Updated
Summary
Are Secret Service text messages from on January 6 and the day before gone for good? The January 6 Committee prepares for a prime-time hearing on Thursday. An attorney for the doctor who helped end the pregnancy of a raped 10-year-old girl speaks out. A video of a costumed employee at Sesame Place giving the cold shoulder to two black girls goes viral. Outraged community members in Uvalde demand action and accountability from their leaders. Mark Leibovich discusses his new book, “Thank You for Your Servitude: Donald Trump`s Washington and the Price of Submission.”
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: So, connect with me there.
And thanks for spending time with us here on “THE BEAT”.
THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID is up next.
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on THE REIDOUT:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I have to say that statement that we saw from the Secret Service that, basically, there were messages lost, but none of that pertain to what we`re investigating, I don`t know how, if they`re lost, you can draw that conclusion with such confidence.
So something doesn`t seem quite right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: In a nod to the erased Watergate tapes, Secret Service text messages on January 6 and the day before are gone for good.
Plus, what we know about that 187 minutes that Trump did nothing to stop the violence on January 6 and what more we might learn at Thursday`s prime- time hearing.
Also, tonight, I will be joined by the attorney for the doctor who was defamed by Indiana`s attorney general for doing her job, ending the pregnancy of a raped 10-year-old girl.
And this is just too awful to ignore, a viral video of a costumed employee at Sesame Place giving the cold shoulder to two adorable black girls. Now others are coming forward to say it happened to them too.
We begin tonight with what those in charge of protecting the president might be protecting themselves, with growing questions over deleted text messages from agents on the day of the insurrection, as the January 6 Committee collects additional evidence ahead of Thursday`s prime-time hearing.
NBC News has learned that the Secret Service said it has no new text messages related to the attack to hand over. “The Washington Post” first reported the development, knowing that any other texts that agents exchanged around the time of the attack on the Capitol were purged. In other words, potential real-time communications of agents in contact with the former president on that day are likely gone forever.
The wiped messages were disclosed last week by the Department of Homeland Security inspector general. Now, the Secret Service has denied the text messages were deleted maliciously, but as part of a system reset, apparently lost in migration.
Committee members Stephanie Murray described the Secret Service`s actions to the great Nicolle Wallace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FL): Their process, as explained to us, was simply to leave it to the agents to determine whether or not there was anything on their phones worth saving that was necessary to save for federal records.
And, as a result, today, they have — they did not receive any texts from their agents when they made that transition that was flagged for preservation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Murphy said the Secret Service would continue to explore additional ways to secure the subpoenaed text messages.
For its part, in a statement, the Secret Service spokesman says the agency continues to be fully cooperative with the January 6 Select Committee, noting that the agency delivered an initial set of documents and records in response to last week`s subpoenas.
That includes documents, as well as he could serve as cell phone use and other policies, as well as operational and planning records. Today, the National Archives called on the Secret Service to investigate the potential unauthorized deletion of texts.
The Secret Service has 30 days to explain what was deleted and how it was lost. A spokesman for the Secret Service said it will cooperate with that request.
Now, all this comes as the committee is preparing for more bombshell testimony in Thursday`s prime-time hearing. It will proceed as scheduled without committee Chair Bennie Thompson, who has tested positive with COVID.
We wish him a speedy recovery.
The hearing is expected to focus on Trump`s 187 minutes of inaction during the attack on the Capitol and will feature new testimony from two former Trump administration officials, former Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews and former Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Pottinger, who both resigned in the aftermath of the attack.
In her deposition, Matthews recalled the effort to get the former president to make a statement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We had all talked about — at that point about how it was bad and the situation was getting out of hand.
We thought that the president needed to tweet something, and tweet something immediately. We all got a notification. So we knew it was a tweet from the president. And we looked down, and it was a tweet about Mike Pence.
It was clear that it was escalating, and escalating quickly.
RIOTERS: Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!
MATTHEWS: The situation was already bad. And so it felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Meanwhile, Matthew Pottinger said the former president`s tweet at 2:24 p.m. on January 6, attacking Vice President Mike Pence was the turning point for him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW POTTINGER, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The tweet said something to the effect that Mike Pence, the vice president, didn`t have the courage to do what he — what should have been done.
[19:05:07]
I read that tweet and made a decision at that moment to resign. That`s where I knew that I was leaving that day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Joining me now is also Asawin Suebsaeng, senior politics reporter for “Rolling Stone,” Charles Coleman Jr., a civil rights attorney and former prosecutor, and Juanita Tolliver, Democratic strategist and MSNBC political analyst.
Thank you all for being here.
