking ahead to the future of our democracy, as
well. "the new york times" reports this, more than 100 republican nominees for statewide office this year have falsely claimed that election fraud helped defeat trump in 2020. these claims of election fraud have become the mainstream republican position. in some places, winning a nomination virtually requires making such statements in other place press. the claims appear to carry little political cost at least in the primaries and very few elected republicans have been willing to denounce the falsehoods. a high-stakes moment for the january 6th select committee and the country amid an ongoing crisis of our democracy is where we begin the hour. betsy woodruff swann is here national correspondent for mrit kohl and also here jackie alemany investigations reporter and with us for the table for the hour former top state department official my friend rich stengel, all msnbc
contributors. i start with you at this moment, the committee has privately and publicly been working for what they have finally secured. we talked about it already this week. it's the testimony of pat cipollone. it does not appear to be a coincidence that that will be taped and studied and cold by close of business friday ahead of the testimony next week. >> that is right, nicole. it is important to note in my conversations today, each though there are parameters that pat cipollone has with investigators, that doesn't mean that investigators aren't going to ask him questions that are potentially out of bounds. it will be up to cipollone to, in that moment, decide whether or not he needs to exert privilege or not. so we could still see quite illuminating moments like that moment with michael flinn that we saw during the hearing last week where he pled the fifth on even the most basic questions of whether or not he thought joe biden had fairly won the
election. that being said, i think that next week, even outside of seeing these videotaped transcribed depositions will be extremely telling and this narrative that we've already seen altogether, you talk about looking ahead to the legislative proposals, tuesday's hearing and the violence on the right will directly connect to that. you're going to see, i think, potentially footage and various content that was put out by far-right extremists and by players that we hear from on a consistent basis in trump's orbit and people like steve bannon and ollie alexander who were allocating for various things. people like michael flinn, again, who was advocating for trump to invoke the insurrection act to deploy troops to seize voting machines and declare the election to have been rigged and
that again, ties back to some of the policy reforms that the committee has been discussing and might ultimately make, making reforms to the insurrection act and the vote count act of 1887 by clarifying certain things that haven't been clarified since these laws were created. >> trump proofing america's democracy is what it sounds like. >> i want to play some of what we heard in that dramatic, surprise testimony from cassidy hutchinson. they could not under any reasonable standard be considered protected or privileged conversations. they were conversations among west wing staff. let me play some of that. >> i had a private conversation with pat late in the afternoon of the 3rd or 4th that pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice or obstructing the electoral college count -- and i apologize
for probably not being thorough with my legal terms here, that we were obstructing what was happening on capitol hill and he was also worried that it would look like we were inciting a riot or encouraging a riot on the capitol -- at the capitol. >> i want to bring betsy woodruff swann into this. the fact that he was throwing around obstructing justice and obstructing the electoral college count and that he was worried that it would look like we were inciting a riot at the capitol is clearly central to the argument that the committee has been making publicly since before the public hearings commenced. just talk about what dots they're seeking to connect in this public phase, betsy, with cipollone's testimony. >> what cipollone very importantly might or might not provide to them is corroboration
of what cassidy hutchinson has already said. because the committee moved forward on such an unusually short and tight timeline to have hutchinson's public testimony they didn't take steps that normally investigators would try to take to corroborate some of the most important allegations that she made in that hearing and in fact, it seems pretty clear now in retrospect that cipollone, that the pressure on cipollone to come in and testify was ratcheted up dramatically because of what hutchinson herself testified to in that hearing. if cipollone goes in and corroborates what hutchinson said rather than denying it or asserting executive privilege to try to deflect questions about the conversations that she laid out, that would be an enormous win for the committee. remember, everything that hutchinson said about cipollone in her testimony, none of it was negative and none of it made it look bad. if anything, cipollone is one of
the few number of senior trump white house administration officials to comb through the entire january 6th process looking like he was very much on team normal. he is someone that the committee clearly sees as a credible and important narrator and that means that whatever he tells them in this transcribed interview that's coming up on friday is going to carry significant weight, and of course, in contrast, if cipollone goes in and contradicts something that hutchinson says then obviously, that's going to create an enormous challenge and a significant problem for the select committee if they end up having two people who they both view as credible presenting characterizations of what happened that day that are aren't consistent with each other. it's actually a high-stakes moment for the committee that has the potential to play a significant role in almost defining the way the rest of the investigation plays out in the coming months. >> it's an interesting point, betsy.
what strikes me is cassidy hutchinson is the most recent witness who has singled out cipollone. we heard more about cipollone from mr. donohue, mr. jacob, frankly, from the text messages sent by sean hannity and mark meadows. he's been ever present by every single one and even kushner's testimony was threatening to quit, that the doj non-coup plotting leaders. he is so ever present. he'd have to contradict not just cassidy hutchinson, but literally every other witness that has testified. >> the important thing to remember about cipollone is he's very much both an uppercase "c" conservative and lowercase "c" conservative and he was someone very cautious, extremely risk averse and circumspect about
decisions he played and while he played a key role in defending many of the trump administration's controversial policies and think, squaring off against adam schiff a select committee member in trump's very first impeachment process, despite that, he's also someone who is really not viewed as a huge risk taker. does that lower case "c" conservatism materialize in this transcribed interview that will come up on friday? we'll find out. when witnesses go into these interviews there are a lot of ways they can answer questions while still following the law. they can downplay things and they can assert executive privilege or attorney/client peripheral edge. they can provide minimal details or provide maximum details. we saw those types of changes. we've seen those types of changes and the committee has telegraphed those changes in the case of cassidy hutchinson where over the course of four depositions they gained significantly more information from her than they had
previously. the huge question when cipollone goes in is does he go in in the mode of i'm trying to be as helpful as possible to the committee and to cast as much light as possible or does he go in with a very, very risk averse hat on and does he go in with the goal of complying with the subpoena while showing as little material as he possibly can, and we won't know until later tomorrow. >> it is an interesting dynamic and there's some history here. i remember reading -- reporting at the time that there was a lot of second guessing, the strategy to avail don mcgahn that the white house counsel's office viewed his role as trying to pull back and no longer cooperated examinations of donald trump's criminality. but again, to contradict cassidy hutchinson would be the least of the mission and it would be contradicting mr. donohue and jack rosen and mark short and
the people that he would have to roll into one bundle is not having been truthful in sworn testimony before congress are more than a baker's dozen. >> yes. normally all of those folks would be conservation witnesses and cipollone is the connector of all of the dots and that's why he's so important, but let's remember as betsy said, he was counsel for a bunch of years. he supported a lot of these policies and he's conservative, i'm sure, even about himself, but what i think the committee is doing in the largest sense is they're laying out the architecture of donald trump. what have we seen already? obstruction of a congressional proceeding and he did that. conspiracy to defraud the u.s. which is the conspiracy to do that and they're laying that out now and this next stage is about incitement to intimidate federal officials which is a serious federal crime and that's what they're moving toward and i think they're not only telling
the story, but they're laying out a legal case which i sure hope the justice department will take advantage of. >> to betsy's point about which sort of small conservative and the person that speaks that language quite fluently is liz cheney. >> i think liz cheney is a bold small "c" conservative who has been alienated by violations of the constitution and violations of executive power. she doesn't subscribe to the old idea of the universal executive authority, and i think she wants to see donald trump prosecuted and again, that comes to the issue that we'll probably talk about later about when they can prosecute him in this way or whether they should or whether the justice department office of legal counsel should change its recommendations about what they said in 1973 and 2000. i think i'm running away with it. >> you can do that. i want to pull in more of john,
