Updated
Summary
WAPO: DHS IG halted recovery of Secret Service texts. 1/6 investigation focuses on Trump WH insiders. House passes bill banning assault weapons. Two straight quarters of economic contraction. Alito mocks foreign leaders who criticized Roe reversal.
Transcript
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: He was driven about two miles to a local supporter`s house and didn`t depart the city until 7:47 p.m.
Abbott`s campaign was asked to respond by the Dallas Morning News. That campaign insisted Governor Abbott told the truth, but offered absolutely no evidence to prove it.
That is tonight`s “LAST WORD”. I`m Ayman Mohyeldin. Thanks for watching. THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts right now.
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, the late breaking news in the mystery over those missing Secret Service text messages, along with those from Homeland Security bosses working for the former guy. How does data from around January 6, just disappear?
Plus, with the midterms 102 days away? How is the apparent Republican strategy of obstruction and extremism working out? Then, it has been a big week for the Biden administration. We`ll get into the wins, the challenges and the controversial comments of one Supreme Court Justice with one of our favorite historians, as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Friday night.
Good evening once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. And we have got breaking news just out tonight from the Washington Post. The paper reporting the Homeland Security Inspector General, the watchdog stopped a plan to locate those missing Secret Service text messages from January 6. Writing this, “The Homeland Security`s chief watchdog scrapped its investigative team`s effort to collect agency phones to try to recover deleted Secret Service text this year, according to four people with knowledge of the decision and internal records reviewed by the Washington Post.”
The paper says, the Inspector General and his staff did not respond to repeated requests for comments on this reporting. That report was co- authored by Carol Leonnig, she will be joining us in just a moment. Last night Carol and her colleague reported, there are even more missing text messages from Trump`s acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and his Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli from a key period, guest when? Leading up to the attack on the Capitol. Chad Wolf responded in a tweet saying this, “I complied with all the data retention laws and returned all my equipment fully loaded to the department. DHS has all my texts, emails, phone logs, schedules.”
Meanwhile, the January sixth committee is now focusing on Trump administration figures. The Justice Department appears to be escalating its own inquiry and efforts into overturn the 2020 election. Today, former Trump Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney revealed what House investigators wanted to know during his interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICK MULVANEY, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF: I said some tweets and some texts on January 6, they want to talk about that. I was also fairly heavily involved in the Trump campaign at pointing they wanted to know about the discussions I`d had leading up to the Election Day and then the discussions right after the Election Day. And then interestingly, there were some questions toward the end about general questions about how a White House might run. They wanted to know the process, for example, on how visitors would come see the president or how would a Chief of Staff typically try and include or exclude people from meetings with the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Mulvaney also told NBC News, the committee was interested in his communication with RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, the week following the 2020 election. He said during a phone call, McDaniel told him Trump had lost Arizona.
With that let`s get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel, Carol Leonnig, herself, Pulitzer Prize Winning Investigative Reporter with The Washington Post is with us. Jeff Mason, White House Correspondent for Reuters and former federal Prosecutor Glenn Kirschner, he has tried hundreds of cases in his 30 year career including murder trials, organized crime and precedent setting cases.
All right, first, I`m going to say Glenn and Jeff, I`m going to apologize in advance, not a lot of time for either of you, because this is Carol`s night. Please tell us more about your reporting, why on earth would the Inspector General, the watchdog, scrapped their plans to recover these texts? Why?
CAROL LEONNIG, THE WASHINGTON POST INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: You know, Stephanie, that is the $64,060 million question. In fact, an investigator that I spoke with yesterday, this morning, said to me when I asked, what`s the significance in your mind about these records, these devices being offered by certain federal agency officials and the inspector general, the government watchdog, saying, yeah, no, never mind, we`re not going to take those. The investigators said, what in investigator doesn`t take evidence that`s brought into them and offered? And that`s actually what one of the DHS agencies did in February, when they were asked by the Inspector General, do you have these texts? The Federal Protective Service, a different agency than the Secret Service said, hey, we, you know, we don`t know how to get these off our phones. But if you want our phones, come and collect them, and you guys can use your forensic team and figure out if you can recover the information.