I want to start with the Secret Service situation, Asawin, because it is just fishy to me. And there`s a history here. One of my great producers pulled this piece from Carol Leonnig. And she`s reporting about the history of the Secret Service of losing critical records.
And here`s what Carol Leonnig wrote: “The Secret Service has had a history of important record disappearing under cover of night, and agency staff members refusing to cooperate. When a congressional committee was investigating assassinations and assassination attempts, it sought boxes of records that reportedly showed the Secret Service received ample evidence, ample advanced warnings and threats before President John F. Kennedy`s death that white supremacists and other organizations were plotting to kill Kennedy using high-powered rifles from tall buildings.
“The Secret Service told investigators that records had been destroyed” — wait for it — “as part of a normal culling of old archives days after investigators had requested them.”
So, just as a journalist, do these denials of nothing being fishy, nothing to see here, how do those ring with you?
ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, “ROLLING STONE”: Well, the situation, at the very least, right now does not look good at all.
And — but just to back it up for a moment in terms of what Donald Trump, while he was president demanded of his own Secret Service detail. Here`s what we know, based on conversations with people who worked with him at the time during his administration.
He personally, whether or not he got it on individual case-by-case bases, demanded virtually the same kind of fealty and loyalty that he would demand of a senior administration official, an attorney general, a White House lawyer, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So, to him, what he was demanding of his Secret Service detail was not that much different from what he was demanding of other staff in the administration and in the West Wing. So there`s that.
Having said that, in terms of what these deleted texts means, there`s more investigation and — to be done and a lot more answers to actually come to fruition. I don`t want to jump the gun on anything, so to speak.
But, at the very least, on-the-record denials from a Secret Service spokesperson is not nearly enough right now in order to clear up all the questions remaining on this. The first question I have is, do they know if the purged messages were from agents on Pence`s or Donald Trump`s detail?
That is an important unanswered question right now.
REID: There`s a lot of unanswered questions.
I`m going to go to you on this, Charles, because it would be relevant that the people who were the most physically close, in the closest physical proximity to Donald Trump on the day of the insurrection — that would be his Secret Service detail — what were they saying to each other? What were they saying to other people like Tony Ornato, who very unusually went from being on Trump`s detail to getting a job in the White House?
That doesn`t happen very often, to the point that Asawin was just making, that the closeness was so real, that he elevated a Secret Service agent to that kind of a job. The ultra loyalty means that you don`t know what they were saying. And they could have been saying something irrelevant.
As a prosecutor looking at this, is there a way to reconstruct these things, based on them handing over the phone records of who people were calling, or is there any way to reconstruct? Or are these records just gone?
CHARLES COLEMAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Joy, to reconstruct the actual text messages is going to be a Herculean task.
I think that if you`re talking about how to get, in sum and substance, what those conversations were, you`re exactly right. You would look — you would triangulate the cell phones. You would figure out who was where, and with what proximity they were to one another, because, more than likely, if they weren`t having conversation via text, they were having conversations orally and verbally with one another.
And then, after that, in terms of your investigation, you would then look to talk to each and every one of those to see how their different versions of the accounts and the conversations sort of matched up.
But there is an important point that I want to make very quickly. I have been in charge of trials. I have been in charge of investigations before. And one thing now I can say is that every case is about the story. And you have to be careful.
In the course of any investigation, there are always going to be these sort of rabbit holes that are distractions to the actual main story. The challenge that the committee has going forward right now, how deep do they explore this rabbit hole in the moment as they are dealing with trying to get these hearings wrapped up, trying to get a report out and trying to deal with the other considerations and moving parts that are going on?
I am absolutely convinced that this angle needs to be explored. But the question means by whom and at what point, because you can`t get away from the main story of what this is all about.
[19:10:05]
REID: And that is the important point, Juanita.
The job of this committee is to tell a coherent story in a sort of limited amount of time, because people are only going to have so much attention span to keep following this.
What do you make of the fact that they`re going to go forward with this hearing, we`re going to hear from these live witnesses in prime time, even despite the fact that the chairman, now because of COVID, cannot necessarily be a part of it? I mean, they have been doing a lot of stuff virtually.
He might be able to be a part of it in some way.
JUANITA TOLLIVER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Look, this is a robust team, so I`m sure they can operate with the chairman in the room and without him not there.
And I think they`re still going to paint a minute-by-minute portrayal of what was happening in the chaos of the White House. I think what Pottinger emphasized in the testimony you showed earlier was that we knew his cutoff moment. He packed his box as soon as that tweet about Pence came out.
But, before that, his other testimony showed that he was witnessing the chaos of — around the Oval Office of why the National Guard hadn`t been deployed, why there was no backup headed to the Capitol to quash this mob, which everyone in the White House at this point knew was armed, right?