and this is an interesting sort of window into the investigators who, jackie, have been largely behind the scenes. you've written about them and betsy has as well and we haven't heard much from them. this is him talking about what seeing the content or the substance and the evidence that the investigators have sort of pulled out of the thousand witnesses that they've interviewed in the meta data and other documents they have. his revelation is that we dodged a bullet, but barely. let me show you that. >> i think the biggest revelation in general is just how close we came to having a constitutional crisis that was even worse than the one that we had on january 6th, believe it or not. the pressure that he tried to put on the department of justice ultimately was unsuccessful because his justice department senior officials threatened to quit. he tried to place pressure on state officials who were republicans and they stood up to him and said mr. president, we
voted for you, but we can't change the outcome of the election. so these are the kinds of things and of course, the vice president himself saying no to the president saying that he would not change the outcome of the election. in each of those examples, our system held, but just barely and our system is very fragile, so i think that's the key takeaway. >> jackie, this was so haunting from someone on the inside who has seen everything that they have, and it also seemed to foreshadow what lays ahead. talk about what you understand the strategic imperatives to be for the committee heading into next week. >> what john wood just said there is what lawmakers and investigators have been telling us publicly and privately throughout the course of this investigation when you ask them what has surprised you throughout the almost year-long investigation. what is it? and it is how close the u.s. government was to actually
collapsing into a constitutional crisis because of what the former president donald trump was trying to make happen. the scheme to overturn the results of the election. you know, we often use the phrase he was throwing spaghetti at the wall which is sort of funny in retrospect after cassidy hutchinson described ketchup on the wall. >> described spaghetti on the wall -- ketchup. >> that now in hindsight and the more and more that we learn through these hearings and through these really singular moments where, for example, if mike pence had not gotten into the car with secret service to take him out of the capitol instead of deciding to just send his staff and staying put himself. those moments actually look a lot more logical and planned out in the grand scheme of what the former president and his allies, people who were actually willing to try to overturn the results of the election were trying to do. john eastman's scheme for all of the holes that had been poked
through it, it was quite well organized. he had people in the states and in trump's campaign and in trump's orbit and the president's buy-in at the time. i think what these hearings have been so successful at is really driving that home and just the gravity of what could have happened and that the insurrection is sort of still happening. it's a slow rolling insurrection of sorts and has taken root in state legislatures which is why next week's hearing is going to be so important to sort of drive the nail in the coffin for the committee's mission and purpose to try to prevent something like this happening again. >> it's such a good point about the coup acumen that they display upon anymore nation. i thought what if they could give covid tests that way in the
beginning of the pandemic. i want to bring in what rick was foreshadowing and that is the conversation with watchers and former white house counsels who preceded pat cipollone like bob bower for president obama he writes this in the atlantic. >> in an early announcement of a presidential campaign, he may wager, would make it yet more difficult for the government to proceed against him. by putting his name on the ballot, he would have the explosive step of indicting him while running for president. they must start with reconsidering the office of legal counsel opinions, wrong in their conclusion and flawed in their analysis. they clash with core intuitions about the rule of law in a democrat democrat see for one that it could not be true that a president could shoot know? in the middle of fifth avenue and be immune from prosecution. this feels like the live wire
and we talk about what garland is and isn't doing and it's a debate essential to what our country is about in terms of the rule of law. is justice blind or isn't it, betsy? what's your sense of where these debates stand? >> the challenge for democrats is that garland specifically took this role as attorney general very much with the project from president biden of restoring norms within the justice department. he's not there to blow things up. he's not there to make dramatic changes. he's there to basically take the department that was bludgeoned over the head a week or so after the trump presidency and trying to restore normalcy and taking an olc opinion that's been on the books for nearly 50 years that's governed the relationship between doj and the white house and deciding that opinion is no longer governing would be a
dramatic step. he's not interested in taking dramatic steps and the pushback who are hoping to see things change is the trump administration was directed directly, of course, to this chaos that happened on capitol hill while institutionalists say that bringing criminal charges against both the current president or former president looks like the stuff of banana republics. people who want to see those charges brought say january 6th looked a bit banana republic-ish, too. why would the institutionalists assume that the institutions are working properly when we've seen them get battered and we've seen things come so close to institutional failure. that's the tension within doj and the legal community and that's not something that will be quickly resolved or easily resolved given biden's personal
position on other complex legal issues like supreme court reform. i wouldn't bet on it and it certainly moves the needle having a former white house counsel making the case for it. >> it's not just democrats. liz cheney has been making the arguments about donald trump's criminal liability and doj's urgence need to prove to the whole country that the rule of law is blind to whoever violated it. it is interesting, though. we'll all be watching. betsy woodruff swan, jackie alemany and thank you both for starting us up with it. rick sticks around. when we come back, another significant development in the case of wnbasuperstar brittney griner. is she the bargaining chip the kremlin is seeking? plus, them's the brakes. those are the words, not of your
host, but of boris johnson after people in his own party could no longer stand behind him and the growing list of scandals. can the gop learn from that or are they too far gone. >> new reporting on what happened to two people who were very public members of the ex-president's enemy's list when deadline white house continues after this break. stay with us. deadline white house continues after this break stay with us
moscow courtroom. griner has beenin prisoned in russia. she's been wrongfully detained and they're working to secure her release regardless of the outcome of her trial. brittney's wife promised to bring her home in an emotional rally yesterday. >> i'm frustrated. i'm frustrated that 140 days have passed since my wife has been able to speak to me, to our family and our friends. i'm frustrated that my wife is not going to get justice. i know you all are frustrated, too, that's why you're here. this easily could be any one of us. so tonight i ask for your help in continuing to fight for b.g.'s safe and quick return
home, plus make sure this administration knows that they have our support to do whatever is necessary and that we are not going to ever be quiet until she's home safely. >> griner is due back in court one week from today. joining us coverage katty kay, correspondent for bbc and rick stengel is still here. in the russian view this has always probably been a sham and a scam and a bargaining chip for future negotiations. how do you see it? >> brittney griner's wife said there isn't a question of justice in russia because once you're charged you're going to be convicted and it's not going to be about the trial. rick would understand the machinations that might be going on behind the scenes much better than i can, but it is pretty clear that brittney griner's best chance is a prisoner swap
or back channel negotiations. what is not clear is the rugs are saying is the level of publicity around this case in the u.s. hurts the chances of a back channel negotiation over this. clearly, brittney griner's wife and supporters feel it helps their case if there is a lot of pressure the biden administration about this, this is not about law and legal process and this is now going to be about diplomatic negotiations. >> yeah, and the argument -- and we had heard that, too, and covered this case of brittney griner very cautiously, and it presumes that russia is a good faith actor that if you do this, they'll do that. that's not the case. >> a small customs official at an airport can arrest an american wnba superstar on his own is silly. it always was a bargaining chip
and it was always seen as that way, but the point is what they do react to is pressure. they -- the -- the russians always like what are called reciprocity and diplomacy. if you send home three diplomats they'll send home three diplomats and the thing that i see that's dangerous and i haven't seen anyone talk about this before, if it's not a prisoner swap he wants, what if he says i'll return her if you stop sending missiles to ukraine and stop sending billions to ukraine. the russians might think she's a way bigger bargaining chip than we ever thought before. >> you know, katty, there are no coincidences. brittney griner was detained and jailed right as the war began. what's your reaction to that theory? >> the idea that there could have been some customs official who happened across this, what
was it? one week before the invasion -- five days before the invasion just seems completely implausible and she's being held as a bargaining chip and the russians will get out of it what they can. americans do have prisoners that the russians would like back and it's the guy that was notorious arms dealer who was known as the merchant of death and they would love to have him and they'll try and get as much of this as possible. it would be interesting as rick seems to be suggesting there is a chance this spills over into something more direct concerning ukraine. i doubt that the biden administration would allow themselves to be pushed into having their ukraine strategy dictated by a prisoner situation. i would find that hard to believe, but a prisoner swap would seem to be her best chance at getting out at the moment, but as her wife says this isn't about justice. >> we'll stay on it. katty and rick are sticking
around because we have something else to talk to them about. the embattled boris johnson was left on his own. his party had had enough and after a flurry of high-profile resignations within the government, he reluctantly agreed to step down. any lessons for us to glean from that country? we'll ask that next.