[23:05:26]
But James Caffari, the watchdog, his team said, you know, no, thanks. They refuse to let their staff collect the phones and try to recover the data. They all — he also killed their staffs idea in February to offer the Secret Service the opportunity, hand us your phones, and we`ll try to recover these missing texts from around January 6, the most calamitous and important moment we can all think of in recent history, and now the subject of a criminal investigation. But the Inspector General James Caffari, told his staff, no, we`re not going to ask the Secret Service for their phones.
RUHLE: So who is this James Caffari guy? Because in my simple little mind, I like to thank the inspector general, that is the watchdog, that is the unbiased organization in the middle there to keep everybody honest, who is this guy? And what rationale is his department giving for why they`d scrap any of this?
LEONNIG: His office until literally a few minutes before we came on the air has declined to answer any of our questions, any of our questions at the Washington Post. However, tonight, again, seconds before I was about to talk to you, I got an email from his office, which we will add to our story in which they say that because they are now conducting a criminal investigation, they`re going to be unable to speak to us about some of their decision making this year.
But you asked the right question, Stephanie, who is this Inspector General? And I just have to set the stage and tell you that the last time I wrote about him, which was last year, it was because he had blocked his staff, his career staff`s recommendation to investigate two other ways in which the Secret Service had essentially enabled the political shenanigans of Donald Trump. One was in creating super spreaders as campaign rallies in 2020. And the other was the Secret Service role in clearing — forcibly clearing peaceful protesters who were protesting the death of George Floyd from a park outside of the White House. So President Trump can have a photo-op. And that`s the backdrop through which I see this inspector general, a Trump appointee who has tried to put the kibosh on things that could be embarrassing for the Trump administration in the past. And now —
RUHLE: And just so —
LEONNIG: Go ahead.
RUHLE: Just so we`re clear, Carol. So this guy was appointed by Trump, James Murray, the Secret Service was appointed by Trump. And how about the two acting guys who suddenly have their messages missing? Those are Trump appointees as well?
LEONNIG: Yes, yes, you are keeping score at home correctly.
RUHLE: Got it. OK. Then quickly, last question, gentlemen, I promise I`m getting to you. They scrapped the plan to find these messages months ago. How about now? Have they reinstalled it? Can we get those messages?
LEONNIG: You know, my colleagues at the Post who work in the business section and our techie experts have been taking — have been, you know, reviewing this exact same thing. And their early information is that all sorts of tech — techie experts believe there`s got to be a way except when you get down to the nitty-gritty, which is that the Secret Service had a policy that they did not back up text messages to the cloud, they did not allow agents to have this backup mechanism on their iPhones because of that, and I don`t pretend to be an expert on this, but multiple experts have told us that`s going to make it very, very difficult to recover this information. And the delay in the Inspector General`s, you know, decision to take this seriously as also really complicated and made a mess of our ability to maybe ever see this evidence.
RUHLE: Really complicated, really convenient. All right, Glenn Kirschner, you are the lawyer. You are our innocent until proven guilty guy. Is there anyone left who believes that gosh, darn it, it was just a system upgrade. That`s why all the messages got deleted. Anybody buying that at this point?
GLENN KIRSCHNER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: You know, Steph, first of all, I`m always happy to yield my time to Carol because I`ve learned so much from her reporting, but look there is really only one thing left to be done. There needs to be a criminal probe open. I mean, the federal government, at least the Trump administration seems to be this bottomless pit have deleted evidence, let`s call it what it is.
