tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC July 29, 2022 12:00am-1:00am PDT
and on that critically important note, i wish you all a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late with us, and i will see you at the end of tomorrow. >> tonight on all in -- pompeo, many, chen mulvaney. come on down. >> where you asked to comment or did you volunteer to come in? tonight, the snowball effect of testimony as trump's cabinet goes and for committee interviews. new questions about the cooperation of mark meadows and congressman jamie raskin on the agreement to begin the transfer of evidence to the department of justice. and how build back better took a sudden detour down the country roads of west virginia. >> joe manchin caved. >> the manchin. betrayal >> obviously a double crossed by joe manchin. >> he flip-flopped like a catfish.
senator brian schatz on how manchin saved us all. >> this bill would be the most significant legislation in history to tackle the climate crisis. >> all in starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes well the dominoes continues to fall and ongoing investigation into generous. mick mulvaney, who held several positions in trump's administration, including chief of, staff testified before the general six committee. during his time as chief of staff, mulvaney played a key role in the ex presidents corrupt plot to hijack american foreign policy, as part of the quid pro quo bribe to aid his campaign by manufacturing dirt on his opponents. that was of course the subject of donald trump's first impeachment. and in the final months of the trump administration, after he was ousted as chief of, stuff
mulvaney serves a special envoy from northern ireland, he jumped off the trump train at the last second, resigning from the post in the wake of the insurrection on january 6th. since then, mulvaney has tried to remake himself as a straight shooting news analyst. he's been closely following the committee's investigation. he recently praised the guilty verdict in steve bannon's content of congress case, quote, there is no argument that that could never have had a executive privilege. and as he arrives at the capitol for his interview this afternoon, mulvaney told abc news that he was there by his own volition, and plan to speak truthfully. >> i just wanted to ask, what do you plan on telling the committee today? >> the truth, how about that for? start >> and where you asked to come in or did you volunteer? >> i came in. we subpoena or no?
>> i just was asked to come in. >> this comes as we're learning there is another trump official -- abc news reports that treasury secretary stephen mnuchin sat down for a transcribed interview. mnuchin's testimony could be particularly interesting since he was reportedly involved in those discussions about the policy ability of invoking the 25th amendment as a vehicle to remove trump from office, in the wake of january 6th. so, it certainly seems like committee vice chair liz cheney was correct when she said the dam is breaking at the last hearing. >> in the course of these hearings, we have received new evidence, and new witnesses have bravely stepped forward. efforts to litigate and overcome immunity and executive privilege claims have been successful and those continue. doors have opened, new subpoenas have been issued, and the dam has begun to break. >> now when i think when you see mulvaney are mnuchin, testify, are some ways to react to this. the committee is making progress, they are investigating, it is really the case, they have picked up
momentum from all the testimony they revealed over the course of those eight public hearings. the other reaction i had was frustration. i mean how are these people just talking to the committee now? people like nick mulvaney and steve mnuchin, how could they have sat back silently fighting? months they could've reached out of their own volition,? right to the committee, affirmatively, until them with knew they did not. this infuriating as it, is it actually demonstrates the way the strategy the committee has used to get to the truth is working as intended. committee understood from the beginning there are never gonna get the truth from those of trump world based on the feeling of civic or patriotic duty. but they could probably eventually get to the truth if those people felt accommodation of fear and defying the committee, and an incentive to tell their side of the story so that someone else aside was not heard. it's a strategy often used in cases against the mob or terror cells, you start with lower level people, you work your way up to the leaders. the january 6th committee hired
some people with those backgrounds, investigators and attorneys, who investigated crime, terrorism cryptocurrency, and federal prosecutors. and as the new york times reported back in february, they have been borrowing the techniques and played aggressive tigers typically used against mobsters and terrorists. committees also employed o'donnell's tech tactic that bob woodward, our famous of using. think about this, way if there are five people in the meeting at the white house, in administration you just need to to get the account of one of them. once the other four find out that that one person has spoken well suddenly, they will want to tell you there were count two. because they don't wanna let another recount stand that might make them look bad. former clinton advisor, george stephanopoulos, wrote about what it's like to be subjected to the quote, woodwork treatment. quote, he flashes a glimpse of what he knows, shaded in a largely negative light, with a hint of more to come, setting up a series of prisoners dilemmas in which each prospective source faces a choice. do you cooperate and elaborate in return, you hope, for