close your eyes and picture this. the leader of government who happens to be a consentive with the history of self-inflicted wounds and controversies is implicated in another very serious scandal. attacks, does it sound familiar? what if a plot twist. what if instead that leader's party circling the wagons and backing him, no matter what, they just said, you know what? enough is enough, what if instead of encouraging his supporters to storm the seat of government engage in hand to hand combat, the leader walked away, resigned? well that might seem like alternate recent american history it is, in fact, what happened today in the uk. prime minister boris johnson stepped down in an avalanche of scandal ranging from covid lockdown parties to an expensive
refurbishment of his downing street apartment to the latest that he knew about serious sexual misconduct allegations about a man he then appointed to the a government role. that met with the voters. here is boris johnson today. >> we've seen westminster and when the herd moves it moves. i know there will be many people who are relieved, and perhaps quite a few who will be disappointed and i want you to know how sad i am to be giving up the best job in the world, but them is the breaks. >> let's bring in our coverage matt dowd founder of "country over party" and also msnbc contributor and katty is with us. take us inside. how did this come to pass? >> boris johnson, this larger than life character of of a politician and very unusual in
british politics delivers a thumping landslide victory to the conservatives about three years ago and they love him and he delivers brexit for britain, and then his habit, his personal habit of not being quite as forthcoming with the truth as they would have liked in the latest instance saying that he didn't know about senior leaders in his party's sexual allegations of sexual misconduct, they've now decided they've had enough of him. basically, nicole, politics is a brutal game. while boris johnson delivered majorities for the conservative party they were happy to put up with his odd behavior. his unconventional behavior. once it became clear that as is the case the conservative party was going to lose local elections because of boris johnson's dram as and the chaos surrounding him, they got fed up with him and it's a chaos system and they pulled the rug out from what happened this week and it's
very different from what happened to donald trump under three years and the conservative party has had enough of boris johnson. >> katty, is the contrast an accurate one? does it ring true over there that the way his party reacted stands in stark contrast to the way trump's party reacted when he lost and tried to overturn the election? >> a bit like you, nicole, i'm always a little cautious about making domestic claims for an international audience and saying that things are exactly the same. they're not. they're very different systems and it's a parliamentary system and things are not exactly the same. actually the comparison that's been made here in the last couple of days and i'm in the uk in the moment is what happens if boris johnson now doesn't leave? he hasn't stepped down as prime minister of the united kingdom. he is still prime minister of britain and there have been comparisons made in the british media over the course of the last 12 hours saying maybe he's trying to do what donald trump did. maybe he doesn't want to leave at all and he's just extending
it rather than go tomorrow, actually he is, in a less violent way than we saw on january 6th to subvert democracy and find some way to wiggle out of the situation that he's in and carry on as prime minister of great britain. that seems unlikely, but that's the comparison that's being made here in the uk at the moment. >> it is, perhaps, one of our sickest and saddest exports, the norms and traditions. but as katty says you can draw a link to when donald trump lost. >> i agree with katty on that and you can draw a lung before that. the similarities between donald trump and are bois johnson, there are many. the coarseness of them. the cruelty of how he conducted his politics, the corrupt way he basically attacked institutions and standards in the course of that, but there is a huge
difference as we found out in the last 12 hours which is one party was willing to hold boris johnson accountable even if it was only for their own political skins, the other party, the republican party has completely enabled and facilitated donald trump and will be on his bandwagon if he chooses to run again in the next 2024. and so i think the similarities are there. there are obviously a difference in systems here, but the huge difference is if the majority of the cabinet, of donald trump had has we're resigning, we're out of here or decided to employ the 25th a meantry version of what was done. >> donald trump would have been removed from office and we would have never heard from him again and they had an opportunity in two impeachments, they rekwuszed to to that.
so i give credit to the british system though some of those cabinet members, they enabled boris johnson over the course, and finally, they enough? that's all they matter about integrity. we lack that in the united states and not only do we lack accountability in the united states. they are actually empowering donald trump every single day by repeating every single lie and doing all of the things in the coarse, cruel way he does them. >> rick, what are you watching for in the next 24, 36 hours? >> well, i hope -- i hope that katty's thesis isn't correct and he doesn't do that, but i'll go further back to ancient history. if we had had a more parliamentary system which the founders had, because remember the president of the united states was not directly elected by the public, but by congress, we wouldn't have donald trump. i mean, in 2016, if we had a
parliamentary system where the party decided on the nominee, the republican party in 2016, as you know better than anybody would never, ever have decided on donald trump. donald trump would never, ever have been elected. we need to have some more parliamentary aspects to our system and the decline of the power of the parties hasn't been a good thing for the party. >> it's interesting. because it certainly puts power in some of the elites. it's an interesting debate. >> katty kay, thank you for joining us from where you are. we are very grateful to you. stick around. democratic control of the senate is very much on the line as you know this election year and there are new signs and bright spots on the map showing democrats can hang on to the slim majority. we will check on the states of the midterms. we'll have that next. states of the midterms
we'll have riders! let your queries be known. uh, how come we don't call ourselves bikers anymore? i mean, "riders" is cool, but "bikers"...is really cool. -seriously? -denied. can we go back to meeting at the rec center? the commute here is brutal. denied. -approved! -[ altered voice ] denied! [ normal voice ] whoa. (woman vo) sailing a great river past extraordinary landscapes into the heart of iconic cities is a journey for the curious traveler,
one that many have yet to discover. exploring with viking brings you closer to the world, to the history, the culture, the flavors, a serene river voyage on an elegant viking longship. learn more at viking.com my a1c stayed here, a serene river voyage on an elegant viking longship. it needed to be here. ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®.
mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? (♪ ♪) ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. and it's easier than ever to get your projects done right. with angi, you can connect with and see ratings and reviews. and when you book and pay throug you're covered by our happiness
check out angi.com today. angi... and done. in some of the most competitive races this year recent polling suggest democrats have been very successful in portraying republican candidates as too extreme and too much aligned with donald trump, particularly in the senate races where "the new york times" notes republican candidates have had a rough few weeks especially in pennsylvania and georgia tell us that if today was election day democrats would be narrowly favored to retain control of the u.s. senate. more from the times, quote, a brighter picture is coming together for democrats on the senate side.