[23:10:23]
And, you know, I maintain that, one, there`s adequate predication to open a criminal probe, to look at what the Secret Service was doing and why they were doing it, to look at why the leadership of DHS, Acting Secretary Chad Wolf and Acting Deputy Ken Cuccinelli are apparently have had their texts deleted now, so there should be a criminal probe and if they`ve done nothing wrong, there`ll be exonerated. And then it should start raining down subpoenas on these people. Because we can`t just sit and wait and hope we`re going to get text messages. They need to be placed under oath, they need to be asked about two things. One, that how and why of these deleted text messages. And two, OK, we want to know everybody you spoke with, you communicated with, you DM with, you texted with on and around January 6. And you know —
RUHLE: OK, OK.
KIRSCHNER: — Chad Wolf tweet — go ahead.
RUHLE: But Glenn, if they can — if the messages are not able to be retrieved, and under oath, they can say can`t remember, don`t remember, it was a year and a half ago. What can you really get them for, right? They knew that deleting these things was going to look horrible. But if they chose to delete them anyway, then wouldn`t that tell you that they think they can get away with doing this?
KIRSCHNER: Two things, Steph. One, if they texted to other phones, we know courtesy of Carol`s great reporting, that back in April, federal prosecutors got Mark Meadows phone records. Well guess what, if Chad Wolf or Ken Cuccinelli had texted or communicated with Mark Meadows, well, then federal prosecutors are going to know at least a little something about it. And let`s look at Chris Miller as an example. He can say anything he wants. And then we see when he`s under oath, he tells a whole another story. Chad Wolf can tweet anything he wants. Last time I checked before you post a tweet, you`re not placed under oath and swearing to tell the truth. Get them in there, wear them out under oath. And if they lie, they do it at their own peril.
RUHLE: Jeff, what`s your take on all of this?
JEFF MASON, REUTERS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I just think it`s interesting as an observer who doesn`t have — I`m not doing reporting on this the way our amazing colleague Carol has been how — it kind of your first question tonight, why is it that things keep going missing? Why is it that these text messages here and elsewhere, aren`t available at a time when really these two parallel investigations are going on? The DOJ investigation, as well as the January 6 committee hearing? So it certainly raises a lot of questions. And it`s great that we`re trying to answer them.
RUHLE: Carol, it does sound like there, at least one of them, is your refuting to some extent, your reporting, saying nope, he submitted all of his information, complied with all the rules?
LEONNIG: Well, you know, he — we didn`t say in our story, he didn`t comply with all the rules. What we said was that his texts were missing, and that DHS claimed to the inspector general in February, based on an email that I have, and I read, and that we use for our reporting, DHS claimed that those texts were missing because they reset his phone. As part of his departure from office.
He has said what seems reasonable, which is I turned in all my stuff. And these questions are for DHS, I always give everybody the benefit of the doubt, the questions are for the DHS and there should be more follow up with all of these individuals about their personal phones.
And, you know, I want to just emphasize something. And I love the way Jeff put it, which is why is all this stuff happening. Why is all this stuff missing? I have the same question. And people ask me all the time, including inside my own office, Carol, why? And I`ve got to tell you. We don`t know the answer yet. And it could be just incredible incompetence. But there are enough Trump appointees in each of the roles that made decisions about deleting this information, resetting the phones, not requiring a full archive of all this material, as the federal records laws require. There are enough Trump appointees and all of these roles who helped indirectly or directly, the vanishment of evidence that they should be questioned about this in a way that I can`t force them. I can`t force them to answer those questions, the way Glenn has described.
[23:15:05]
RUHLE: Let`s say it is incredible incompetence, Glenn, is that a good enough excuse?
KIRSCHNER: No, but it`s something that has to be fleshed out. And the only way to flesh it out, you know, taking an oath to tell the truth and being subjected to five years in prison, each time you lie about a material matter has a way of focusing one`s mind and attention. So the Jan. 6 committee ought to serve these folks with subpoenas. The federal prosecutors ought to serve these folks with grand jury subpoenas, and let`s get their mind focused.
RUHLE: Jeff, what does this all say about the former president`s administration and his ability to move forward as a potential political candidate?