learning more and earning a better portrayal -- for your boss and yourself? or do you call his bluff? if no one talks, there is no book. but someone, then everyone, always talks. as the january six committee has been doing the work using these tactics, we've seen a group of people rushed to talk. rushed to the microphones. to declare themselves part of team normal. they want to go on the record for reputational reasons. to show themselves in the most positive light possible. and as distorted and in completed as team normal, actually is, we've talked about that, these people who are going to the committee to let them know that they weren't in the coup camp, they're actually providing materially useful information. for instance, pat cipollone. a long holdout, but his name came up enough times in public hearings. and then there was this direct public entreaty from vice chair liz cheney. >> the american people have not yet heard from mr. trump's former white house counsel, pat cipollone. our committee is certain that
donald trump does not want mr. cipollone to testify here. indeed, our evidence shows that mr. cipollone and his office tried to do what was right. they tried to stop a number of president trump's plans for january 6th. we think the american people deserve to hear from mr. cipollone personally. he should appear before this committee and we are working to secure his testimony. >> i remember watching that and thinking, that's an interesting gambit. i'm not sure that's going to work. but it kind of did. the committee did finally subpoena pat cipollone and the last month, and then he spoke to the committee about a week later. and then, after cassidy hutchinson's bombshell testimony, bennie thompson made an even more forceful appeal to reluctant witnesses. >> i want to speak directly to the handful of witnesses who have been outliers in our investigation. those small number who have defied us out right.
those whose memories have failed them, again, and again, on the most important details and to those who fear donald trump and his enablers, because of this courageous woman and others like her, your attempt to hide the truth from the american people will fail. and to that group of witnesses, if you heard this testimony today and suddenly you remember things that you could not previously recall, or there are some details that you would like to clarify, or you discovered some courage you had hidden away somewhere, our doors remain open. >> you discover some courage you had hidden away somewhere. that's a great line. after that appeal, according to committee member, adam kinzinger, some people did answer that call. >> every day we get new people
to come forward and say, hey, i did not think that maybe this piece of the story that i knew was important, but now that you guys -- i do see this plays in here. >> when you work from the bottom up, as this committee, has some people from the lower levels know a lot, like cassidy hutchinson. she was willing to step in the stoplight and tell the world what she knew and made a lot of people look bad. and all of a sudden, a lot of those people wanted to get their accounts on record. the administers and on trump has maintained a sort of code of silence among his circle, preventing their increase from ever getting steam. but right, now in this investigation, that does not seem to be working. congressman jamie raskin is a democrat of maryland and sits on the january 6th committee. congressman, first, let me just ask you about your understanding of what appears to be considerable momentum even many months into this of cooperating witnesses and what is driving it. >> it's like a waterfall of truth at this point. just as there was a dynamic of
lies and deception by donald trump, starting with the big lie, we have turned that around and when you have more than 1000 witnesses coming in and telling you what had happened, it's the tiny handful of people who are either lying or refusing to participate who begin to feel very nervous about the situation because we're filling in all the details of what took place. so i would agree exactly with the various dynamics that you identified. i would add one more which is that a number of people out there have seen trump's loyalists say certain things, for example, i remember when jared kushner was asked about the threat of putts baloney to resign back and he said,
essentially, he chalk that up to whinning on his part. and that could not have been addreared to pat cipollone who had not testified yet. so they're basically seeing the way this tiny group of people circling the wagons around donald trump, and they're willing to throw everyone else under the bus. >> i think it was questioners they were always threatening with his and i was just focusing on the pardons. there are few, people does one prominent individual i want to play this real quickly -- because our suspicions, look, i think people have a duty to tell the. truth i also think there is the authority of a committee which is a question of whether people are coming voluntarily or subpoenaed. mike pompeo who was not directly i think involved for as far as i know, in the run up of january, six or the runner-up, at a apparently was involved in the 25th amendment discussions. here's what he had to say about his back and forth with the committee earlier. take a listen. >> can you confirm that you have been talking with the january six committee? >> we have had discussions with