Like, I think the other thing that I`m looking forward to hearing from Sarah Matthews and the story she`s going to tell us probably going to pick up where Cassidy Hutchinson left off with hearing conversations in real time. She in previous testimony said the dining room door was open and she could hear that Trump was in a very, very good mood in the evening of January 6.
She also was going to be able to fill in gaps around communication and how long it took to actually get Trump to even film a message or release a message to tell people to go home. And we know what we ended up with, a message that he said he loved the insurrectionists, right?
So she`s going to be able to give that minute-by-minute playbook, as well as Pottinger. And I think that`s still going to tell a beautiful story. But the last point about the Secret Service is, remember, the Select Committee has been interviewing Secret Service agents for the past few months.
And I feel like this is an opportunity to where they could quickly go back to those individuals and have additional conversations to crosscheck any previous testimony or ask new questions based on the fact that the Secret Service did delete this information, which Representative Stephanie Murphy was right to say, this was too important to mismanage or mishandle or just to delete, especially in the days after a violent attack on our Capitol.
REID: Indeed.
And, Asawin, the story, it`s kind of — this is going to be on Thursday focused on the 187 minutes, but this story is developing in multiple directions at one time. And I know you`re covering a lot of these developments.
We know in Georgia now the fake electors scheme, which was part and parcel of Donald Trump`s overall plan to stay in power, were these fake electors that he wanted to pressure Mike Pence to accept. That was part of the plan. It`s part of the reason the pressure was on him.
Now they face federal potential — potential, I should say, charges in Georgia. All 16 of these Georgia fake electors have been informed they could face criminal charges. Attorneys representing 11 of them have said they will — they have reluctantly invoked their Fifth Amendment rights after receiving target letters.
You have Lindsey Graham, who has now agreed to accept a subpoena. So that is also the Georgia case. In terms of Trump world, where do the worries lie more? Is it what`s coming out of these hearings or what`s coming out of Fani Willis` office in Georgia?
SUEBSAENG: Well, it`s a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B.
And then there`s also the column C of the broader investigation at the Biden Justice Department that — and you were just talking about the fake electors earlier. The slates of fake electors is a topic that the Biden DOJ, that the feds have been actively probing for quite some time.
And we reported at “Rolling Stone” fairly recently that longtime seasoned prosecutors from the National Security Division in the DOJ have been detailed over to that investigation, including, but not limited to looking into the slates of fake electors.
These are prosecutors who have quite a bit of experience in things like counterterrorism and things of that nature. So, when it comes to the Biden DOJ, look, there has been a lot of criticism, particularly from liberals over the past year or more, about how Merrick Garland and the Biden Justice Department have been rather sluggish and sort of gun-shy on investigating this.
But in terms of what they are doing now, they are not throwing nothing at the issue, if that makes sense.
REID: Well, it`s not just liberals. It`s Liz Cheney. Liz Cheney has been screaming at them almost more than everyone else.
(LAUGHTER)
REID: Juanita, I know you want to get in here. Go ahead.
TOLLIVER: Look, I`m just like take notes from Fani Willis. Look at how she`s upholding the feet to the fire of anybody who had anything to do with what happened in Georgia, from Trump`s calls, to Lindsey Graham`s calls, to these 16 fake electors, who just so apparently happened to be meeting on December 20, unaware that other electors who were signing fake certificates was going down in six other states that President Biden won, right?
REID: Yes.
TOLLIVER: Follow Fani Willis` lead. Please, Justice Department, do what she is doing and apply pressure to get to the truth.
[19:15:07]
REID: Last word to you, Charles Coleman.
Steve Bannon thought he was above the law. Prosecutors have said that he chose to show contempt for Congress` authority and its processes by refusing to comply with a subpoena, Assistant U.S. attorney Amanda Rose Vaughn told jurors. “He didn`t get stuck on a broken-down Metro car. He just decided not to follow the rules.”
(LAUGHTER)
REID: That seems to be the line of the day, because that`s what all of these people thought they could do. Where do you think the biggest heat is coming from? Is it Justice? Is it Georgia? Or is it from these hearings?
COLEMAN: I think it`s a combination of all three.
I think it depends on which Trump you`re talking about. Are you talking about Trump who has potentially accepted that he is no longer in a position where he will ever be elected at president again?
Or is it Trump who is trying to run for the White House as a way of running away from the big house? And I think that the reason why you have to think about either of those persons as two different people is because they have different concerns.
The person who`s kind of sort of accepted that he`s no longer going to be in the White House is much more concerned about a Fani Willis and what`s going on in Fulton in Georgia, because that is an immediate thing that is going to potentially pose significant problems for his freedom going forward.