MASON: Well, the politics of it are, I don`t think positive for former President Donald Trump. The only perhaps silver lining for him politically, is his supporters. And he himself will often say that any sort of traction on an investigation is politically motivated, whether the evidence supports that or not, and that gins up support and that gins up excitement among his base.
But the, again, the dual sort of investigations that we`re seeing right here have been very damning and are getting closer and closer to the former president himself. Is he going to run? It seems awfully clear now that he is. Will he use that as a way, will he use this as something that`s kind of a talking point on the trail? Almost certainly, if you look at the way that he`s used the Mueller investigation, and any other questions about him and his behavior in the past. Will it help? Will it hurt? That will, in large part politically depend on who else is running against him and what they do with that information? We`re talking now about the Republican primary, whether that comes up as something that they tried to use against him, or whether it`s painted just as a Democrats versus Republicans versus the former president.
RUHLE: We`re 102 days away from the midterms. It will be interesting to see after those midterms, who wins, where the political will is to continue investigating this. Running for president, running from the law. Only time will tell.
Carol Leonnig, thank you for joining us for your unbelievable reporting. Jeff Mason, Glenn Kirschner for your fantastic insights. Always good to see you all.
Coming up next, a key vote tonight in the House on banning assault weapons after a wave of mass shootings in this country.
And later, could it be a turning point for the Biden presidency? Historian Jon Meacham is here on the president moving closer to a huge win for his domestic agenda. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on a big news Friday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:22:31]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA HOUSE SPEAKER: Our nation has watched in unspeakable horror as assault weapons have been used in massacre after massacre and communities across the country. We know that an assault weapon ban can work because it has worked before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Tonight, the House passed a bill that would ban assault weapons for the first time since 2004. It passed largely along party lines, with just two Republicans voting for the measure and five Democrats opposing it. The ban is not expected to make it through the Senate where it would need support from at least 10 Republicans.
So let`s discuss. With us tonight, Maria Teresa Kumar, the President and CEO of Voto Latino. She`s also an MSNBC Contributor and MSNBC Political Contributor Matthew Dowd, also former George W. Bush Strategist and Founder of Country over Party.
Matt, you and I spoke during our hour long special about gun violence after the Uvalde shooting. What do you think of this bill and the fact that it`s most likely going nowhere in the Senate?
MATTHEW DOWD, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think you`re right. I think there`s not enough senators to in order to pass this bill. We know from the evidence of years gone by when this was passed in the 90s. Gun violence, mass shootings went down when it expired in 2004, 2005, gun shootings against mass shooting started rising. So we know it works as a law that it works.
I think from a political standpoint, let`s just put aside that it won`t pass the Senate, from a political standpoint, I think it`s smart politics by the Democrats, because they have risen over the last month in the polls against Republicans because of three things. What happened with Roe versus Wade? The January sixth commission and gun violence. And I think anything that highlights those three issues, especially gun reform is good for the Democrats politically.
RUHLE: Well, here`s another one yesterday, Senate Republicans voted against a bill that would have expanded medical coverage for millions of vets. Matt, this is your former party. What in the world is this strategy there?
DOWD: Underline the former, underline the former very clearly party in this. I have no idea what the Republicans — I think they become a party that doesn`t really stand for anything anymore, any fundamental things. I mean, this seemed like a slam dunk bill that they all supposedly reform Mitch McConnell promised weeks ago to get this deal done. They now are just drawing the line at things that make no sense and they`re spending time on things like gay marriage and things like ensuring that women don`t have a right to access to reproductive freedom.
[23:25:06]
All of these weird things, they spend time on, and then they vote against stuff like this, which actually supposedly, for them helps out who they constantly advocate for. So in my view, there`s no logic in what they`re doing. Because I think today, it`s a party led by a cult and to a personality, and it`s based on performance art. And I think that`s why they`re left with zero principles and zero policy direction.
RUHLE: Veterans who they say they advocate for but who clearly they vote against.