them about potentially appearing before them, making sure we understand what it is they are asking for. as i always did when i was in service to america, i am happy to cooperate with things that are fair and transparent and deliver good outcomes to the american people. >> so today, you are a no? >> i'm testify -- we're trying to figure a way. i wanna make sure the american people get the full story of the things that happened in the trump administration. >> i don't really know what to make of that. how should i understand that answer? >> well, i think that there is a rapid flight away from donald trump -- i think most people can read the writing on the wall, that he's going to end up isolated and shamed, and embarrassed, and people don't want to be in his company at that point. so i think more and more of them may want to just establish some kind of objective factual record about where they were in
these events. obviously, everyone's got to think about his or her own reputation when you are in the neighborhood of someone like donald trump. >> there are some significant holdouts to subpoenas. so some of them have been referred, some of them have not been referred. i speak of course of colleagues of yours who have been subpoenaed. kevin mccarthy, scott perry, jim, jordan andrey, and moe brooks. all of, them to very, degrees sometimes and, reporting sometimes in public record because of what they actually said, involved with promoting the big lie, involved meetings and possible strategies of january six to overturn the election, where is the committee? how are you thinking through the profound sort of constitutional questions about what to do with your own colleagues, noncompliance, with congressional committee subpoena? >> again, we're calling on everybody to do his or her civic duty, his or her legal duty, his or her patriotic duty,
and come forward and tell the truth. to the extent that people are still recalcitrant and refusing the authority of congress, then we have to consider whatever options are available to us. obviously, we don't want to go on the wild goose chase of a lot of litigation with people, we have little time left. but we're still urging them to come forward and, with members of congress, there's the possibility of going outside, there is also the possibility of staying inside congress, and using the processes that we have available to people that are not living up to their responsibilities. >> final question for you, it's about news today about a deal, a template deal struck, i think, between the department of justice on the committee. now this has been a source of some conflict, some tension, some i think resentment, as
least as how it's bubbled out, a formal path to share material with the doj. the chair said today -- how important is that? >> i think it's important that we have a working relationship, which is an arms length relationship, obviously where they're able to request of us the things that they want. and the things that they think are necessary. the closer we get to the end of our work, the easier it is for us to do that. but, we obviously have been able to tell a pretty comprehensive story to the american people and congress, because we have not turned over facts to other avenues where they could get out. >> interesting. congressman jamie raskin, thank you for your time tonight, i appreciate it. >> thank you for having me, chris.
(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam.
and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪
at xfinity, we're constantly innovating. and we're working 24/7 to connect you to more of what you love. we're bringing you the nation's largest gig speed network. available to more homes than anyone else. and with xfi complete, get 10x faster upload speeds. tech upgrades for your changing wifi needs. and advanced security at home and on the go to block millions of threats. only from us... xfinity. >> there was a time in the
that vice president mike pence to overturn the election and his ministerial role on that day, on the six, on the capitol, there was also the fake elector scheme, which was an effort from republicans in seven states, won by joe biden to kind of meet with their own group of people saying, they are electors and sign documents, and send them to the capitol on the six. now, thanks to previously undisclosed emails obtained by the new york times, it's clear than ever that those two plots actually part of a unified coup plot. and arizona lawyer working with the trump campaign wrote to a campaign adviser saying, quote, we would just be sending in fake electoral votes to pence so that someone in congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the fake votes should be counted. the times has an incredibly new piece putting the full scheme into context. one of the reporters behind that explainer kenny benner, investigator for the new york times. so give me your version of the one minute description of what the fake elector plot was.