The other guy, the guy who really thinks that maybe he can sort of run away to try to avoid this, is not very much so concerned about Merrick Garland and the DOJ, because that strategy is going to be, let me kick this down the road as far as I can to try to avoid criminal liability or prosecution.
REID: Yes, and hope that Garland really is using the Bill Barr method of staying away, supposedly, from anyone running for office, which would beat Trump`s real get-out-of-jail-free card.
Asawin Suebsaeng, Charles Coleman Jr., and Juanita Tolliver.
The face you just made is the face that I`m making inside of my spirit as well.
(LAUGHTER)
REID: Coming up, the attorney for Dr. Caitlin Bernard joins me. She is the doctor in the 10-year-old rape victim case who is now the target of vile attacks by Republican politicians.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:21:10]
REID: The not-so-free state of Florida has ironically become something of an abortion safe haven for thousands of women living in neighboring states that have passed near total bans.
Yes, Florida does ban the medical procedure after 15 weeks, but that is less restrictive than nearby states. The fact that it`s becoming a destination state is making anti-choice zealots angry. And they are demanding that Ron DeSantis call a special legislative session to add new restrictions.
Since the Supreme Court has sent it back to the states, anti-choice state legislatures and governors are moving aggressively to restrict abortion access, using legislation written by the general counsel for the National Right to Life committee, Jim Bopp.
The model law designed to be carbon copied by Republican-controlled states would ban abortions in nearly all circumstances, except to prevent the imminent death of the pregnant mother. The main body of the text does not allow for exceptions for rape or incest, but would allow states to make exceptions.
In Indiana, the state legislature is set to hold a special session next Monday, where they`re expected to take up restrictive abortion legislation. Republicans have remained silent on what the legislation might look like or if there will be any exemptions for rape, incest or for the health of the mother.
Bopp told a local paper that he wasn`t at liberty to say if he was advising Indiana Republicans. So, yeah, he probably is.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Indiana to enforce a 2017 law which requires teenagers aged 18 and under to get parental consent before they seek an abortion. Wonder how that would work if the abuse is in the family?
The state`s top lawyer, Attorney General Todd Rokita, cheered the news. Rokita has been an ardent warrior for forced birth. Last week, Rokita decided to investigate Dr. Caitlin Bernard after she helped facilitate an abortion for a 10-year-old child from Ohio who had been repeatedly raped.
The girl`s — the girl`s story was initially called a big old made-up lie by right-wing media outlets and Republican politicians, including Rokita. While he offered no specific allegations of wrongdoing, he went on national television and said he would look into whether Dr. Bernard properly reported the abortion and the sexual abuse of the child, as required under state law.
Records obtained by “The Indianapolis Star” through a public records request showed that Bernard had indeed reported the abortion to the appropriate Indian officials within the required time frame.
Well, today, attorneys for Dr. Bernard took the first step in a potential defamation lawsuit against the attorney general for his false and misleading statements.
And joining me now is Dr. Bernard`s lawyer, Kathleen Delaney.
Mr. Delaney, thank you for being here.
I want to start, just for our audience who don`t watch a lot of right-wing TV, play the sound bite in question. This is Mr. Rokita defaming, allegedly, Dr. Bernard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD ROKITA (R), INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report. So we`re gathering the information. We`re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we`re going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report.
In Indiana, it`s a crime for — to not report.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Please explain to us whether — how that becomes the basis of your lawsuit.
KATHLEEN DELANEY, ATTORNEY FOR DR. CAITLIN BERNARD: The statements that Mr. Rokita made were false.
They — he knew they were false, or, with any reasonable inquiry, he would have known that they were false. And they accused my client, who is a wonderful doctor who cares for her patients and gives compassionate care, of misconduct in her profession.
And that constitutes defamation, per se.
REID: And let`s go through here.
So part of the tort letter states that: “Statements that Dr. Bernard has a history of failing to report, which Mr. Rokita” — this is from the letter that you submitted — “indicate they would — indicate would constitute a crime made in the absence of reasonable investigations, served no legitimate law enforcement purpose. Given the current political atmosphere in the United States, Mr. Rokita`s comments are intended to heighten public condemnation of Dr. Bernard, who legally provided legitimate medical care.”
[19:25:22]
Do you believe that Mr. Rokita`s goal was for the purpose of his own politics and ideology, essentially to put a target on Dr. Bernard?
DELANEY: I think that the strategy here has clearly been to obfuscate and to distract from the tragedy that abortion bans cause.
And so, first, they claimed there was no 10-year-old rape victim. Then they claimed the doctor violated the law. Those things are all untrue. Now he`s claiming to have launched an investigation into Dr. Bernard. I have no evidence of that. Dr. — Mr. Rokita has received two letters from me. He knows who I am and how to find me and who I represent.