there, republicans are assembling what one top strategist laughingly described as a, quote, island of misfit toys. a motley collection of candidates the party hopes to portray as out of the mainstream on policy, compromised and too cose we donald trump. we are back with matt dowd and rick stengel. an island of misfit toys seems generous for some of these misfit cats. tell me what you see. >> weave had this conversation and i've been trying to raise my hand and say there's this interesting group of voters who don't like donald trump and don't like joe biden, but are very concerned about what's going on in america and they have concerns about inflation and gas prices and they're also concerned about choice and guns and what's happening to our democracy, and almost in every single state right now those voters right now, if we look at the polls are breaking for the democrats right now. there's not a single targeted incumbent democrat in the country right now even with joe
biden's net negative approval at minus 15 and minus 20, there's not a single republican ahead of an incumbent democrat and not in arizona and not in nevada and not in new hampshire and georgia as you've they would pick up, today, in pennsylvania. there's a poll out yesterday in ohio that shows tim ryan ahead in ohio. wisconsin's a dead heat. it's very close in north carolina, which is an incumbent republican race, and so it's these voters more than anything right now, and that's who the democrats need to talk to. i thought of something the other day, and you may not say this directly, or you may. democrats can keep the house and keep or expand the senate if they do one thing, which is allow voters to dislike joe biden, but give them an argument about why it's so dangerous republicans can take over power. that's the message they have. give voters permission to not
like joe biden in this moment. don't try to prove out joe biden. don't try to improve his numbers. don't try to do any of that. give a lot of the voters permission to dislike him, and then make the argument of why it's such a disaster for the country if republicans take power. >> i think that there's an opportunity to make this about -- just about are referendum on republicans who, in the wake of these devastating mass shootings, it is gutting to come on the air, knowing that on any given afternoon, you will be anchoring another mass shooting in america. another town that no longer says, "i never thought it would happen here" but simply says, "we were next." that was the reaction of the people interviewed by my colleagues in highland park. why can't the democrats take a succinct sharp message about republicans being for keeping the weapons of war in the hands of would-be mass shooters and forcing 10-and-a-half-year-olds who become pregnant through rape and incest to carry those children, end of the conversation?
>> is that to me, nicole? >> yeah. why can't that be it? why can't that be the message, the debate? that is the truth about what's on the line in november. >> so, to me, it's like a three-chaired stool. to me, it's a three-chaired stool in this. it's about guns, which is safety, it's about freedoms, which includes choice, and it's about the sustainability of one man, one vote, majority rule. it's all encompassed in that message, in my view. i think if the white house -- this is my advice, which i give multiple times -- to the white house, is forget about shoring up joe biden's approval number. just forget about it. don't go out there and talk about what's happened and what we've done on the deficit and all that. for the next 124 days, make the argument just as you say, include for the sake of our democracy, which affects our ability to get gun reform done and choice, which is affected by
a tyranny rule here -- tyranny minority rule here, and joe biden should make that argument for the next 124 days. don't prove out how well you've done. make that argument. >> all right, we'll be watching. matt dowd, rick stengel, thank you so much for spending time with us today. up next, former minneapolis police officer convicted of murdering george floyd, derek chauvin, was sentenced today on charges he violated floyd's civil rights. we'll tell you about it next. w w charges he viotela while the new double oven you financed is taking care of dinner and desert. you're remembering how to tie a windsor. and while your washer is getting out those grass stains. you're practicing for d the big leagues! for all of life's moments get the brands you trust to get the job done at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ civil rights we'll tell you about it next [whistling]
and, no matter how much i paid, it followed me everywhere. so i consolidated it into a low-rate personal loan from sofi. get a personal loan with no fees, low fixed rates, and borrow up to $100k. sofi. get your money right. the unknown is not empty. it's a storm that crashes, and consumes, replacing thought with worry. but one thing can calm uncertainty. an answer. uncovered through exploration, teamwork, and innovation. an answer that leads to even more answers. mayo clinic. you know where to go. hey lily, i need a new wireless plan for my business, but all my employees need something different. oh, we can help with that. okay, imagine this. your mover, rob, he's on the scene and needs a plan with a mobile hotspot. we cut to downtown, your sales rep lisa has to send some files, like asap!
so basically i can pick the right plan for each employee. yeah i should've just led with that. with at&t business. you can pick the best plan for each employee and get the best deals on every smart phone. this is john. he hasn't worked this hard to only get this far with his cholesterol. taken with a statin, leqvio can lower bad cholesterol and keep it low with two doses a year. side effects were injection site reaction, joint pain, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, chest cold, pain in legs or arms, and shortness of breath. with leqvio, lowering cholesterol becomes just one more thing life throws your way. ask your doctor about leqvio. lower. longer. leqvio.
we have some breaking news to tell you about. a federal judge has sentenced former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin to more than 20 years, 245 months to be exact, on federal charges of violating george floyd's civil rights. at the sentencing hearing, george floyd's brother called for chauvin to get the maximum sentence, saying this, "the family and i have been given a life sentence. we will never get george back," adding, "george's life matters." quick break for us. we'll be right back. orge back," adding, "george's life matters." quick break for us
we'll be right back. there's a monster problem and our hero needs solutions. so she starts a miro to brainstorm. “shoot it?” suggests the scientists. so they shoot it. hmm... back to the miro board. dave says “feed it?” and dave feeds it. just then our hero has a breakthrough. "shoot it, camera, shoot a movie!" and so our humble team saves the day by working together. on miro.
i love all types of dancing... salsa, and even belly dancing! i am a triathlete. i've always been into health, and wellness, and fitness... i tried everything with diet and exercise, and nothing worked. there was just kinda this stubborn area on my stomach. but coolsculpting worked for me! coolsculpting targets, freezes and eliminates treated fat for good. no needles, no incisions. discuss coolsculpting with your provider. some common side effects include temporary numbness, discomfort and swelling. you've come this far... coolsculpting takes you further. visit coolsculpting.com
tried to take down the wrong person. if you look at comey, if you look at mccabe. >> hi again, everyone. sorry about that, but it was important. you'll see why. it's 5:00 in new york. in their launching and then ensuring their continuation of the investigations into ties between the ex-president's 2016 campaign and russia, former fbi director james comey and his deputy, andrew mccabe, faced the wrath of donald trump, and we bring up the ex-president's hostility toward these two men because of brand-new exclusive reporting in "the new york times" that finds that both comey and mccabe underwent rare, intensive, invasive, supposedly, allegedly, random irs audits in the years 2017 and 2019 respectively. from that new report, "the audits conducted on mr. comey and mr. mccabe and their spouses, according to the letters they received from the agency, were carried out under
an irs research program to learn who is and who is not paying their taxes. the chances of being picked for this kind of audit, the times notes, in 2017, which is when comey and his wife were selected, is roughly 1 out of 30,600." the story goes on to say this. "the minuscule chances of the two highest-ranking fbi officials who made some of the most politically consequential law enforcement decisions in a generation being randomly subjected to a detailed scrub of their tax returns a few years after leaving their posts, presents extraordinary questions. trump, through a spokesperson, said he had no knowledge of the audits, but for years, comey and mccabe were public targets of trump's." as you heard at the top, he even accused both men of treason. it was james comey who revealed this to the public early in trump's time in office. >> i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi, as part of our
counterintelligence mission, is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign and the russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russia's efforts. >> when comey was fired by trump, two months after he made those comments before congress, and after comey refused to stop, to call off the investigation into trump's former national security advisor, michael flynn, andrew mccabe assumed the role of acting fbi director. he then quickly opened a counterintelligence investigation. >> i was very concerned that i was able to put the russia case on absolutely solid ground in an indelible fashion that, were i removed quickly or reassigned or fired, that the case could not
be closed or vanish in the night without a trace. >> you wanted a documentary record. >> that's right. >> that those investigations had begun because you feared that they would be made to go away. >> that's exactly right. >> so, what are the chances, as we sit here today, that those two men would face the same, the exact same invasive, rare tax audit? former irs commissioner john tells "the new york times" this. "lightning strikes and that's unusual and that's what it's like being picked for one of these audits. the question is, does lightning then strike again in the same area? does it happen? some people may see that in their lives, but most will not, so you don't need to be an anti-trumper to look at this and think it's suspicious." this afternoon, there's an important update to this story from the irs. the irs has officially asked its inspector general, who oversees tax matters, to investigate the comey and mccabe audits.