>> sure, this is a bizarrely complicated plot. but at the end of the, day there are people who are close to donald trump who they understood in 1960, during the nixon and kennedy election there, had been an alternate slate of electors submitted to congress by kennedy just in case this very tight recount -- in hawaii, flipped, and in fact eternal john kennedy had one. so what happened there was an alternative slate of electors submitted, and at the end of the day because the recount went to kennedy, nixon himself was presiding over the senate in this in his ministerial, role he decided to submit the slate of electors for kennedy because that was who actually won that recount. now, what trump's allies decided set a really important precedent that you could have an alternate slate of electors teed up just in case something happened with recounts in critical swing states they
identify several they felt that if they flip for trump, trump could win the election. and they're a couple of avenues that this could take, most importantly they feel they could submit the slates of alternative electors and -- circumstances by which these electors would actually be submitted later on. >> so we should just be clear here that there is a key distinction, which is that in 1960, that hawaii recount was actually super close -- really, really. close, exactly like one of those florida situations, right? florida in 2000. and that it was not yet completed. so there was this genuine uncertainty that hangs over the whole process. in this case, that's just not the case in these states. particularly in a place like michigan. it was a huge margin in michigan. but, you know, by the -- when you're talking about close states, tens of thousands of votes. >> right, and of course, what was happening is that, you saw trump's allies using a variety of methods to try to get those states to recount their votes,
including pushing claims of election fraud that the justice department officials said that were completely untrue. we saw justice department officials trying to control his superiors and sending letters to georgia claiming that was fraud, that they should have a special state election convene -- convene a special session of their states legislature, in order to try to figure out whether or not to push through, again, an alternate slate of electors. so you're completely right they were not waiting for a close recall they were trying to create the circumstances that would allow them to have some officially submit the trump electors. and when they could not do, that they thought maybe mike pence could use his ministerial role, or actually, abuse it and reject the bidens slates out of hand. >> that's where the to come together. and you really see it -- i think that email, which is kind of a remarkable document, later the same lawyer, i believe, said, we should probably use alternate electors
rather than fake electors, it sounds better. this is where you see the two potsdam together. because ultimately, in the 1960 example, again, that wasn't actually good faith playing out of the system, nixon and his ministerial role says, actually, this hawaii one is correct, we have the results. here it's like, if we kick up enough dust and you sort of throw the stuff against the wall, then mike pence will be like, oh, either, i'm ruling for the trump electors, which would be the full coup attempt, or basically say, say we will kick it back to the house or send it to the state. that's where creating this kind of uncertainty with a fake electors then can it gets passed over to pence for pretext to do one thing that he didn't really have constitutional authority to do. >> and you saw pence's own lawyers and advisers telling the trump campaign, telling trump's allies, this was completely illegal. we saw many people telling trump and his allies this was completely illegal. it's interesting you bring up that line about congress because, at the time, at the same time that all of this was happening, trump's allies were really pressing members of
congress, especially in the senate, to join trump's allies in the house to object to the electoral count. they were actually scenes trying to t - up members of congress to create that objection. >> and then there was a sort of final question about the investigation at the department of justice. it is striking to me that this aspect of the investigation seems to have gotten quite far, we know there are subpoenas, there's even arizona lawmakers who are part of this. why -- it does seem like there is a fairly clear, colorable claim for a crime if you submit a document that is swearing to a thing that is just not true, which all these people did. >> yes, that is against the law which is one of the reasons why the department can address that active potential criminality. and look at all the people who are involved. and we also saw -- we don't know what the justice department is doing on this front. we've seen a couple of different moments where we've seen donald trump himself tied
very explicitly to this plot, where he himself was actually working on it, particularly when rusty bowers testified in front of the agenda a six committee, where trump told him called him and asked them to do. this and then bowers refused because he said it was against his oath of office and he would not. >> that is a great point, that is new testimony that we got that shows that it was directly coming from the individual, donald trump himself, and trying to further this, all though stymied by bowers. katie benner, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> still ahead embarrass they got outmaneuvered by chuck schumer, they lash out at sick veterans, plus the doj has phone records, so, just how much trouble is trump's chief of staff in? next. next
atat t bararnefirmrm, our r inry a attneysys wk hahard i could've made. atat t bararnefirmrm, to get you the best result possible. call us now and find out what your case could be worth. you u mit bebe sprisised >> what's the deal with donald ♪ the barnes firm injury attorneys ♪ ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ trump's chief of staff mark meadows? we know he's subpoenaed by the january six committee, back in september of 2021. 12 months, later and, november chairman bennie soon announced that he was gonna cooperate with the committee. he handed over approximately 9000 pages of records, including text messages leading up to the january 6th attack. and, then all of a sudden, following month, meadow stopped cooperating with the, committee refused to give deposition. that month, the house -- department of justice that the department of justice held a
contempt, to charge, and the way they did with bannon. we now know from the washington post who spoke to two people familiar with the matter, that in april of this year, quote justice department investigators received phone records of key officials and aides in the trump administration, including his former chief of staff, mark meadows. and then last, month the doj announced they are not charging meadows for contempt. so, what is going on here? could it be that mark meadows is cooperating with doj and that's what resolves these weird contradictions? woodruff swan is a national correspondent for politico, mariano -- of federal prosecutor and an analyst of -- ronaldo, let me start with, you let me start with the pattern as someone who worked as a prosecutor and department of justice, what it looks like from the outside, had to make sense of this so much strange set of facts around mark meadows? >> i think mark meadows definitely tried, in the beginning, to start cooperating
with the committee in hopes of avoiding the faith that steve bannon has faced. and there was a very orchestrated plan to try to make it difficult to the justice department to prosecute him. since that time, my sense is that he has been carefully evaluating the situation, and considering whether or not there is a potential case against him. whether or not it does make sense too cooperate, if ultimately, he thinks the doj can make a case against him, of course he's going to cooperate. the reality is, he is truly loyal to trump, but he is loyal to himself, first and foremost. >> we have this rolling stone reporting from a few weeks ago in which trump's inner circle increasingly views meadows as the fall guy. members of his legal team are actually planning certain strategies around meadows downfall, including possible criminal charges. betsy, what's your
understanding of the meadow situation in total? how have we ended up at this point in which meadows was cooperating, he wasn't, he hasn't been referred, doj has his phone records. >> i think it all comes down to the fact that meadows has a very, very, very, very seasoned criminal defense lawyer, who is one of the most senior justice department officials during the prior administration who's been a fixture of washington crisis and legal crisis management for many years. and he just knows how to handle these types of situations to the best -- to the most strategic way possible. and that's in the case of meadows, where he was able to kind of satisfy everyone. we have folks like members of select comittee the former stuff -- meadows was their star witness, even though he withheld ulcers of things that they wanted really badly.
