Updated
Summary
DOJ obtains warrant to search John Eastman`s phone. Manchin, Schumer agree on climate, health care bill. Senate passes bill to boost U.S. semiconductor chip production. Blinken: Release of Griner, Whelan is “top priority.” Group of centrists plan to launch third political party. Fetterman targets Oz`s New Jersey residency.
Transcript
KEVIN MCCARTHY, (R) CALIFORNIA MINORITY LEADER: I ask him personally today, does he hold responsibility for what happened? Does he feel bad about what happened? He told me he does have some responsibility for what happened. And he needs to acknowledge that.
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Future witness to the grand jury Kevin McCarthy gets tonight`s “LAST WORD”. THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, the expanding DOJ investigation into the former president`s big lie scheme, and the Fed`s latest move to rein in inflation, can it work in this confusing and complicated economy? Then will it be a wake-up call for America`s two party system, the bipartisan new push to try to move the country forward.
Plus, it`s called a substantial proposal to bring two detained Americans home from Russia. And the battle to take back a major port city in Ukraine, as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Wednesday night.
Good evening once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. We`re learning more tonight about the Justice Department`s criminal inquiry into January 6. We found out earlier today, federal prosecutors obtained a warrant to search the cell phone of Trump lawyer John Eastman, back on July 12. You remember he was the guy behind the plan to get Mike Pence to overturn Joe Biden`s victory by rejecting electors from certain states. Eastman, if you were called, took the fifth 100 times during his deposition with the House Select Committee.
Meanwhile, there are new reports that former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson is now cooperating with the Justice Department`s investigation. Hutchinson testified at one of the January 6 committees` public hearings last month. Today senators were asked about the DOJ investigating Trump`s actions leading up to January 6. And here`s what they said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, (D) CONNECTICUT: The mounting evidence indicates to me that investigation is well warranted and there ought to be serious consideration. The walls are closing in on Donald Trump.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: Trump was impeached over his actions. So it`s not like, you know, somebody`s trying to sweep this under the rug. You know, we`ll see, we`ll see. You know, how much the law becomes a political tool.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Also tonight, a major breakthrough for the current president and his party. Senators Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer have agreed on a package that includes reducing prescription drug prices, tackling climate change and implementing a corporate minimum tax. That agreement came just hours after the Senate passed the CHIPS bill to boost domestic production of semiconductor chips.
This was also the day the Federal Reserve moved once again to hike interest rates. The Fed raised rates by three quarters of a percentage point in an effort to put the brakes on inflation.
With that, let`s get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel tonight, Leigh Ann Caldwell, a live anchor with Washington Post where she`s leading the coverage on the January 6 hearings and gun talks. She also co-authored the papers early 202 Morning newsletter, Professor Melissa Murray of NYU Law School, she was a law clerk for Sonia Sotomayor on the federal bench before her nomination to the Supreme Court, and Justin Wolfers is back, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan.
Melissa, I want to start with you, because help us understand this confusion, from our own NBC reporting, Donald Trump himself is not under criminal investigation, his actions leading up to January 6 are, can you explain the difference? What do we need to know?
MELISSA MURRAY, NYU LAW PROFESSOR: I think what they`re trying to do right now is determine exactly what kind of charges could be brought, if any, against the president. And that really depends on the nature of his conduct on that day, and whether his conduct and his state of mind during the period leading up to January 6, could lead and support criminal charges. And again, there are a lot of different charges that might be brought, but all of them really turn on this question of mental state. So right now, he is not necessarily under investigation. But all of the elements around him and indeed his own conduct at that time are in order to sort of drill down and make sure that there`s enough evidence to support all of the potential elements of the crimes that might be charged if and when the Department of Justice moves forward.
RUHLE: And Melissa, what are these investigators want to learn from John Eastman`s cellphone?
MURRAY: Well, I imagine not knowing the contents of the cellphone myself, but they`re trying to figure out exactly what the effort to pressure Mike Pence looked like what the scheme to substitute slates, fake or alternative electors might have looked like and whether or not those around the president understood this to be fraudulent and whether in fact, the President himself understood this to be a fraud on the electoral process. That`s a lot to establish. But again, having that information of confidential communications would be very important.