it's where we start this hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. former fbi counterintelligence agent pete strzok is here. mike schmidt, "the new york times" washington correspondent whose byline is on that reporting we read from, also an msnbc national security contributor. tim o'brien, msnbc political analyst. mike, tell us more about what your reporting uncovers about these -- i think they're described as autopsies without the benefit of death. tell us about these. >> well, i think that the sort of easiest way to understand this story is that something extraordinary happened. either through sheer luck of the draw, of random sampling, of the way that names came up, the irs was able to do something that donald trump really wanted done to his rivals. that would be a remarkable thing in and of itself, simply just
the fact that chance, something that happens in everyone's day-to-day life, coming through the way that it did. the other potential extraordinary outcome here is that the irs's process somewhere along the line was corrupted, corrupted by someone who wanted this audit to be directed at these two enemies of trump or two people that have made highly consequential law enforcement decisions, perhaps the most consequential law enforcement decisions in a generation, dating back to the hillary clinton email investigation. the audit that they went under, the best way to understand that is that it's not just an audit that most people would get that asks a specific question about your filing. it's an entire examination of the return. the irs randomly picks people to figure out who and who is not paying their taxes and because they're not -- they don't know what they're looking for, what happens is that they have to turn over every rock. so, in comey's case, it took 15
months, the entire audit. it cost him $5,000 to prove that he had the children, the dependents that he had claimed on his taxes. he had to give the irs a copy of his family christmas card that had a photo of the family, showing that he actually had the children. at one point, there was a question about whether he could produce a receipt for a printer cartridge that he had bought two years earlier and whether, you know, they couldn't find a receipt, was there an amex statement that could back it up? so, you know, in comey's case, a very lengthy audit. the result of it, finding that he had overpaid on his taxes by about $340. and he got a refund for that when it was concluded 15 months after it started. >> a journalist described that as very on-brand for mr. comey, that he had actually overpaid his taxes. mike, i want to ask you to -- the story widens the lens on this specific nature that
trump's attacks took against these two men. he didn't just accuse them of treason, as we showed. he publicly and privately sought their prosecution by doj. talk about what was public and privately directed at these two men by donald trump. >> so, there's sort of two ways that trump went after these guys. in one way was publicly, through the -- attacking them on twitter and public statements similar to the one that you played. there were so many of the public attacks that i had forgotten about some of them. the whole thing of accusing them of treason, constantly calling them criminals, constantly calling them liars, just going on and on about them, attacking comey probably as much as he attacked anyone during his time in office, maybe except for biden and hillary clinton. so, publicly, he really went after these two individuals, including on mccabe, where he
was basically saying, tick, tick, tick on, you know, mccabe's -- was about to be able to retire with his full pension, and he was saying, you know, is mccabe going to be able to retire with a full pension or will he get fired before that? mccabe was fired the day before that would have kicked in, so there was the public aspect, and then there was the private aspect, pressuring his justice department to prosecute, particularly, comey. in one instance, going to don mcgahn, his white house counsel, and saying he wanted to order the justice department to prosecute clinton and comey and this led don mcgahn to have to write these memos to trump explaining why this was not a good idea even if he did have this power as president. but in bill barr's book, at the -- in bill barr's book, i believe in the beginning of his book, he describes his last meeting with trump in that
period of time after the election in 2020, and where trump is furious with barr who was unable to come up with the voter fraud allegations that trump wanted and in that conversation where trump slams the resolute desk and is screaming at barr, trump says -- starts going after him for never prosecuting comey and saying that it would have been easy for him to prosecute comey for what he had done, for how he had handled these memos about his interactions with trump. so, something that was in the forefront of donald trump's mind in 2020, as he was trying to overturn the election and screaming at his attorney general. >> yeah, i mean, pete strzok, you know better than anybody on this panel that donald trump's hatred runs deep and it runs hot. i want to show you how andrew mccabe, you know, both these gentlemen very well, let me show you how andrew mccabe responding to mike's reporting today on cnn. >> i think it raises some very
interesting questions about the irs and about how they're administering this program. and you know, look, to be clear, i'm not suggesting that any high-powered or high level official at the irs specifically did anything wrong. i'm simply saying that americans need to be able to have trust and faith that the institutions they rely on are conducting their business in a fair and impartial manner, and there's an indication here that that might not be happening. i think it's appropriate for the irs to do the responsible thing and look into it. >> you know, pete, it raises -- and i know you raised some of these questions on social media already. but it raises questions of trump's attempted corruption of agencies in both directions. we know he had mnuchin helped to shield his tax returns from scrutiny by congress, but it suggests that he either by influence, by public positions and attacks on people like yourself, like jim comey, like mccabe, turned those agencies
into political -- part of his political arsenal. >> i think that's right. and i think we saw him using doj in familiar but all of the government in two ways. one, exactly what you said, to protect those people and those things that are close to him from prosecution, from investigation, and at the same time, certainly we saw within doj, u.s. attorney after u.s. attorney being used to target those people he perceived as enemies and so now when we have the irs coming on to the scene, whether or not this is explainable, the problem is because of trump's behavior, that we now have a built-in sort of belief and lack of confidence that the irs might have, in fact, been motivated by improper considerations in selecting both director comey and andy mccabe. look, the fact is, these are extraordinarily rare. we're talking 3,000th of a percent chance of getting audited as a taxpayer, not once, but twice, and these are being done, the documents published by "the new york times" show they're being done by this one
office just outside tysons corner in washington, d.c. so even if there is a legitimate explanation bind these selections, it boggles the mind that the agents, the investigators in this office didn't sit there and say to one another, curious, these really rare investigations we just happen to be going after the second former director of the fbi who was fired by donald trump. i don't understand how nobody raised that as an issue, nobody flagged it, and of course the biggest issue that sticks in my crew is neither director comey nor andy mccabe have a history of allegations of tax fraud. you know who does? donald trump. and for decades and decades, he's been claiming he's under audit, he can't release his tax records, but after a "new york times" expose of his finances, after new york state criminal investigation, what does it take for the federal government to take a look at all these allegations rather than wasting their time on, you know, people that should not be investigated in this way. >> it's the projection. i mean, imagine if this -- if an
audit that is sort of an autopsy without the benefit of death were conducted on trump, they would be vomiting up -- put it this way, the irs probably wouldn't owe donald trump $248. i have to ask you, pete strzok, before i bring tim in this. did you receive a letter? were you audited? >> not yet. these letters came out at the end of the year, so i'll break some news this fall if i get one. >> we know he has a hard time finding you even when he wants to. i want to ask you, tim, you have the distinction of knowing more than any of the rest of us about trump's finances. i mean, in terms of sort of his pattern, i mean, there's always a pattern, and in this is the pattern of projection. >> projection and protection. you know, the interesting thing here, when he had steve mnuchin running interference for him to keep his tax returns from coming into the public realm, what was donald trump hiding? and i think there were a number of things that he wanted to keep buried, but the two baskets, i think, of things that were very
important to him, one was he didn't want the real finances of his businesses revealed, because he's never had the kind of wealth or success he's had. the other thing is he doesn't want to show how he's funded his businesses and his lifestyle, and we know that a lot of money came into his business from eastern europe. we know that he was trying to invest in russia. we know that the extent to which financial issues influence his disposition towards vladimir putin or shaped u.s. foreign policy in eastern europe and russia are real issues that remain, that are unanswered. it makes him a national security threat to this day, and so the irony, i think, that emerges from mike's reporting is that they're using the weight of the federal government to, i think, from all appearances, we don't know enough yet, but it would look like payback against two federal officials who are investigating trump's ties to russia. so, the man who won't let his own taxes come into the public
realm because he doesn't want his financial ties to eastern europe take greater shape is targeting the people that are attempting to get clarity around that very issue. the other thing here that i think we still need to know is, who authorized it? who directed it? and steve mnuchin, and who knew about it? and i don't think there's anybody in trump's white house that, if these two men had been targeted and were in the midst of a grueling and torturous audit, that that wouldn't get back to trump and that there wouldn't be gloating about it. the idea that trump said he had no knowledge of this, it strains the imagination. but i think that steve mnuchin should be put under oath or he should testify about what he knew because he was never shy about going to bat for trump when trump was trying to keep his own taxes out of the public scene. >> so, mike, let me ask you to pick up on some of that. let me also share with our viewers -- actually, let me
share first, jim comey's comments in your story. hexes this, "maybe it's a coincidence or maybe somebody misused the irs to get at a political enemy. given the role trump wants to continue to play in our country, we should know the answer to that question." we may find out the answer to that question. since you published this story, there's been a development at the irs. they are going to investigate it. tell us about that. >> well, the irs commissioner has personally asked the inspector general, who oversees tax issues at the treasury department, to look into the circumstances around this. the irs putting that out today. we went to the inspector general, asking to find out whether that investigation will be opened or has been opened, and we haven't heard back. i think at the most basic level about this story and what went on is that it's a lesson, again, in the concept of why a president of the united states should not weigh in on certain questions.