public comments like that are the sort of remarks that make doj maybe think two, three, or four times about charging someone with contempt. the other piece to remember is that it's likely there was some very deep sighs of relief in the biden white house counsel office when the doj declined to charge meadows. that's because the house is more likely than not, we don't know but more likely than not to look to republicans. when republicans do take the house, they're gonna do exactly what democrats are doing right now to mark meadows. and if doj set a precedent, that even a white house chief of staff, or former white house chief of staff, is not off limits for congress, it just would've resulted in dramatically higher levels of anxiety, shall we say, in the current west wing. >> that's an interesting point although i do think the former here is legally relevant. the nature of the -- the privilege claims are about the need to get advice, and that's the sort of realtime thing. it's not post facto, necessarily. >> well it's not identical, but
it would've been a big step closer. what i think that i find very weird, is doj declining to charge dan scavino. we've had hours, and, hours and hours of congressional testimony. the select committee has revealed so much material from so many senior white house officials, indicating that they got cooperations from all sorts of folks. it's been crickets in terms of any video footage, or any emails from scavino himself. very different from the level of cooperation, at least, that is publicly known regarding meadows. and doj still chose not to charge him. that's the piece that i find to be even a little bit more of a head-scratcher here, in terms of the way the justice department is handling this. >> that is a really great point that i had not even thought about until you raised it and i forgot about the scavino part of this. it's also the case -- we've seen people like flynn, for instance, and they've played this i think to kind of embarrass him, justifiably so,
you can come in and just plead the fifth and everything. that's basically what he's been doing, has what jeffrey clark did. it's wet flynn apparently chose to do, even pleading the fifth and the question of do you believe in the peaceful transfer of power in american politics. but on the privilege question, renato, there are reportings tonight the doj's preparing their lawyers to sort of go at this in terms of subpoenas for witnesses and documents relevant to the criminal inquiry that is happening right now. what do you make of that, how big a hurdle is that going to be? the committee obviously has had to wrestle with, that they don't have the firepower doj does. >> i think that is a very different situation. in a grand jury circumstance, much, much easier for the doj to overcome executive privilege then it is for a congressional committee, and in fact, there is very solid precedent at that point from the clinton era. so i think the doj is likely to -- i'm not sure that the pence witnesses are all that adverse
to doj on this point. in other words, i wouldn't be surprised if the sources of these new york times, washington post articles recently weren't the pence witnesses, or their attorneys, pence and trump i think are at odds right now, i would be surprised if they are actually happy to provide testimonies on the doj gives them the offer. >> i think that's a totally defensible intuition. the question is, the next set of witnesses, if they want to go to cipollone and folks like that, they're gonna have to overcome. betsy woodruff swan, renato, thank you both. coming, up senate under democrats pull a legislative fast run on republicans. republicans exacted revenge by screwing sick veterans. not making it up. the truly incredible sequence of events, next.
what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner.