[23:05:02]
RUHLE: Leigh Ann, we heard this morning kind of a warning from a Republican committee member Adam Kinzinger. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER, (R) ILLINOIS JAN. 6TH COMMITTEE MEMBER: If we just washed this under the rug and say, you know, for the sake of the country, let`s put this aside, there is going to be somebody else, whether it`s Donald Trump in 2024, or somebody else somewhere down the line that recognizes that as the floor of their behavior and pushes even more, and we can`t survive that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: This this up the pressure on Republicans to finally start paying attention to all of this?
LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, THE WASHINGTON POST LIVE ANCHOR: We`ll see, Steph. I mean, Republicans have made it very clear, especially House Republicans that they are not interested most of them and what the January 6 committee is finding. There are some who are attacking some of the people, especially the women who are testifying before the January 6, select committee. But then there`s some Republicans who are watching, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, withholding judgment until the hearings there, the investigation is completed. And then there`s other Republicans who are quietly and privately who do say that what the January 6 select committee is doing is actually important, and they are paying attention.
But as far as presenting and — or preventing another January 6 from happening, that`s why you have legislation that was released in the Senate last week to address the Electoral College Act Reforms. We know Liz Cheney, a member of the January 6 committee is going to unveil her own similar legislation in the coming months. And that is the legislative response anyway, to ensuring that January 6, are trying to ensure that something like this doesn`t happen again.
RUHLE: Justin, you know why you`re here. You`re here to talk about the Fed, and inflation. And I want to talk about why the Fed raised rates? Because the idea is we`re going to raise rates to try to slow inflation and get prices down. But here`s the thing, the reason prices are so high is because of supply chain issues, the war in Ukraine, and let`s be honest, companies piling on and price gouging. How does raising rates address any of those things? I mean, higher rates isn`t going to change gas prices?
JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: It doesn`t. And Stephanie, what you`re getting to there is the heart of the debate among economists. The question is, is inflation being driven by supply factors? That would be the virus in China? That would be Putin in Ukraine? That would be supply chain issues? Or is it demand factors that we have a very tight labor market right now. So while the Fed can affect the supply factors, it can bring inflation down, in the way of course it does that is by clobbering the economy.
But don`t think it`s clobbering the economy right now, it`s taken a step closer. And the question is, if it keeps taking these bigger and bigger steps, then there might be something to worry about. But remember, what really matters for people and for businesses is the interest rate after you account for inflation. And so inflation has already gone up quite a bit. So the Fed has to do quite a bit. Just to keep up with that.
RUHLE: Can you help us or how would you qualify, quantify what this economy looks like, right? Because we`re going to get the GDP numbers tomorrow, and people are, you know, are running in circles. What`s the definition of a recession? Is it a good economy? Is it a bad economy? By my estimation, it`s a complicated — it`s a complicated and confusing one. How would you describe it?
WOLFERS: I think Bob Dylan got it right. I got mixed up confusion, and it`s killing me. And so we see vast tracts of the economy doing incredibly well. The unemployment rate is on the cusp of a 50 year low. We see employers adding workers and if they`re complaining about anything, they`re complaining, it`s hard to find workers. That`s not something that happens during a recession. But we also see families really struggling with inflation and trying to make their paycheck go as far as they hope it wouldn`t. So I think that`s the real negative that`s weighing down on people.
For sure, the tremendous growth we`ve gotten over recent months has to slow because that was a sick economy recovering and not the normal state of nature. And the great thing about emerging from the pandemic is we`re going to start to see more normal things going forward, which means fewer spectacular numbers, but I also don`t think yet it means bad numbers.
RUHLE: Leigh Ann, let`s talk about this deal between Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin, is this thing for real? Because we haven`t heard from Kyrsten Sinema yet. Her silence could be deadly to this thing.
CALDWELL: It could be deadly. We haven`t heard from Kyrsten Sinema. I think that people are more concerned that Senator Joe Manchin is going to stick to this deal. Senator Sinema has made clear throughout the months and months and months of negotiations through the different iterations of this bill, that the climate components are actually one of the most important things to her. And the fact that there`s $400 billion dedicated to climate, the largest investment in history. My colleague at the Washington Post Tony Romm reports, that I think that this might be enough to get her over the finish line and get her to support it.
[23:10:10]
But she hasn`t come out saying one way or another, just about 30 minutes ago, I checked in with her office, and they still don`t have anything to report yet. But this is something that was a huge surprise, not only to reporters, not only to Senate aides, but senators and lawmakers as well. And so this, you know, Democrats are thrilled about it, we`ll see if they can get this over the finish line.