Maria, I want to share what another former GOP strategist Stuart Stevens, told me earlier this week about the current Republican Party.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STUART STEVENS, THE LINCOLN PROJECT SENIOR ADVISER: It is a failure ultimately, of policy that is at the root of what has happened to the Republican Party. 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Do you think he`s right?
MARIA TERESA KUMAR, VOTO LATINO PRESIDENT & CEO: Let me take you back into history of a few years ago, when Mitt Romney loss, failingly and the Republican`s party came up with what they call the autopsy, this is how we were going to attract a more diverse base. They looked at it, read it and stuck it in the drawer. And a side no, you know what, let`s become white nationalists. That`s basically what they decided to do. Because they did have that opportunity to talk about business in a way that the Democrats never were able to. They had an opportunity to actually tackle the environment, because they were so close to the oil, to the oil companies. They had an opportunity and they chose not to.
And this is the thing, when — at the end of the day, we actually want a thriving Democratic and Republican Party. We want to have a country where you have a choice when it comes to the ideas to advance policy. And we don`t have that right now. So what Liz Cheney is doing, and what we`re starting to see with Pence do, is break that Republican cult, that fever, and if they can, whether it`s that they choose to see with their own party or breakout into a third party, then the democracy has a shot. And that is what we`re talking about right now, is where we`re at a crossroads that if we don`t have more than a one party system, but a thriving two to three party system, we`re basically at a loss as a country and as a democracy.
RUHLE: I see where Liz Cheney is doing that. Where exactly do you see Mike Pence doing that? Earlier this week, he said, he stands for all the America first principles. His focus is just different than Trump`s. Where do you see a break?
KUMAR: So I wouldn`t say that I`m aligned with either Liz Cheney or with Mike Pence, let`s be clear. But the fact that he is going to — try to go toe to toe right now with Trump, going against the candidate, I mean, the fact that he went to Arizona and said, you know what, I`m not supporting your candidate. I`m supporting the one that is less right wing than you are. The fact that he went up to Capitol Hill last week and had a conversation with Senator saying that things were not exactly on the right track. He`s not denouncing Trump, but he`s trying to create a new lane for the Republicans to get back on track. Isn`t going to happen? I think it`s going to be really, really difficult.
I actually wouldn`t be surprised, Stephanie, if at the end of the day, the one that cleaves off of the Republican Party is Trump, kind of what Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912, with the Bull Moose Party, and then you know, that went off to a different way. But at least it creates this opportunity for us again, to go back to policy. It`s going to be really difficult, though, because we are feeling a lot of pain. What the Republican Party right now stands for. It`s not just white nationalist, racism, sadly, in many ways, but it`s authoritarian. And when you go to the local level, you have so many communities right now that are hurting as a result of these authoritarian tendencies that were — that that`s on display.
RUHLE: Or maybe Mike Pence is just doing the math because latest Fox News poll shows that Democrats John Fetterman and Josh Shapiro are leading in Pennsylvania races by double digits against whom, hardcore Trump embraced candidates, think about that.
Maria Teresa Kumar, Matthew Dowd, always good to see you. Thank you for being here tonight.
When we come back, the one and only Jon Meacham is here on the President`s big week. And what is next as Joe Biden nears a major victory in Congress? When THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:34:23]
RUHLE: It has been quite a week for President Joe Biden, the president recovered from his bout of COVID, Justice Senators Manchin and Schumer, announced a possible deal on many of the President`s main domestic priorities. The very next day, the House passed another Biden Bill funding domestic chip and semiconductor manufacturing.
So let`s discuss, Jon Meacham joins us, presidential historian and the Rogers chair in the American presidency at Vanderbilt University. He sometimes advises the current president on historical matters and major speeches. And his new book, And There Was Light: Abraham: Lincoln and the American Struggle will be published in October.
Jon, always good to see you. What do you think, could this be a turning point in the Biden`s presidency?