And he has not given me notice of any investigation, has not asked for any information from my client. So that`s yet another unsubstantiated accusation that is casting my client in a false light.
REID: I want to…
DELANEY: And he needs to stop. He needs to stop smearing Dr. Bernard.
REID: And I want to read just a little bit of a spokesman for Dr. — for Rokita.
This is what he told “The Indianapolis Star,” claiming they`re continuing to investigate, which is not clear he has the jurisdiction to do. It says: “Our office is continuing its investigation into whether Dr. Bernard was in compliance with Indiana and federal privacy laws, among other reporting and confidentiality requirements.”
They`re essentially accusing your client of somehow violating the HIPAA statutes.
DELANEY: Which is really interesting, because HIPAA is a federal statute. And Mr. Rokita has no jurisdiction as a state attorney general to enforce a federal law.
He`s also made accusations about potential criminal conduct. And the Marion County prosecutor, who controls law enforcement in Indianapolis, has already issued a statement reminding Mr. Rokita that he has no authority to prosecute criminals in Indiana at all. That`s not part of his jurisdiction.
So, again, false unsubstantiated statements designed to put a bullseye on the back of one health care provider. But this is part of a pattern of attacks that`s going on around the country, I`m sure.
REID: Do you believe that what Mr. Rokita is doing is an attempt to create a chilling effect, essentially, to extend anti-abortion restrictions, for instance, in another state, a state like Ohio, into Indiana without a law needing to be passed?
DELANEY: I think that`s definitely part of their strategy, along with trying to whip up the base on his side of the political aisle, and as we run up to this special legislative session that begins on Monday.
REID: Yes.
And, by the way, I just want to note here that a former dean has told “The Indianapolis Star” that Rokita went after this doctor who was performing a legal medical procedure in Indiana because he opposes abortion.
“The deputy for Stalin” — this is what this I.U. dean, Indiana University dean, said: “The deputy for Stalin was reported to have said, show me the man and I will find the crime. That`s just not the way we do things in the United States.”
I just want to end with that comment, as I thank you, Kathleen Delaney. Thank you for being here.
And up next on THE REIDOUT — cheers — the children`s theme park Sesame Place — Sesame Place is under fire after an Instagram post showed a character ignoring two young black girls, and it apparently is not an isolated incident.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:33:20]
REID: OK, friends of the show know that I love “Sesame Street.” I mean, who doesn`t love a fuzzy blue Muppet? Grover, you know I`m looking at you.
I also love what “Sesame Street” stands for, its commitment to education, reading and arithmetic, but also its intentional vision of a diverse, inclusive neighborhood, something America struggled to accept when the show debuted in the late 1960s, which is why so many people are especially gutted over the alleged snubbing of two adorable little black girls at Sesame Place, the children`s theme park in Pennsylvania.
Now, to be clear, Sesame Place has a licensing agreement with Sesame Workshop, but is operated by SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, not by the folks who make “Sesame Street.”
A viral video appears to capture “Sesame Street” character Rosita brushing off two young black girls reaching out for hugs during a parade. That`s according to the mother of one of the girls, who posted the video on Instagram.
Sesame Place initially apologized in a statement, saying: “The performers no hand gesture was not specifically directed at the girls.”
Well, when that didn`t go over so well, they released a second apology, saying: “We are committed to making this right.”
Back with me is Charles Coleman Jr., a civil rights attorney and former prosecutor.
And, Charles, thank you for sticking with us. We did try to get on the attorney — his name is B`Ivory LaMarr — for the families, but we had a little bit of technical difficulties getting him on.
So we really appreciate you coming in and pinch-hitting.
But I want to talk with — I want to first play one of the moms, Jodi Brown. She`s the mother one of the little girls and the auntie of the other little girl. This is what she said earlier today on CNN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JODI BROWN, MOTHER: The kids are supposed to be happy and acknowledged and greeted and having a good time.
[19:35:00]
So the fact that this even happened the fact, the fact that this was even going to be a core memory for them when it comes to Sesame Place is actually disgusting and unbelievable.
Now that I spoke up and released my video, now there`s multiple parents who have similar videos with that character is doing the same thing to the same race of children. So, for me, that`s not a coincidence at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: I mean, indeed. I have on my Instagram a bunch of these other videos that I pulled from Jacque Reid`s Instagram feed.
And The Grio has a story saying social media is up in arms, that there are other families who are now posting videos saying that they have had the same treatment go to their kids.
Your thoughts on this? And what kind of — I don`t know, what could the family theoretically do here? Because it is emotional distress, right?
COLEMAN: It`s absolutely emotional distress.