RUHLE: All right, then I think I have a harder question. Because when I look at what they`re trying to do, right? Democrats are trying to fight inflation. They want to tax the rich, they want to lower the deficit, they want to lower drug prices, and they want to invest in clean domestic energy, check, check, check, check, check. Republicans obviously hate this plan. So what is their plan? What are they offering?
CALDWELL: Well, they are saying that this is going to be a deadly plan for the country. They say it`s going to raise taxes on Americans, they say that it`s going to be a job killer because of the inflationary impact that they say it`s going to have, you know, we`ll see if they`re right, but they are confident that heading into the campaign trail, heading into the midterm elections, that they have new ammunition to attack Democrats, based on the economy, what their responses to deal with the economy, it is to stop government spending. And that`s pretty much it. But you know, they are going to try to stop this in any way they can. It`s very unlikely that they`re going to be able to do it. But they think that they have the rhetorical win here.
RUHLE: OK, but to be clear, they`re dumping on this plan, but they are not offering an alternate solution. They`ve put nothing else out. And in fact, tonight, just earlier tonight, Tom Cotton was on Fox News, saying — Joe, excuse me, Joe Manchin, has double crossed Republicans and Cotton and other Republicans are urging their own party to now — to try to block this Chips Bill, a bill that would bring manufacturing away from China back to the United States. How does that make sense? What`s the Republican argument for why you`d want to do that? Wasn`t it all about making America great again?
CALDWELL: Well, it doesn`t make a lot of sense. And there was a lot of frustration, including with Senator Joe Manchin, when, three weeks ago, McConnell tried to tie this Chips manufacturing legislation to the this reconciliation bill that there`s now a new agreement on, and that frustrated Joe Manchin, he said at the time, that that`s just dirty politics and shame on anyone who tries to do that.
Now, this deal was announced hours after the Senate passed this Chips legislation. The Chips legislation is moving over to the House of Representatives where House Republican leadership who weren`t going to pressure their members one way or another on how to vote for it, it was more of a vote your conscious type of legislation is now whipping very aggressively against this Chips legislation, only because of this new deal on a completely unrelated package. And so, you know, this is complicated. I don`t think most Americans are going to understand the difference of it. But this is politics that is happening in Washington right now. And Democrats think if we get Chips over the finish line, this major manufacturing bill, and they do something that helps Americans including regarding health care costs and a long-term investment on climate. They think that that is a pretty good week in Washington.
RUHLE: Dirty politics, none of which serves the American people. Justin, I see you smirking at me why?
WOLFERS: Oh, I`ve already heard the initial Republican rejoinder, which is, we`re all talking about the good things that we`re spending money on including climate and the like. The complaint is that we`re going to make a down payment on the deficit and paying down the debt. We do that, of course, by raising taxes, and their claim is going to be an already is that that will grind the American economy to a halt.
But look, here`s the reality, where`s the money coming from? Unless you`re an investment fund manager managing millions of dollars in through a special loophole called carried interest that they go into close avoid taxes, and unless you`re a tax cheat, or unless you`re a corporation with over a billion dollars in profits currently paying less than 15% in taxes, you know how much this bill takes out of you, and you know, how much of a tax rate you raise you get? Nothing, not a penny, not at all. So this is raising money from the right people, the right time, the right way, not for most Americans. And it reduces inequality and promotes and enhances tax fairness, people who should be I have a bit of fun we`re going to be asked to pay.
[23:15:04]
RUHLE: Raising money from tax cheats and multibillion dollar corporations, I`d love to see the lines of Americans that don`t want to do that.
Melissa, before we go, we`re also hearing that Cassidy Hutchinson is now working with the Department of Justice. What are you watching for next?
MURRAY: Well, I`m watching for whether or not we`re going to see a reprise of her testimony before the special committee. Again, this really shows how the special committee`s activities were reaching a number of different audiences. Obviously, some of it was pitched to the American public in advance of the midterm elections to get them to understand the significance of the threat to democratic institutions. But again, another major audience was the DOJ itself. And so in many ways, the special committee offered a kind of dress rehearsal for the possible witnesses that the DOJ could eventually investigate and indeed cooperate with in order to bring a case. So this is really interesting. And again, I think it sort of speaks to the efficacy of what the special committee has done here.
RUHLE: Melissa is watching and as always, we are listening to her. Thank you all so much. I love your wallpaper. Justin, I like your new glasses. Leigh Ann Caldwell, Melissa Murray, Justin Wolfers.