in the next second, fourteen families will decide... that's it. we're getting a bigger house! finally. but we got to sell this place. before we buy the next place. and then, in the meantime. so, how long are you staying? emily no! ooh a little cramped. i am cpap man. that is not a toy! or skip the in-laws. sell and buy your house with confidence with opendoor. move when you're ready. that's it. indeed. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house. >> the huge inflation reduction
act, climate deal was announced yesterday, generally good for a whole bunch of reasons. one of them, though by no means the most important, just being the sheer politics involved. let's take a moment with that, republicans got badly outmaneuvered by the democrats. badly. it all started last month. democrats revived negotiations on a long stalled climate and social spending package that would also reduce health care costs that would only need 50 votes to pass. this is the reconciliation vehicle. there were 50, votes it was sort of dead, and more,
abundant of bringing it back. they wanted to get it done. in response, mitch mcconnell said, oh, well then if you do that, i am going to block this bipartisan bill we all agree on, which will increase domestic production of computer parts, particularly microchips. then, democratic senator joe manchin appeared to, once again, for like the tenth time, kill the democrats build back better deal on his own. lots of headlines announcing that it was kaput, a lot of anger, rage directed at mansion direct from democrats and people who care about the climate. ultimately, mitch mcconnell got his wish. he threatened that democrats, if you revive, this i will block this bill, and the democrats, joe manchin killed it. so republicans thought they won. yesterday, the senate passed the computer chip bill, called the chips bill. broad bipartisan support, 64 to 33. then, just four hours later, senate democrat leader chuck schumer and senator manchin announced, surprise, a new climate and social spending
plan. that will increase green energy subsidies, close taxes loop holes for the wealthy, and lower the cost of prescription drugs, among other provisions. genuinely very good, and surprising, and republicans were furious. >> how did a get followed stop? was it misfired by mcconnell, what happened there? >> well it was obviously a double cross by joe manchin. just two weeks ago, he said he wasn't going to support a bill like this, but you know, laura, he's been saying for months, he would not support so many of the provisions in this bill. he's called them gimmicks or smoking mirrors budgeting. but, now he's going to apparently support all of them. >> a double crossed by joe manchin. poor tom cotton. mcconnell said he would block the chips bill if democrats started negotiating a new build back better plans. they waited right after the chips bill passed and then announced, in, secret they had a new plan. republicans were not happy.
they threw a temper tantrum. but here's the crazy part of the story. so they're all, angry they feel like they got played, so they're looking around with their anger. who do they take it out on. and what they did was, i'm not making this up, they decided to punish u.s. war vets suffering the aftereffects of toxic fumes. because there's another bipartisan bill they're gonna vote on yesterday. broadly bipartisan, the republicans blocked. they blocked a bill to help with health care for veterans who were exposed to cancer causing toxic fumes in iraq and afghanistan that came from burning piles of waste, known as burn pits. it's a bill, i might add that was not controversial, it previously passed the senate with 83 votes just last month. it had to be voted again because there were some re-writes. so, again, republicans get played, they are so mad at democrats, they just went out there on to the floor and they blocked this bill. screw you. a bill that provided much-needed bipartisan support health care for veterans suffering the effects of burn pits.
and then, republican celebrated. just watch this video, republican senators ted cruz of texas and steve daines of montana, this dumping on the senate floor. steve daines, no vote was being read. we will show them, those vets whose lungs have the effects of toxic fumes they inhaled while fighting our wars! truly shameless stuff. today, television host john stewart, who has been a champion on this issue, for the vets that are fighting for this legislation, the burn pit legislation, was at the capitol. listen to what he said. >> every minute of delay, is a minute that a veteran who fought for this country and their families, and their caregivers, suffer and die. how are these people human? where is any sense of decency? from any of them? 42 republican senators -- >> today was supposed to be a celebration.
we are so many veterans here in d. c.. >> it just makes the gut punch that much more devastating. it's that these people all came down here so that they can finally tell the men -- their constituents are dying. and they're gonna get it done at recess? tell their cancer to take a recess. tell their cancer to stay home and go visit their families. this is a disgrace. if this is america first, america is [bleep] >> it is a disgrace. and john stewart will be joining my colleague, mehdi hasan, to share more of his thoughts on that. the democrats announced a plan of popular provisions. they responded that -- republicans responded by blocking a bill on veterans who can cancer and other illnesses. mitch mcconnell and his republicans chose peak over
people. supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.