And I do think that, at a minimum, the family should be looking to pursue some level of legal remedy that addresses what happened, with injunctive relief and potentially some degree of financial compensation.
Now, before we talk about being litigious, I think, for me, the biggest takeaway and the bigger point is that, believe black people, OK? When we have these experiences where we say that something happened because of what it is and how it is that we show up and the skin that we show up in, we`re not making this up.
And I think, all too often, there is a haste in which people look to tell us, no, what you experienced is not what actually happened, when, in fact, we know very well that it is. And what we have learned in the coming — in the following days and the moments after this has occurred is that more people have spoken out and more people have said, no, I actually had the same experience.
And so it is the most abhorrent form of gaslighting for you to tell these people, no, I know that you think what happened to you happened to you, but it really didn`t happen to you, when, in fact, we know that it did, and this happens all the time, which is why it`s important that these families together as a collective look to hold Sesame Place and its ownership accountable.
REID: Right.
I mean, and Sesame Place said that they reached out to the family. They had — they sent us another statement saying that they tried to make it right. They said what these kids experienced is unacceptable. They said they have been in contact.
But I mean, the thing is, for lots and lots of families who have experienced the same thing with their children — I have another friend who`s got an adopted daughter who is Asian American who said she experienced it many years ago. Other people with black children or black parents are all going on Instagram and saying, no, this happened to my little black kid.
There`s something systemically wrong. I mean, “Sesame Street” was literally created to give little brown and black kids an opportunity to learn. Rosita is the first bilingual Muppet. They have got an Asian American Muppet, a Muppet in a wheelchair on “Sesame Street.”
It`s perverting the idea of “Sesame Street” because people associate the two.
COLEMAN: Which is why I think that “Sesame Street” and its owners should be extremely concerned about how this works.
The show “Sesame Street” exists in a vacuum and a utopia called television, where you can edit, where you can look at things more closely and understand how they work. The unfortunate reality is that Sesame Place is an actual place with actual people who bring their prejudices, who bring their privilege, who bring their black lives bias, who bring their bigotry to their jobs and hide literally behind a mask as a means of being able to express these things.
But the problem, Joy, is that this can actually do reputational damage to your brand…
REID: Right.
COLEMAN: … if you are not vigilant about addressing these things, which is why it has to be of paramount concern for Sesame Place to actually address.
You have to be on top of these things systemically Because, at the end of the day, while you may make valiant efforts to do a thorough vetting process, you ultimately don`t know who you`re hiring these days. And so, when something like this happens, you have to take it seriously, because the fallout, as we are seeing, can be tremendous.
REID: And, by the way, this is another statement about why it`s important who you vote for, because this is in Pennsylvania…
COLEMAN: Yes, it is.
REID: … where there`s at least a chance that — if this was in Florida, they have now passed this anti-woke law that said that they couldn`t even do the diversity training and the communication internally that Sesame Place has vowed to do, because Ron DeSantis doesn`t like that.
He doesn`t like anything that makes white — white people feel uncomfortable, so they couldn`t even do it if they were in Florida. Be careful who you vote for.
Charles Coleman, thank you very much. Really appreciate you.
And up next on THE REIDOUT — cheers — outraged community members in Uvalde demanding action and accountability from their leaders. But, like many communities across the country, they are learning a painful lesson on governance.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:44:14]
REID: Residents of Uvalde Texas are getting a painful lesson in governance and the importance of electing people at all levels of government who actually give a darn about your well-being.
During a highly contentious school board meeting last night, parents, students and other community members demanded accountability, including the immediate firing of the school district police chief, Pete Arredondo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRETT CROSS, UNCLE OF SHOOTING VICTIM: If he`s not fired by noon tomorrow, then I want your resignation and every single one of you board members, because you all do not give a damn about our children or us.
JAZMIN CAZARES, SISTER OF SHOOTING VICTIM: What are you going to do to make sure I don`t have to wait 77 minutes, bleeding out on my classroom floor, just like my little sister did?
MEHLE TAYLOR, STUDENT: This was the last dress that my — all my friends saw me on. Most of those kids were my friends. And that`s not good. And I don`t want to go to your guys` school if you don`t have protection.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[19:45:10]
REID: In Uvalde, where 80 percent of the population is Hispanic, this city council may not be quite looking out for them.
And the problem isn`t only at the local level. It goes all the way to the governor`s mansion, where Greg Abbott must be hiding out, because following the first few days after the shooting, there hasn`t been an Abbott sighting in Uvalde. It appears he didn`t even try to attend any of the 21 funerals for the slain students and teachers.
And to make matters worse, Abbott has yet to use his powers as governor to take any real action in response to the deadly shooting, like calling a special session to address gun violence.