Coming up next, the substantial proposal from the U.S. to Russia for the release of Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan, what the deal might look like and what it could mean for the strained relationship between the United States and Russia.
And later, Americans fed up with politics as usual. Want to move America forward. Maybe with a new political party. What that might look like, when THE 11TH HOUR is just getting underway on a very busy Wednesday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:21:22]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONY BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE: In the coming days, I expect to speak with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov for the first time since the war began. I plan to raise an issue that`s a top priority for us. The release of Americans Paul Whelan and Brittney Griner, who have been wrongfully detained and must be allowed to come home. We put a substantial proposal on the table weeks ago to facilitate the release. Our governments have communicated repeatedly and directly on that proposal. And I`ll use the conversation to follow up personally and I hope, move us toward a resolution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The Secretary of State with the latest efforts to release Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan from Russian prison. Two sources telling NBC News, the proposal involves trading Viktor Bout in arms dealer known as the merchant of death who`s serving a 25-year sentence in the United States.
Griner testified in Russian court earlier today. She has pleaded guilty to possessing vape cartridges with cannabis oil. The U.S. says she has been wrongfully detained and today Griner spoke about her arrest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRITTNEY GRINER: We had to use my phone and Google Translate for him to be able to tell me a little bit. There was a lady that was there that they said was the interpreter but it was more just her telling me surname, sign, really short words. She didn`t explain the content of the paper. Like I didn`t know exactly what I was signing. No, my rights were never read to me. No one explained any of it to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: With us for more Jeremy Bash joins as, former Chief of Staff for the CIA and the Pentagon. Jeremy, let`s start right there. Your thoughts on this substantial offer? Could there be a deal?
JEREMY BASH, FORMER CIA CHIEF OF STAFF: Yeah, I think there could be, Stephanie. I mean, the Secretary of State went to the podium today and wasn`t clear exactly who we`d be trading for, for Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan, the two Americans wrongfully detained in Russia. But all the reports tonight say that the Americans are considering releasing Viktor Bout. And Viktor Bout is of course, the notorious arms dealer, a Russian national who was arrested by DEA agents and sentenced to a very long prison sentence.
Last week at a conference in Colorado NBC`s. Andrea Mitchell asked CIA Director, Bill Burns about Bout, and Burns would say is the guy`s a creep. And he`s undoubtedly a creep. But he might be the creep that the Russians want back so badly that they`re willing to give up these two very valuable hostages.
Stephanie, I just got to say, I hate hostage swaps, because in some ways, you`re negotiating with terrorists, and it`s a race to the bottom and they`ll take hostages just to get leverage to get their people out. But for the Griner family and for the Whelan family, this has to be a hopeful development, and I hope we do, do this deal.
RUHLE: He`s a villain. He`s a creep. I heard Michael McFaul say he`s a criminal`s criminal. So why does Russia want him so bad?
BASH: Well, clearly, they`ve gotten relationships between their security services, their intelligence services, and his apparatus, which is running guns and drugs and weapons all over the planet in service of Russian national interests. And so, you know, he has evaded — he evaded law enforcement`s long arm for a long time, he was on the run of a finally the U.S. caught up with him. And so this has been an ambition of the Russian security services is to get this guy out. And I think this just might be the moment despite all the tensions in the U.S.-Russia relationship, or for Ukraine, despite the tensions over sanctions, despite the sanction — the tensions over the whole international effort to isolate Russia`s economy, I think this might be the moment to do this deal and get Griner and Whelan home.
[23:25:07]
RUHLE: How about our Secretary of State planning to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, they have not met since the war in Ukraine started. How big of a deal is that?
BASH: Yeah, I think it`s an important development. Obviously, the way Secretary Blinken characterize it today is he`s going to put –he has put a substantial proposal on the table. He wants to discuss it with Lavrov. But what I thought the Secretary also very smartly said today is, we are not going to be negotiating over Ukraine, because we`re not going to negotiate Ukraine`s fate without Ukraine in the room, knew nothing about Ukraine, without Ukraine. That`s been the refrain from the Biden administration all along. So I think Secretary Blinken goes into these conversations with a very powerful, strong hand.
RUHLE: Well, let`s go to the war on the ground because now we`re hearing about this new offensive for Ukraine to try to take back parts of the country that Russia has seized. What do you know about that?