[23:35:06]
JON MEACHAM, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I think it`s another example of how there`s a disconnect between headlines and history. Understandably, the political world is arena of cut and thrust. And a lot of us live minute to minute. But a lot of governance happens. Not on a cable clock or a Twitter clock. It happens slowly, sometimes painfully. But I do think that right now, President Biden, who, as you say, is my friend, so take this for, for what it`s worth, is governing, with a sense that he wants to show that the constitutional experiment can work.
And there`s a huge burden on all of us, citizens, leaders, media, everything, to show that democracy can deliver. And I think what happened this week, is a sign that where all the early obituaries for the Biden presidency, which are, by the way, inevitable. We could sit here and — I won`t inflict this on you, but I could read you stuff from George Washington`s presidency that would say, oh, he`s in trouble, you know. George Washington, who never had a political opponent in a campaign actually wanted to quit after one term because he was being criticized so much. So that gives you some sense of what this is like. But I think for people who have had an extraordinary lack of trust, a lack of confidence in the capacity of the constitutional experiment, to deliver real results, this is a week where the evidence suggests that progress is possible.
RUHLE: It is not all good news for the president this week, we`ve got more negative economic news, the economy is shrinking, it`s slowing in part, because the Fed is trying to slow it to control inflation, which is clearly a problem in this country. What is the best way for a president to handle that challenge? When an economy is complicated anything to learn from the experiences of the likes of Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon?
MEACHAM: Yes. Well, inflation is a western world. You know, Macron has this problem other, other people do. So it`s a global force. That doesn`t mean that your question isn`t fully rooted in reality. There is an economic reality about what you know, vastly more than I do. And then there`s a political reality. And for a lot of sort of ordinary people. What they`re seeing right now is inflation. There`s this unfolding Trump threat, which kind of rumbles along in the background. And they`re not as interested in my grand statement about the constitutional experiment. You know, James Madison would not buy a hamburger (ph), and it should be. And that`s the way it is. And I know the President understands that.
As you say, look, this is a global economy. We have 330 million people. It`s a big, complicated disputations country, infinity of decisions, individual economic decisions make up what happens in a given era. Inflation is a brutal political thing. And the experience of, you know, President Nixon, who tried to wage and price controls, you know, President Nixon was actually — couldn`t be nominated today by the Republican Party because of his health care plan, created the EPA, you know, that`s all is as if we`re talking about the Peloponnesian War, to discuss Richard Nixon`s domestic policy as a Republican. You haven`t Peloponnesian War thrown at you yet tonight, have you? First time?
RUHLE: You know, it is a hot Friday night when we are talking the Peloponnesian War. And you know what, Jon, our audiences in luck, because you`re staying with us, hopefully, on the other side of the break, we can go even deeper on that. Or maybe another topic. Why one former prosecutor called out a justice for being called — I can`t believe he brought that up. Wildly inappropriate, and what all that means for the Supreme Court when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:44:06]
RUHLE: While recent polls have public trust in the Supreme Court at historic lows, one member of the court is testing the limits of that trust even further. In his first public appearance since the opinion that overturned Roe, Justice Samuel Alito mocked — yes, mocked foreign leaders who criticized the decision. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMUEL ALITO, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I had the honor this term of waiting, I think the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders. One of these was former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but he paid the price. What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:45:03]
RUHLE: Historian Jon Meacham still with us. Jon, is there any precedent for this? I really try not to use that word because we use it all too often over the last four years, but a Supreme Court justice on a podium like that.
MEACHAM: Yeah. And, you know, I think it was William Howard Taft, who said, presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court is forever, and to whom much is given much as expected, that`s a lifetime appointment, to decide in a given generation, and perhaps beyond that, what the Constitution means. And look, all of us go for an easy joke occasionally, but not all of us are United States Supreme Court justices. And so I think that that number you just showed, I suspect, if people paid attention would tick down even farther.