so, biden made one remark many, you know, several months ago about a matter related to the january 6th investigations and some things that should people be prosecuted or not, and he was widely criticized for that. trump did this every day and in lots of different ways about a lot of different issues. at the same time, he tried to use the arms of the federal government in ways that we couldn't even have made up coming into the administration if we were trying to brainstorm what you could do. he also tried to use the federal government and, you know, the political -- his political apparatus around the country to overturn an election. when you have a president who did that, and their political appointee is running an agency, it creates -- at a fundamental level, a perception problem. because you cannot trust on its face the day-to-day work of government, because you wonder why was this really done?
donald trump wanted to order his justice department to prosecute jim comey, so if his irs went ahead and did its most invasive audit on jim comey, does the average american look at that and take it at face value? >> it's amazing that under every rock is something he either tried and failed or tried and succeeded at turning into a political weapon. mike schmidt, thank you so much for starting us off with your reporting. pete and tim stick around. after the break for us, new reporting of another january 6th committee hearing in primetime. it could be -- that likely will be a blockbuster. plus the gun manufacturers have been put on notice by members of congress. how one committee plans to hold ceos to account. and the ripple effect for women all across the country as the last abortion clinic in mississippi shuts its doors. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. n clinic in n clinic in mississippi shuth
we're now in a story we've been discussing since we've been on the air, the work of the january 6th select committee, that committee is now planning two hearings next week. news breaking since we've been on the air they will be on tuesday and thursday. that's according to reporting from our friend, jake sherman, of punchbowl news. thursday's scheduled hearing will take place in primetime. the hearings next week will follow that bombshell testimony last week from cassidy hutchinson and a closed door meeting with pat cipollone that's scheduled for tomorrow. as the committee continues its investigation, yesterday marked 18 months to the day since the
deadly insurrection took place. in the shadows of the committee's high-profile work, doj has continued to prosecute those responsible for their actions on that day, and they're closing in on another milestone in their investigation. according to the latest figures from doj, nearly 900 people have been arrested for their role in the insurrection. with 855 of them facing charges ranging from seditious conspiracy to trespassing. prosecutors estimate that more than 2,000 actually entered the capitol that day, meaning that many more cases are likely to come in the coming weeks and months. joining our coverage, miles taylor, former chief of staff at the department of homeland security, now the cofounder and executive director of the renew america movement. pete strzok and tim o'brien are still here. miles, first on this breaking news that there will be not one but two hearings next week by the january 6th committee. the second one is, i believe, their second primetime hearing. >> yeah, this shows us, nicole, that the testimony from cassidy
hutchinson was a domino, and the committee staff were hoping that this was the case before that hearing. they were hoping that her testifying would actually give them reason to start extending their hearing deadline. if you remember, originally, the committee was going to wrap up its hearings on july 11th. now we have had more developments, new hearings getting added, more things being put into primetime, and again, it's because of that domino of cassidy hutchinson. she's causing more people to come forward. sara matthews, who's trump's former deputy press secretary, is someone who's now slated to testify. pat cipollone, of course, is going to go speak to the committee behind closed doors in a videotaped deposition. and i suspect that there's more to come, and the committee's hoping that that's the case. so, in a sense, this is a good signal. i think the good news from the committee is that we are getting answers. we are seeing arrests, as you noted, and we're getting more accountability. we're getting a light shown on what actually happened. the bad news is that republicans don't seem to care, and the
polls show they care less and less about january 6th and rather than running from the law, a lot of republicans who were involved in this are just running for congress or they're running for public office, so the lesson hasn't been learned and there's one side of the country that thinks this was not the threat to democracy that it actually was. >> miles, i want to ask you something as the author of anonymous, the op-ed, and then the book, nobody came out and refuted what you were revealing. you pulled back the curtain and first revealed that the 25th amendment had been debated. i don't remember any cabinet secretaries coming out and saying, uh-uh. what is the distinction of having an allegation being discussed and debated in the context of a congressional investigation in which all the witnesses are under oath and on tv? >> you know, this makes what happened during watergate and the nixon administration feel like an episode of mr. rogers.
and i don't even say that facetiously. it really puts watergate into a totally different category, because we're talking about not just a twice-impeached president who lost the u.s. house and the senate and the white house, but a man who still, after office, is under investigation on an array of crimes, not just from the u.s. congress. there's a justice department investigation. there's investigations in georgia and elsewhere in the country. this is massively significant. and you can't overstate it, but it goes all the way back to the beginning. as you note, nicole, it was evident in the first year of this administration that donald trump's impulses were towards illegality, immorality, and things that were unconstitutional, and people around him know that. so, you know, when i was still masked and not telling people who i was, cabinet secretaries were talking about that op-ed at the time, and you know what? most of them said, yeah, that's largely true. i mean, everyone was agreeing
with the notion that we all knew to be the case, that donald trump was unstable and that the people around him were trying to keep the guardrails up. now, as we know, they failed, but there are still some of those people who it's important to come publicly testify about what they knew, because they may know criminal things that are important to bring to the surface. and one of those, as you noted, is pat cipollone. pat may not know where the bodies were buried because donald trump may not have gotten to the point where he was burying bodies, but pat knows where trump wanted to bury the bodies, and what i mean by that is, there were a lot of things that were illegal that trump wanted to do that pat had to tell him, no. that's why it's so important that he testify and the public hear what he has to say. >> pete, i mean, as part of the mueller team of investigators, i mean, robert mueller found six acts of criminal obstruction of justice and a shared mission and mantra with the russians over in volume one.