BASH: We`re talking here about Kherson, which is one of the port cities in the southern part of the country. This has been part of Russia`s ambition, which is to dominate, not just the east, not just the Donbas, but these port cities along the southern coastal areas, all the way to Odessa and a way to blockade the entire country. And Russia did take over Kherson. But the Ukrainians have been fighting pretty aggressively back. And recently, they bombed out some of the bridges that Russian forces have been using to advance their forces. They did that using the HIMARS system. That`s a mobile artillery system that the United States has not only provided to the Ukrainians, but trained Ukrainian service members on the system. So it`s a case, Stephanie, where we see direct U.S. military support helping the Ukrainians on the ground, and they`re making good headway there.
RUHLE: How about the news that Nancy Pelosi could possibly be visiting Taiwan? And it`s been reported, China is not happy about that. What do you know?
BASH: Huge deal, Stephanie. And this is consuming the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon, the White House, Indo-Pacific Command, many of them have weighed in directly with the Speaker and asked her not to go. I`ve been told that she`s basically taking the position.
Look, I`m a lawmaker, I can go wherever the hell I darn, please. And I think that`s probably the right approach. China shouldn`t be able to tell our lawmakers where to go. I think if the president intercedes, you know, she might rearrange her trip, but I`m not sure he`s going to do that. And I think this is potentially a moment of heightened tensions between the United States and China but I think the Speaker ought to carry forward with her announced plans to make this visit.
RUHLE: Jeremy Bash, talking tough. I`m a lawmaker. I can go wherever the hell I darn please. You are the best. Thank you. Thank you for coming on tonight. I really appreciate it, good to see.
Coming up, the new national political party that wants to stake out space, guess where, we`re a whole lot of Americans are? In the center. But can it work in a deeply divided country with a very well established and structured two party system? That ain`t looking for a third, when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:32:46]
RUHLE: A new centrist group is gambling that millions of Americans are fed up with this country`s two party system. They`re announcing the creation of a third political party to be called forward.
In a Washington post op-ed this evening, the party`s founders David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman, and Andrew Yang, write the following: The two major parties have hollowed out the sensible center of our political system, even though that is where most voters want to see the move. A new party must take out the space in between.
So let`s discuss. With us tonight, our dear friends Jason Johnson, a politics journalism professor at Morgan State University, and MSNBC Political Contributor, and Stuart Stevens, a veteran of the Mitt Romney and George W. Bush Presidential campaigns. He is now with the Lincoln Project, his latest book, It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party became Donald Trump, is a must read. I highly recommend it.
Gentlemen, there was a lot I wanted to talk about tonight. And then boom, the forward news came. Stuart, to you first, what do you think? Is it possible?
STUART STEVENS, THE LINCOLN PROJECT SENIOR ADVISER: No, it`s not possible. Look, I have sort of a soft spot in my heart for something like this. But it doesn`t mean I have one in my head. If you believe the country is in an existential crisis, which I believe and I think a lot of people share that view. It`s certainly what we believe in the Lincoln project.
This idea of a third party is sort of an indulgence. It`s like you`re in the middle of a knife fight and you decide that really your biggest problem is losing weight. It`s probably a good idea to lose weight. But there really are more pressing things like getting out of this knife fight alive. I like a lot of the people involved here, I respect them. But I don`t think that this is the way forward to save democracy. And I think that`s really – – there are two political parties in America now, I sort of a misnomer to say that we`re going to have three.
There`s a pro autocracy movement, which is what the Republican Party has become. And there`s a Democratic Party. And I spent a lot of my life pointing out flaws in the Democratic Party, but it is the last best hope to save democracy. And that`s just how the real world is and I think we ought to live in.
RUHLE: All right, so what I`m Stuart, tell me Jason, is you get what you get, and you don`t get upset. There`s two parties, that`s it. What do you think?
[23:35:04]
JASON JOHNSON, PROFESSOR MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, partially I agree with Stuart in this regard. I have been saying for most of this year now, there is no Republican Party, it is a dime store front for a terrorist movement. You know, it`s, you know, Hamas to the PLO. Like it`s not a party. So we only have one party that governs.
The other issue that I see with this is purely theoretical. I am a political science professor, right? There`s this thing called Duverger`s Law or Duverger`s Law, however you want to pronounce it, it basically says in a system like ours, where in order to win, you have to get 50% plus one of the vote, it doesn`t make sense to have a third party. It is a system that sort of like a centrifuge that makes you want to be in too, because it increases your chances. But even on a more practical level, Stephanie, what do we got going on in this country right now? Massive voter suppression.