I think that part of the problem is, the court is seen — courts always been political, right? That`s the judicial review began, as a kind of Federalist check, on what was becoming a more Jeffersonian democracy, always a political body. But its power, in many ways, lies in its capacity to appear that it is not following what the Duke of Sussex has to say about you. There are women and men in the United States that at this hour, who are despairing about the state of the country, and rethinking their commitment to the Constitution of the United States, because of that decision. That decision was rendered by the court. And leaving aside the particular arguments about it. It`s as profound a decision as any of us can possibly imagine.
And so to make light of, of the whole situation seems to me to be very generous, it`s tone deaf, and to be more even less generous, is suggests a kind of a kind of self-involvement at the very highest levels that I don`t think serves the court or the Constitution very well.
RUHLE: But the fact that Justice Alito and his conservative peers, they know that this Court is facing a crisis of credibility, to go out and say something like that, what does that tell you that they don`t care? He knows he`s on that bench for life?
MEACHAM: That`s exactly you`ve answered your own question. Yeah. Why would you? You know, you are a — you`ve appointed for life. This is anyone in politics tends to get a very high opinion of themselves, give somebody a lifetime appointment and call them, Your Honor. And you`re going to exacerbate that. I think that, yeah, I think their view is sort of like the Taft view. Presidents can come and go, people like me, come and go, but they endure. And I would just argue that, again, to go back to the Gospels, to whom much is given, much as expected.
And we`re in this, you know, there`s this enveloping an unfolding crisis of trust that connects the two parts of our conversation, right? Can democracy deliver results, that convince enough people that they`re willing to be part of an experiment, where you have to accept that you lose every once in a while, you can`t be for the Constitution, only when you win. That`s not the way it works. It was set up because of this big, complicated country. And the country`s gotten even more complicated, obviously, since then.
So what the President is trying to do, what a whole chunk of Americans are trying to do is preserve the rule of law. And here you have the arbiters of the rule of law, making light of the arguably the most profound decisions since the 1950s. And so it`s not a great day for the Supreme Court now.
RUHLE: So what`s the consequence, though, if I — we started this conversation, saying that trust in the Supreme Court is reaching historic lows? What happens if America doesn`t trust the Supreme Court?
MEACHAM: God help us because the presidency, the Congress, they were set up to be responsive and accountable to public pressure. As the constitutional tradition has developed, the Supreme Court was supposed to be the umpire, right, to use Justice — Chief Justice Roberts` image. This only works, the whole thing only works if we`re willing to accept things, and if we`re willing to win gracefully because it`s given take, that`s what the Constitution is. And that sounds grand, I guess, but it has the virtue of being true.
[23:50:16]
And so I think it`s — if the court continues on this path to being seen as simply another partisan apparatus, then this fight for the rule of law that so many of us in America are concerned about, becomes ever more difficult.
Final point, if democracy were easy, everybody would do it. This is really hard. It requires a kind of a human interaction and an assent, an acceptance of the rules. And the rules have to apply to everybody, or they don`t work. And that`s where we are. And we`re living in a world where, within the last two years, people stormed the capital of the United States. Huge part of the country believes a lie about the 2020 election, speaking of unprecedented, even Andrew Jackson accepted an election that he lost.
So I believe that we`re in the stress test for citizenship. And it doesn`t help matters when the people at the top are making light of what is certainly the most significant prices the country has faced since the 1850s. And people may disagree with that, but I`d argue that with anybody anytime.
RUHLE: Without decency, we cannot have democracy. Jon Meacham. We are so, so grateful that you could spend part of your Friday night with us, always, always good to see you.
MEACHAM: Thanks, Steph.