Now, let`s remember that, less than a month after the 2018 Parkland school shooting in Florida, not only was a special session called by the majority right-wing, very NRA-controlled legislature, but lawmakers quickly enacted a gun control proposal that raised the minimum age from 18 to 21 to purchase rifles and other long guns.
But Abbott has had a tendency to disregard the needs of his citizens. Take, for instance, his continued insistence on maintaining Texas` independence with its own failing power grid. That left Texans freezing two winters ago, all while receiving crushing electricity bills. Now, mind you, Texas is the only state that runs its own electricity.
All this isn`t just a Texas Republicans problem. We are seeing the same lack of concern for the people they govern from the Republican Party as a whole. And a telling sign of that is the slate of candidates the party is putting up in the midterm elections.
And that is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:51:29]
REID: The slate of candidates the Republican Party is propping up this year is sending a clear message to voters about the party`s priorities.
And it is not about preserving the dignity of the party, whatever might be left of it, or about nominating people who truly represent their constituents or, frankly, care about the social and political health of this country.
In Georgia, you have Senate candidate Herschel Walker, who has faced multiple allegations of violence against women, some of which he`s admitted he`s accountable for. Then there`s the lying about everything from being in the top 1 percent of his college class, despite never graduating, or claiming he served in law enforcement, or even being in the FBI, which is false, to even lying about his own — lying to his own campaign about the multiple secret children that he`s fathered.
Then there`s Senate candidate Mehmet Oz, who`s running to represent the great people of Pennsylvania, though he seems to be running at least part of his campaign out of his New Jersey mansion.
Sharing a ticket with Oz is gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, who`s not only taken several steps to push the big lie, but has been questioned by the FBI after photos emerged of him on the Capitol grounds on January 6.
Oh, and don`t forget Eric Greitens, a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri best known for allegedly locking a woman who he had an affair with in his basement and sexually assaulting her. Greitens denies he did that, but that AR-15 military-style raid commercial, hunting RINOs, well, that`s all him.
What they all have in common and what essentially seems to be the only criteria these days for Republicans is complete and dignity-free obedience to Donald Trump.
That is the subject of a new book by senior writer for “The Atlantic” Mark Leibovich entitled “Thank You for Your Servitude: Donald Trump`s Washington and the Price of Submission.”
Mark Leibovich joins me now.
And, Mark, thanks so much for being here.
I saw an earlier interview with you and immediately call my producers and say, can you get this guy on? I want to talk to him, because…
MARK LEIBOVICH, AUTHOR, “THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVITUDE: DONALD TRUMP`S WASHINGTON AND THE PRICE OF SUBMISSION”: Good work, yes.
(LAUGHTER)
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
REID: I mean, the thing that is so interesting to those of us who are old enough to remember, Republicans really loved Ronald Reagan.
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
REID: Like, they sort of worshipped Ronald Reagan, right? He was kind of the central, occipital force of the Republican Party.
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
REID: But this feels different, what`s going on with Trump. Is it different?
LEIBOVICH: I think it is.
Well, first of all, I mean, a lot of the people who love Donald Trump are the same people who still: Oh, I revere Ronald Reagan.
I mean, Ronald Reagan probably wouldn`t want much to do with Donald Trump right now. And the fact is, I mean, this party, ever since Trump started his ascent or his descent down the escalator, however you want to look at it, and the party has sort of gone along with him, everyone`s been like, OK, this fever will break at some point.
Now, we`re now seven years into this experiment. The candidates are getting more and more Trumpy. And I think the big theme of the book here is that it didn`t have to be this way. There actually were many, many off-ramps, many, many opportunities for courage for Republicans, the Republicans` putative leaders, whether it`s Kevin McCarthy, or Mitch McConnell, or Lindsey Graham, or Marco Rubio, or whoever, to actually go in a different direction.
And yet Donald Trump seems incapable of not being rehabilitated from everything from starting an insurrection or fomenting an insurrection to actual defeat in the — in his reelection campaign.
So, yes, it just keeps going. And I think Eric Greitens and Herschel Walker seemed to be the immediate future of the party.
REID: And the thing is, you talked about Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy. They both condemned the insurrection immediately, said Trump was responsible.
Mitch McConnell is — reportedly in one of the many books that have come out about that post-insurrection period essentially said, good, the Democrats will take him out. We want him gone.
[19:55:07]
It is clear that — Lindsey Graham came out and said, I`m done.
What shifted, in your view, for these men to suddenly say, oh, we don`t — forget we said all that, delete that tape, we love Trump?
LEIBOVICH: It`s funny.