what is your sense of the stakes of the january 6th committee meeting its own bar of proving, as liz cheney has said they have the evidence to do, that he sought to obstruct an official criminal proceeding, among other crimes. >> well, he absolutely has a pattern of engaging in obstruction and the important thing to note about the mueller report is it is evidence. this was a body of information that was collected by prosecutors and agent investigators with an eye towards taking that to court and charging it, and of course they didn't because the prevailing, controlling legal opinion out of doj was that a sitting president couldn't do that. now, doj, or i'm sorry, congress, as we've talked about before, is very different. they're not trying to build a criminal case. what they are doing is trying to lay out a narrative to the american people, and i think that's very important in trying to get at least some general sense of public support for doj moving forward when it comes to
potentially prosecuting trump. now, look, we've got two events coming up next week by the january 6th committee. what we've seen today, they do not waste their time. they do not repeat information. and i have every expectation, certainly with one of those appearances occurring in primetime, that they have already scripted all the information that they want to lay out. and as miles pointed out, that doesn't include pat cipollone, who's not even going in until tomorrow. so i expect to see a lot of information. i'm particularly interested to see what they have to say about proud boys and oath keepers, and in particular tying those groups who are kind of the master minds behind the physical violence at the capitol, tying them to the white house and they've already teased that a little bit. there was some information that mark meadows had reached out to roger stone and mike flynn and that he thought about going to the war room at the willard on january 5th but i think we're going to see a much more detailed accounting of that and most importantly, taking control of the violence at the capitol
and drawing those direct links into the white house, up to and including potentially president trump himself. >> well, and to pete's point, tim, we know already that trump planned to walk alongside his heavily armed supporters, and we know already that he knew exactly who they would and would not hurt. how'd he know that? >> that's still the unanswered question. >> right. that's our cliff hanger, right? >> but it's a key question. he also revelled in the violence. he didn't care about anyone's safety. >> take down the mags. >> he didn't care if he'd get hurt. he knew that people were getting disarmed. he said, allow them to go in anyway. and whatever distractions there are about what happened inside the presidential limousine, whether he lunged at his own guards or the steering wheel or not, no one is disputing that he was demanding to be taken to the capitol, and what we ended up getting spared was this scene in which this insurrectionist president marched into the capitol building as the vote was getting certified and tried to
disrupt it, backed by armed, violent protesters. i don't -- you know, i think -- i think the january 6th committee has been so precise about using each hearing to tie trump to a specific thing, whether it was pressuring mike pence or instigating violence, all of which gets at his intent, his knowledge, the actions he took around that. and there's still some holes around that. i don't think we'll ever get to a place where these hearings are going to change anyone's mind politically, but i do think that ultimately doesn't matter. i think what really matters is whether merrick garland takes action. because if donald trump is not prosecuted for these crimes, and the people around him who helped him pursue them, then you've basically said the president is allowed to be lawless, and the president is allowed to overturn a vote. and so, i think at the end of the day, there's an audience of one for these hearings, and it's merrick garland, and the clock is ticking, because this
committee, i think, will get defense traited in the fall. it looks like the senate might be bluer than we thought, but i think clearly the house will change hands, and i think the republicans will just undermine the work of this committee, start issuing subpoenas against committee members themselves, and try to throw their work into doubt, which is way it's important in the interim for merrick garland to steel up as a prosecutor and for his team to move forward in the way they need to, to protect democracy and the constitution. >> yeah. america's waiting. miles taylor, pete strzok, thank you so much for spending time with us today. tim sticks around. up next for us, here at the table, members of congress calling the gun manufacturers themselves to answer for the rash of devastating mass shootings in the united states of america. themselves to answere rash o
i brought in ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. (sighs) here, i'll take that. ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar. enter powered by protein challenge for a chance to win big. ♪♪ while wayfair is installing your new refrigerator to win big. and hauling away your old one. you're binging the latest true crime drama. while the new double oven you financed is taking care of dinner and desert. you're remembering how to tie a windsor. and while your washer is getting out those grass stains. you're practicing for the big leagues!
for all of life's moments get the brands you trust to get the job done at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ the minions are coming to ihop. with an all new menu you're going to love. ♪ ♪ excuse me! enjoy the minions menu at ihop. for a limited time kids eat free! and catch minions: the rise of gru. and catch minions: the insurance company enwasn't fair.ity y ca i didn't know what my case was worth, so i called the barnes firm. llll theararnes rmrm now the best result possible. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪
i d d so my y quesonons eouout hicacase.y y son, ♪ call one eight hundred, cacalledhehe bars s fillion ♪ i d d soit was the best call eouout hii could've made. call the barnes firm and find out what your case all could be worth.uld've made. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ a significant escalation from lawmakers in washington today in their probe of the firearms industry and the makers of assault rifles used in a wave now of mass shootings across our country. the oversight committee has requested testimony later this month from the ceos of three gun manufacturing companies it says continue to profit from their sales and fail to track or even try to prevent the harm that those weapons have caused and lives taken. ten people in buffalo.
19 children and 2 of their teachers in uvalde. at least seven people in highland park on monday. the chair of the committee, congresswoman carolyn maloney writes, "i'm deeply troubled that gun manufacturers continue to profit from the sale of weapons of war. products sold by your company have been used for decades to carry out homicides and even mass murders, yet your company has continued to market assault weapons to civilians." joining our coverage is errin haines editor-at-large of the 19th, also an msnbc political contributor. tim o'brien is back with us. i read congresswoman maloney's letter and wondered what took them so long. what are your thoughts about this? >> i'm sure other americans had the same question but i think that we are in a moment following uvalde, following buffalo, following highland park this weekend, where people are trying to really build on the momentum that we're seeing
around the outrage around this unrelenting gun violence in our country, and so you know, i think that the questions that representative maloney is raising are questions that should be put to these gun manufacturers in front of the american people. it is certainly reasonable for congress to be asking exactly the questions that she was raising in that letter. >> you know, there is an appetite among the public, tim, for so much more than what has passed and i don't seek to diminish bipartisan legislation, nothing's been done in decades and it's good that they did something. but you've got upwards of 80% of all americans who support universal background checks. you've got upwards of 80% of all americans who support an assault weapons ban. we haven't moved toward doing the things that would actually keep weapons of war out of the would-be mass shooters. >> and that's been going on now for decades. we now know that the manufacturer of the weapon used in the highland park, illinois,
shooting, smith and wesson, may be held to account here. smith and wesson actually tried to work with the clinton administration when the assault weapons ban came in, and they were trying to say, we will be a gun company that tries to get on the right side of policy, and they were shunned by the other gun makers. they were shunned by the gun lobby, and their sales dried up, and a warning was issued two decades ago to any gun manufacturer that tried to get on the right side of policy that we will hurt your bottom line. they're all well aware of that now, and in the decades since, they've engineered federal legislation that protects them from most liability claims. i do think that the most potent forum for resolving this stuff is going to be the courts, because congress isn't going to move the supreme court and the republican party have set up a fortress legally and financially around the gun industry. i was born in highland park, illinois, and i grew up in a neighboring town. we used to go to a movie theater every summer a block away from
where those shootings occurred, and if you had told me that people attending a fourth of july parade would be sniped at from a roof and seven of them would be dead, i never could have imagined that as a teenager. but to combat that, when we have tragedy after tragedy, week after week, and we see it continue to happen, i think there has to be real financial pain that is similar to what was visited on the tobacco industry. >> right. >> and for that to happen, you're going to need local coordination. you're going to need lawyers getting in on the side of this. and you're going to need to have families who have been harmed either directly or indirectly in gun assaults and in murders taking action against the companies in a really robust way, the way the sandy hook families went after remington. >> right, right. >> i don't think you're going to see anything more in congress. the recent legislation was a step forward because nothing had happened for so long, but it's very weak tea. you know, it includes enhanced
background checks. those didn't work in illinois. and it doesn't really stem this -- the problem that we have, which is more civilians now own weapons than the military does. >> that's so sick. >> and the united states is the only country in the developed world that has this kind of a problem. and it's not because of mental illness. it is because of gun proliferation. >> i mean, errin, everything that the right throws up, tucker carlson was talking about women. i think you hear others talk about porn and violence. women, porn and violence exist the world over. we are the only country where on any given day of the week between 4:00 and 6:00, i could be covering a mass shooting in any city in this country. >> yeah, not to mention marijuana use, which is certainly something that happens more in canada than the u.s., but they do not have more shootings than we do, and yet marijuana's also blamed as a
potential factor in what is causing this. look, to tim's point, even people praising the new gun safety law admit it doesn't go far enough, that they didn't get everything that they wanted, but that this was the first new legislation in a generation, and so you know, they don't have to stop there. i certainly don't think that voters who care about this issue are willing to let lawmakers off the hook, especially in this moment. they are wanting them to go further and it sounds like there are at least some democrats that are willing to continue to do more and continue to look at the factors that contribute to gun violence, chief among them are access to these kinds of weapons, which does set us apart from other nations, that we may share other challenges with. look, obviously, this new gun safety law didn't stop highland park, but is the solution really to do nothing in the face of this unrelenting violence? i mean, lawmakers were able to come to the table, they were able to come up with this bipartisan bill that is now law as a start. that doesn't mean that accountability is not still
important, which is why you have the makers of these assault-style weapons testifying before congress so that they do have to answer to the american people. >> errin sticks around. tim o'brien, thank you for being part of our hour today. after the break for us, how abortion restrictions are now making it harder for women to access medication for things like arthritis and cancer. stay with us. access medication for things like arthritis and cancer. stay with us learning that my daughter had a heart attack really shook me.