>> the one crucial must pass piece of legislation, the democratic party, indeed for the planet, as democrats control the presidency and congresses, a climate bill that will get the country on track to meeting its emissions goals per the paris climate agreement. it's looked like for a long time that that was not going to happen. largely because democratic senator joe manchin, west virginia, a coal state wouldn't
say yes. surprisingly, all that changed about 24 hours ago and manchin himself along with chuck schumer announced a compromise with fellow democrats on and inflation brick deduction act, that has a huge climate provision. and there's some good stuff in there, including 370 billion dollars for clean energy and energy security, and centers electric vehicle productions. and electric vehicle factories $30 million in tax credits to accelerate, this is really key, production of solar panels, when turbines, batteries, and middle processing. now, it's not over until it's over. we don't know if it's going to pass. and we've been here before, likely more times than i care to admit. but if this bill passes, it will be, i think, the most significant climate legislation in american history. the big question i have, is the democratic chair of this senate in the special committee of the climate crisis as surprised as we were. luckily, this person is here tonight.
what do you know, how did this happen? >> we never gave up. we were obviously very frustrated at the announcement. i think was about two weeks ago that the deal was dead. but almost immediately after that, we started to get some signs of life again. of course, senator manchin was pretty public about high i have not left the table even though it sounded as though he had but i took him at his word and we kept talking and they were very good about not letting anybody know, including me, that joe and chuck schumer were talking. i had a better inkling the most the deal was not completely dead. but i can't tell you that i was terribly optimistic. i told my staff, i gave us a 20% chance of passing something, but that's because i'm an endless optimist. that's my infliction. but yesterday afternoon, i come
out of an indian affairs hearing, i turned off my phone, and i went, is this real? they kept it under wraps really nicely. i wasn't in touch with manchin and schumer pretty much daily, but over the last 48, 72 hours, they got real silent, and i couldn't tell if that was bad news or good news. >> that is a wild story, actually, that they kept it that close. i have felt, from my own perspective, that you sort of grade these two years of unified democratic control, pass fail, and if you pass climate legislation, that gets on target to the paris emission goals, you pass. and if you don't you fail. it's a failure. like, i truly believe that. and i thought you guys were headed towards failure. all of us, since we all have a stake in this, because we all live on the planet. how -- what is your grade on this? >> on this bill? i think it's like an a minus. if i could've written it myself, it would be twice as big, and there would be other things,
but from an emissions reduction standpoint, think of it this way, this gives us 40% of the way to the -- to our targets. a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030. so sometimes, when you do emissions reductions target, you put it way out in the future because you don't know how you're gonna get there, and it could set a high lofty goal, and not live up to. it's so 40% of our way to the 50% goal. the previous bill that had died last year that we used to call build back better, only got us 45% of the way there. so, this is slightly worse, but not a ton wears. most of the heavy lifting from the emissions reduction standpoint is the investment tax credit, and the production tax credit for wind and solar, and all these investments in clean energy manufacturing are gonna be really key because we now all understand supply chains are going to be everything in the next couple of decades. not just for clean energy, but for our economy overall.
so we have to build our own domestic supplies for the necessary minute materials, and the ability to manufacture these things. and, most of these jobs are going to be high paying union jobs. >> there's some concern a little bit, just, quickly about that. there's provisions that for instance, i think the tax credits only apply to things that are like batteries, and the minerals from which are not coming from china and russia. there is a little worried that those constraints will make it difficult to live up to the promise here. what do you think about that? >> i think it's a challenge going forward, i think we had this difficulty with the fact that the polysilica and, coming from china, and manufactured in southeast asia, we weren't sure if it was in compliance with the laws that we have now in terms of human rights. so all of these supply chains are going to have to get sorted out and i can't promise you we will never have any glitches, but that's the thing, it's a 370 billion dollar investment.
it literally changing the way the economy works for the better. that is going to upend some things. but mostly, in a positive way. and, as you know, chris, the planet is on fire. we have no choice at all. >> senator brian schatz, i agree. thank you very much for making time tonight. >> thank you. thank you that is "all in" on this thursday night. msnbc "prime" starts right now withar mehdi hasan. good evening. >> good evening, chris. thank you so much. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. in a few minutes, i will be joined live by none other than j ox n stewart the legendary comedian and former host of "the daily show" in washington today and blisters criticism for republican senators who just blocked a bill that would help veterans exposed to toxic burn pits while deployed overseas. they apparently blocked it out of spite, despite voting for it overwhelming just last month. jon stewart has been a fierce advocate on this issue and he was hopping mad today. you will not want to miss what he has to say that. is coming up.