I mean, I think everyone has their own reasons. I mean, Lindsey Graham got kind of like heckled on the way to the airport the next day. It seemed to freak him out a little bit.
I mean, the fact is, I talked to just dozens, if not hundreds of people in the Republican Party for this book. And what`s amazing to me, as someone who`s been reporting on Washington for a long time, is there`s never been a bigger gap between what people in the Republican Party say privately about Donald Trump — there`s quite a bit of contempt, they don`t have a lot of respect for him — to the public adulation that has become the norm and that the president or the former president seems to insist on.
So it`s really quite a gap. And, unfortunately, the dirty little secret is that everyone sort of gets the joke, but they don`t say it publicly.
So, look, Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, they condemned the insurrection. It took about a week before them — before they fell into line. And McCarthy went down to Mar-a-Lago eight days after Joe Biden took over on the White House.
McConnell probably doesn`t get enough blame for this, but he basically orchestrated it so the impeachment wasn`t going to happen until after January 20, at which point everyone in the party had their built-in answer. It`s like, oh, well, why should we impeach a president that is no longer in office.
So they all did their part here, but, ultimately, they`re propping him up, and that continues to this day. And it`s sort of they`re stuck with Donald Trump, but so is everyone else.
REID: I think about J.D. Vance, who once texted to a friend that he thinks Trump might be Hitler…
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
REID: … and now is completely obedient to him and trying to run on I`m the Trumpiest candidate of all campaign.
Do people like J.D. Vance have any respect for their voters? Or do they just think their voters are dumb and that they`re so dumb that they will just believe it if I just say I love Trump?
LEIBOVICH: I don`t know.
I mean, I think it certainly doesn`t look respectful from the outside. But the fact is, they voted for him. I mean, he`s the Republican nominee for Senate in Ohio. And he`s a pretty good bet to win that Senate seat in November.
So, I mean, they will say that the only formula that I care about is the success formula and just getting into office. And Lindsey Graham said to me, if you don`t like being reelected, you`re in the wrong business. And they all have stories like this, and you can juxtapose all the stuff they said about Trump when they were running against him in 2018 — or 2016 and subsequent to that.
So, I mean, it`s not like there`s a shortage of, like, sort of side-by-side video on this. But, ultimately, I think it`s a combination of just weakness, fear, not knowing what you will do with yourself without the parking space, without the pin.
And, ultimately, it`s a pretty depressing story. But, also, it was pretty – – it was fascinating to sort of talk to enough people to sort of debrief them on their thinking on here. And it was actually kind of funny, too, in its own weird, perverse way.
REID: It`s funny, but it`s also sort of authoritarianism, right?
I mean, this is kind of the way authoritarian parties work.
LEIBOVICH: Thank you.
REID: I mean, you think about the people who testified before the January 6 Committee who got death threats, the Arizona House speaker whose daughter`s last days were watching a sound truck going outside their home calling her father a pedophile.
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
REID: He said he would still vote for Trump today.
I think about Mike Pence, who they threatened to lynch. They brought a noose to lynch him, and he is still obedient.
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
REID: That is something different than just, I want the parking space.
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
REID: That`s — that`s authoritarianism.
LEIBOVICH: It is.
And another example of this is, I mean, there were so many Republicans — sort of backbench Republicans who were going to vote for Biden`s certification because that`s what people always do, right, with a few limited exceptions. Of course you`re going to vote for the guy who won and has legally been affirmed in court over and over again to be certified.
And many of them were just sort of saying privately, look, I can`t do this. We`re getting all these threats. I can`t put my safety at risk, my kids` safety risks, my family`s safety at risk.
I mean, and that — that is the definition of authoritarianism. It`s persuasion not by politics, not by argument, not by debate, but by just brute force, brute fear — brute fear.
And, again, Donald Trump is only where he is today because of the complicity of the Republican Party. And that`s what this book is about. I didn`t want to write another Trump book.
REID: Yes.
LEIBOVICH: I wanted to write a book about why he`s still here.
REID: Amen.
I have seen quotes out there, as we close, that said that the strategy is, they just are waiting for him to die, which is a sad thing to say about a party that was once the party of — well, in another iteration, the party of Reagan and Lincoln, but it ain`t that now.
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
No, it goes to how passive it is, really.
REID: Yes. It`s wild.
LEIBOVICH: Yes.
REID: Mark Leibovich, thank you very much.
LEIBOVICH: Wild.
REID: And that is tonight`s REIDOUT. “ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts now.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN: the text message purge at the Secret Service.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FL): We received a letter today that did provide us with a lot of documents and some data. However, we did not receive the additional text messages that we were looking for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Tonight, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren on the growing scandal of a Secret Service deletion of January 6 text messages, as calls of a cover-up grow.