I don`t care about third party, I don`t care about the choices that we have. We don`t even know if the votes that we put forward are going to be counted. I think it`d be much more interesting and much more productive to put efforts into, I don`t know, blocking the Supreme Court, which is about to say the independent legislatures can ignore your votes, stopping what`s happening in Georgia, stopping what`s happening in Florida, stopping all these crazy stuff to steal people. That is much better energy to be used right now. I just don`t think this is practical at this particular point. And theoretically, it ain`t going to make much sense.
RUHLE: Well, the Op-Ed does say voter rights are a priority. Stuart, even if ideologically, this third party is in line with a whole lot of Americans, technically and practically speaking, have we created a two party system that at this point is impenetrable? So there`s no point in even trying to do this?
STEVENS: The short answer to that is yes. Maybe the long answer is unfortunately, yes. But it`s still yes. That`s just how we are in America. I mean, Michael Bloomberg thought about running for president as an independent, and I have good authority, he put a bunch of smart people in a room and said, the first check I write is for $2 billion. And these people to their credit, could not come to a way in which he could win the presidency. And he didn`t want to be a sportive, it is extraordinarily difficult to get on the ballot. It is extraordinarily difficult to create a party structure from nowhere. And my greatest fear about this is that it is going to detract and distract people from what is really the greatest crisis we have, which is stopping an autocratic movement. This is sort of – -I mean, I hate to say it, it sounds harsh. It`s sort of a vanity project.
RUHLE: All right, well, then, is there another way to skin this cat and it`s get rid of closed primaries, have open primaries, go with rank choice voting, because we`re so much of this is coming from is when you see centrist lawmakers decide to not run again, because they can`t bear the brunt of getting primary or the primary is the real problem here. Jason?
JOHNSON: Stephanie, I don`t think it`s an issue with the — I don`t think it`s an issue with the primaries. I think, when I look at this op-ed, and I read what these people are trying to do, I think of it also as a marketing issue. Like if I open up a new burger joint, it`s because I`m like, hey, McDonald`s isn`t doing this, and Burger King isn`t doing this. And Zack Spees only offers chicken, right? What are they actually offering this middle? Because a lot of times and, you know, theoretically, I don`t really believe in swing voters. A lot of times independents in America, it`s not that they really want middle of the road politics. It`s because they don`t believe either of the other parties can get things done that they like. So they just say I`m independent, because the Republicans are too crazy. And the Democrats won`t give me what I want. You have to actually be offering something, you have to be telling people, there`s a thing that this third party that forward can do that the other two parties haven`t. And until we see that, it doesn`t even make any sense. I don`t know who they`re appealing to. Are they appealing to millennials? Are they appealing to black voters? Are they appealing to the growing AAPI community? Unless they can tell me, who they`re selling or what they`re selling? That part doesn`t make any sense. And that has nothing to do with primaries or money or funding or anything has to do with basic marketing of a party.
RUHLE: So what do you think`s going to happen here, Stuart? What`s going to be the outcome of this effort?
STEVENS: Not much. I think we`re going to look back on it, and it might affect your race here or there. But it`s not going to have a lot of impact. The tragedy here would be if they get on the ballot and presidential race in a couple of states and drain votes, it would have gone to President Biden or whoever Democratic nominee is opposing Donald Trump, whoever the Republican is. I mean that, ultimately, politics is often a game of small numbers. So you could drain moderate — this party is going to be overwhelmingly white, moderate white voters who otherwise might have supported a Democrat even though they are institutionally Democrat. I think it would have a very negative impact and a really potentially a tragic impact when democracy is on the ballot.
RUHLE: All right then, gentlemen, stay with us. We have a lot more to cover.
[23:40:00]
When we come back, we`re going to go granular and check out some of the day`s political headlines as races heat up on a local level, when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN FETTERMAN, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA: Today is a very big day for Dr. Oz.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s New Jersey Day.
FETTERMAN: Woohoo. Yay. It`s a holiday recognizing Dr. Oz`s home state. So the next time he crosses the bridge back into PA there will be a beautiful billboard to greet him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:45:12]
RUHLE: It is always a day to celebrate Jersey, but it`s that Pennsylvania Senate race generating more viral content Democrat right there John Fetterman will not let voters forget that Trump endorsed Dr. Mehmet Oz is a Jersey native and he has gotten a another Jersey mega celebrity to help.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVIE VAN ZANDT: Yo. Dr. Oz. Stevie VZ here. What are you doing in Pennsylvania? Everybody knows you live in New Jersey and you just using your in laws address over there. And you do not want to mess around with John Fetterman. Trust me, he`s a little out of your league. Nobody wants to see you get embarrassed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: You might not want to mess with Stevie Van Zandt, Oz hitting back tweeting this image that accuses Fetterman of being lost.