it brings home how important it is to hold on to the people we love and the things that matter to us. aspirin helps reduce the chance of another heart attack by 31%. your heart isn't just yours. aspirin is not appropriate for everyone, so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.
mississippi was bad five years ago when i started coming here. i never thought roe would be overturned back in '17. poor women disproportionately will be affected. i think i've learned a lot from listening to the protesters scream that they, you know -- that the people that stand here, i mean, these people don't care. this is an act. this is a power struggle. >> it's a provider at the last clinic in mississippi, shutting its doors in the face of the state's near total ban on abortion. it is just one of many consequences of the abortion fight moving to the states now, leaving millions of women in america without access to potentially life-saving healthcare. we're back with errin haines. errin, i want to read you some of the reporting we alluded to. this is about how the new restrictions overturning roe is going to make it more difficult for women as patients of
healthcare, it's already more difficult for us to get cancer and arthritis drugs. soon after she started taking the drug methtrexate in february, jennifer crow noticed a significant improvement. on july 1st, she got an automated call saying her refill hadn't been approved. she was confused by the disruption until she saw on social media that other people were reporting similar denials. methtrexate is sometimes prescribed to perform abortions. we've heard of patients being denied prescriptions simply because they are of child-bearing age, says steven newmark, director of policy at the global healthy living foundation, a nonprofit that supports people with chronic illnesses. other patients have been told they need to go back to their doctor or the pharmacist has to check with the doctor or the doctor is being wary and more
reluctant. there are a million different ways that women will suffer, directly and indirectly, from overturning roe vs. wade. >> absolutely, nicole, and listen, this is only compounding the suffering of those patients for whom this is an this is an consequence, but that doesn't diminish the impact of this in any way. this is an issue that's gotten the attention of our reporter. this has potential impacts to an untold number of people in this country who need this drug to treat illnesses like cancer, as it was mentioned in that story, but also lupus, and arthritis and sorayasis.
we have transmen worried. many live in the south where we know abortion access is going to be limited if not gone. we have a story off montana will the planned parenthood facility there was operating five clinics in the state and they're saying we're not going to provide medication abortions anymore, because we don't know if we can do that without implicating physicians legally for giving medication abortions. so you've got providers scrambling to try to address the ramifications of dobbs, ramifications of people that maybe envisioned this ruling were not even thinking of. >> and whether they were thinking of it or not it's hard to decide which is worse. i want to read some of the 19th reporting on this. when abortion clinton ins close, low income people also lose access to other reproductive care. 1 in 3 women in the united states rely on clinic based
providers including health centers, planned parenthood, or publicly funded clinics to access contraception. according to a 2019 report by the kaiser family foundation. the roe reversal caught up with inwhichics before they could come up with a contingency plan. this is where we are, erin. >> that's exactly right. you've got those clinics, they're not able to necessarily direct somebody to the next state over who think, well, abortion care is still accessible. no, if that state has a trigger law, telling people to make an appointment in that state, it's a moot point, because by the time they get an appointment they may not be able to get an abortion in that state. contraception is not the only thing that those types of patients were getting at clinics like those. they were also getting compassion, empathy. i was listening to a story corps
animation that i encourage people to watch today birk a caregiver at that facility in jackson. when she was 16 years old, she found herself and with the support of her family was able to have her son, raise him with the help of her family, but never forgot the experience of having this pregnancy that was unplanned and being scared as a teenager. so after she retires decades later, she goes and works at that same facility. and what she does is she puts her arm around those families who have the option of making a choice that she didn't have when she found herself pregnant as a teenager all those years ago. her lied experience and what she was able to bring to that clinic for women and marginalized folks who were needing services, health-care services, an
abortion or whatever, being there for patients is something that goes away. >> harrowing experience being female in america. quick break for us. we'll be right back. e being female in america. quick break for us quick break for us we'll be right back. quick break for us we'll be right back. finding my way forward with node-positive breast cancer overwhelming at times. but i never just found my way, i made it. so when i finished active therapy, i kept moving forward and did everything i could to protect myself from recurrence. verzenio is the first treatment in over 15 years to reduce the risk of recurrence for adults with hr-positive,
her2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer with a high chance of returning, as determined by your doctor when added to hormone therapy. hormone therapy works outside the cell while verzenio works inside to help stop the growth of cancer cells. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an antidiarrheal, and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain, and rapid breathing or heart rate, or if you are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. i'm making my way forward, my way with verzenio. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. a monster was attacking but the team remained calm. because with miro, they could problem solve together,
and find the answer that was right under their nose. or... his nose. [ cheers and applause ] i love that. that was president joe biden awarding our nation's highest civilian honor, the presidential medal of freedom to wilma vott, one of the most decorated women in the history of the united states military. she wasn't the only hero honored in today's ceremony. there were 17 in all. you will surely recognize more than a now of the names. simone biles, gabby gifford, luminaries of freedom and
excellence. truly deserving. it is encouraging. there are still so many people in our country who get the limelight for one day. something deserving. somebody to be proud of for all of us. quick break. we'll be right back. proud o that can scale across all your clouds... we got that right? yeah, we got that. it's easier to be an innovator. of us. quick break. we'll be right back.
riders! let your queries be known. yeah, hi. instead of letting passengers wrap their arms around us, could we put little handles on our jackets? -denied. -can you imagine? i want a new nickname. can you guys start calling me snake? no, bryan. -denied. -how about we all get quotes to see if we can save with america's number one motorcycle insurer? approved. cool! hey, if bryan's not gonna be snake, can i be snake? -all: no.
thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. we are grateful. "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. >> hi, nicole. i'm ari melber. happy to be back at work and with you tonight. my thanks while a took a vacation to recharge. you do need a full battery amid the news we have been living through, including more breakthroughs in the investigation into trump's -- the january 6th committee has been compelling new cooperation from a pivotal witness, and just to begin tonight, to get a sense of how large and significant this break through