RUHLE: Coming up, we`re in the final few minutes of a legendary career, paying tribute to the retiring remarkable NBC`s own Pete Williams, when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:56:13]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It`s the most conservative court we`ve had in probably a century. And they are feeling their oats and, you know, they are eager to take charge and move things in the direction that they think are best in the country. And the coming term will be a very big deal with affirmative action with two really important election cases. So it`s — next term is going to be a blockbuster too
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight, and Pete we trust and we are very sad to see our dear friend Pete Williams will not be here to cover the Supreme Court`s next term this fall after, nearly 30 years with NBC News, the longtime and most extraordinary Justice Correspondent is retiring today. We will miss Pete`s superb reporting and his brilliant insight. My colleague, Hallie Jackson has a look back at his extraordinary career.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HALLIE JACKSON, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Pete Williams might hate this report, it doesn`t really have any scoops. It`s probably overwritten. So let`s do the Pete thing and just get to it. Everything he`s done over nearly three decades, five administrations and approximately 465 trillion live shots. That`s hyperbole. By the way, Pete hates that too.
WILLIAMS: Pete Williams. Pete Williams. Pete Williams, NBC News at the Supreme Court.
JACKSON: He`s covered the court and the Department of Justice for years, a super stressful be but if the guy sweats you wouldn`t know it. Watch how steady he is in 2000, reading through the court`s decision on Florida`s voting machines that decided that year`s presidential election live on air.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there is no room for a recount, this election is over for Vice President Al Gore. And that`s affected by what you`re saying.
WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. And I see nothing in — that anyway, it`s incompatible with that, Tom.
JACKSON: It did take Pete a couple decades to get to the Nightly News after starting off in the 70s in Casper, Wyoming doing local TV and radio.
WILLIAMS: Pete Williams K2 News.
JACKSON: In the `80s, he joined the office of then Wyoming Congressman Dick Cheney. And when Cheney became Defense Secretary under President George H.W. Bush, Pete headed to the Pentagon two as the spokesperson there.
WILLIAMS: OK, let`s see. Good afternoon. I do have a few announcements for you.
JACKSON: He shifted back to news joining NBC in 1993. And by 2012, he`d hit legend status with this moment, getting the court`s decision on the Affordable Care Act right.
WILLIAMS: The bottom line here is the Supreme Court as upheld the health care case.
JACKSON: That`s after other outlets had incorrectly reported the opposite. The next year, Pete taught another master class and accuracy during the hunt for one of the Boston Marathon bombers.
WILLIAMS: Several law enforcement officials have confirmed for us now that he is alive. He is in custody. Unbelievable. As one said, who`s been following this.
JACKSON: Even former President Obama noticed how good Pete was.
BARACK OBAMA, (D) FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: And that`s what great journalism is. And that`s what great journalists do. That`s why for example, Pete Williams, new nickname around the NBC Newsroom is “Big Papi.”
JACKSON: It`s not like Pete needed a big finale but he delivered anyway breaking one last huge story when Justice Stephen Breyer retired a couple months ago.
WILLIAMS: Made this decision within the past couple of weeks to step down.
JACKSON: Pete`s had the kind of career that boils his competitors alive with envy. But the funny thing is, they like him. Everyone does, because even more than what Pete`s done is who he is, kind and helpful and smart, intimidatingly smart, but he never makes a big thing about it. He`s a gracious colleague and a gracious host legitimately hilarious. By the way totally deadpan to be roasted by Pete is a badge of honor. And sure retirement means more time for his drum lessons and his trips to Jackson Hole. But there`s a reason why our bosses always say wait for Pete because as the saying goes around here in Pete we trust. I bet you do too. And that pretty much says it all.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[00:00:03]
RUHLE: Thank you, Pete Williams. We will miss you. And on one very, very, very, very last thing before we go, I`ve got one more. I`ve got a wish a very special thank you this week to my next door neighbor, you`re looking at on the screen right there, John Barvanno (ph). He took being neighborly to a whole other level this week springing into action on multiple occasions after my printer and this home studio went on strike. Mr. Barvanno (ph), I would like you to know that this show would not have happened this week without you. I and my audience, were grateful.
And on that note, I wish you — and I just want to say, Fred Rogers, smiling down on you from heaven, John. And that note, I wish you all a very good night and a wonderful weekend. From all of our colleagues across the networks of NBC News, thanks for staying up late with us. I`ll see you here on Monday.