Let`s dig in Jason Johnson, Stuart Stevens still with us. Jason, what do you think, can Fetterman troll his way to the U.S. Senate? I`m sitting here in New Jersey, laughing at that ad. But for people in Pennsylvania. Are they watching? Do they care? Does that matter to them?
JOHNSON: It does matter, because it builds upon all the other problems with Dr. Oz, right? Like, if Dr. Oz were a substantive candidate in other ways people would say OK, Fetterman. It was funny once or twice. But now we really want to talk about issues.
But Dr. Oz isn`t a real candidate. He`s a Trump endorsed crazy person. He`s had questionable histories. And there have been other criticisms that Fetterman has put forward about him, Fetterman — about us promoting wonder drugs and all sorts of other nonsense. So it is a very, very, very effective campaign strategy to say this guy is even from here, he doesn`t have any policy. And I`m the person who`s actually from the state. I think it`s going to be effective. And frankly, Dr. Oz doesn`t have a good response online. And that`s the other thing that`s sort of eating away at him on the campaign numbers.
RUHLE: Well, let`s go crazy but serious, Stuart, because in Arizona, the Republican primary for governor is heating up, they`ve got candidate Kari Lake, she`s claiming that stealing has already occurred in the election. And there`s absolutely no proof of that. How dangerous is that?
STEVENS: Well, look, this is what the Republican Party has become. I mean, the essence of democracy is somebody you got to be willing to lose. And Republicans have decided they aren`t willing to lose, they`re for democracy when they win, and they aren`t when they lose. So I mean, this is like she`s pre spinning a defeat, so she won`t accept it.
This is what — how democracies die. This sort of an acceptance of any ability to recognize that the other side`s viewpoint is valid. And a majority of voters and a plurality of voters have decided that the others are a better choice. That`s how a civil society has to work. And the Republicans have decided that that`s not how they want to operate the party. And there`s a lot of ways to kind of maybe edge this, but that`s really what this comes down to. It`s an attack on a fundamental reason, and proof of how you can have a democratic society and Republicans are attacking that. And that`s what autocracies do.
RUHLE: Jason, what are your thoughts? Because as she`s claiming, with absolutely no proof that they`re — that the election is already being stolen. We`re watching the January 6 hearings play out and watching Republican after Republican, Trump`s inner circle, make it really clear that the big lie is a lie. And he continues to push it. How dangerous is that? What is it doing to us?
JOHNSON: Well, Stephanie, it depends on who`s watching, right? Like if you`re a Kari Lake supporter, you already believe in that nonsense. You`re not watching the January 6 here, and you`re watching that other network, right? Where they don`t do any sort of coverage of it one way or another. The average person has been watching the coverage. And so when they hear that from Kari, they`re like, hey, you sound like a nutty person. If you want to tell me that there was corruption in the Phoenix mayor`s race. That`s one thing. But selling me on the whole national conspiracy full of aliens and Alex Jones and stuff like that, nobody really buys that, it alienates you.
But Stephanie, I`ll say this is the larger issue that we see here, going into the fall above and beyond voter suppression, above and beyond the Republicans sort of dime store front for the terrorist movement is, if they wanted to actually compete fairly. They pick so many nutcases between Herschel Walker and Dr. Oz and Kari Lake that they`re going to lose, assuming we can have a nominally fair election, they`re going to lose races that they could have won, because they were so arrogant that they thought that putting some sort of Trump supporter some sort of Trump acolyte was going to be enough to win elections in states where people like look, I`m more concerned about COVID and inflation, not with him and Oz was selling as far as magic beans and not Kari Lake and her crazy conspiracy theories.
[23:50:02]
RUHLE: OK but Stuart, why don`t Republicans need to sell a whole lot of crazy? You`ve spent your career working with, trying to elect major Republicans, right? Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, does the Republican Party no longer have a platform that`s appealing to the American people that they can only exist in a crazy zone?
STEVENS: Well, the Republican Party, let`s talk about that platform. For the first time in its history, the Republican Party has to platform that it is whatever their leader thought it was. I mean, you had to be inside this platform to realize just how extraordinary that is. Well, OK, wherever Donald Trump warns, there is no Conservative Party in America. I mean, if you able to gun them and say, what does it mean to be a conservative American, they say, shoot me. There`s no philosophy of government, they can`t articulate a unified theory of coherent policy.
Now, you know, you talk to Elizabeth Warren, you ask her what she believes, and you might not agree with her. But she has a theory of government, she can articulate it. And it is a failure ultimately, of policy. That is at the root of what has happened to the Republican Party. And it goes back really to race, the Republican Party failed to attract non-white voters, they never really came up with the policies that were necessary to prove to those who weren`t quite like themselves, that they could better their lives. And because of that failure, they had two ways to go. Either they could keep working and admit it was a failure. Or they could just try to become a white extremist party and make it harder for other non-white voters to vote. And that`s the choice they`ve made. And it`s at the verge of potentially ruining America apart.
RUHLE: So I guess Donald Trump on his two visits to black communities saying on the south side of Chicago, vote for me, what do you have to lose was not a winning strategy. Jason, we`re now seeing Democrats raise big, big money to target suburban women. Are these — I know, you normally don`t like to talk about swing voters. But are these the voters that could make a difference in November? Issues like abortion, are these going to get a lot of people who weren`t engaged weren`t interested? Are they going to get them to show up?
JOHNSON: I`ve said all along that when it comes to sort of people in the excerpts, first off, we have to expand our definition of the suburbs, right? It ain`t just white women anymore. It`s black women. It`s Asian women. It`s people of all kinds. So spending that kind of money makes sense to people in the suburbs. They`re also people who are policy concern. They worry about schools, they worry about gas prices. But I`ll say this, and I`ve pointed this out, and this is why we`ve seen a change in the congressional ballot, the overturning of Roe v. Wade by an absolutely illegitimate rogue Supreme Court is a motivating factor.
And here`s a small element of this that I know as a college professor, regardless of how you may feel right now about the overturning of Roe versus Wade, wait until kids — people`s kids go to college this fall, waiting to those suburban parents, daughters and sons are in school this fall, then that abortion issue is going to become much more, much more prescient in their mind. So yes, I think that spending the money in the suburbs makes sense. Those are the kinds of people who could be motivated to vote midterms when they have it in the past. And I don`t think right now, I actually don`t think this fall at this point in July is going to be as bad for Democrats, as a lot of people think all things considered with voter suppression.
RUHLE: All things considered, Jason Johnson, Stuart Stevens, thank you for making us smarter tonight.
Just ahead, some timely wisdom from the legendary producer who`s created the persona of politics to come and who happens to be marking a pretty big birthday tonight, when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:55]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NORMAN LEAR, LEGENDARY TELEVISION WRITER AND PRODUCER: Well a democratic way of rolling this card is to go tell us or how we ought to make sacrifices. God, great our night stuff. But they`re all going to have us over the hill to the poorhouse. We ain`t going to be able to drive over there because they got no gas, we`re going to have to walk.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, the Reader`s Digest says walking is very good for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight, visions of a shared future, TV legend Norman Lear turned an astonishing 100 years old today. In honor of the milestone, the Emmy Winning Producer of all in the family and co- founder of People for the American Way, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, titled, “On My 100th Birthday Reflections, on Archie Bunker and Donald Trump.” In it, he writes, for all his faults, Archie loved his country, and he loved his family, even when they called him out on his ignorance and bigotries. If Archie had been around 50 years later, he probably would have watched Fox News. He probably would have been a Trump voter. But I think that the sight of the American flag being used to attack Capitol Police would have sickened him.”
Lear goes on to say, “I often feel disheartened by the direction that our politics, our courts and our culture are taking. But I do not lose faith in our country or its future. I remind myself of how far we have come.” And he concludes by offering hope writing, “This is our century, dear reader, yours and mine. Let us encourage one another with visions of a shared future. And let us bring all the grit and open heartedness and creative spirit we can muster, to gather together and build that future.” There also took to Twitter, to offer some thoughtful advice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAR: Living in the moment, the moment between past and present or present and past. The moment between after and next. The hammock in the middle of after and next. The moment. Treasure it. Use it. With love.
[00:00:13]
RUHLE: We will treasure the moment and treasure you, Norman Lear on your 100th birthday.
And on that very beautiful and inspiring note, I wish you all a very good night. From all of our colleagues across the networks of NBC News, I want to thank you for staying up late with us, and I`ll see you at the end of tomorrow.