Updated
Summary
Next week, the Senate is expected to hold a hearing on a bipartisan bill to reform the 135 year old electoral count act. With the very real consequences of the radical Supreme Court`s decision to end the right to an abortion being felt by women, girls, families and health care providers around the country, Democrats in Congress are racing to try and codify a number of other at risk rights into law. Robb Elementary School principal Mandy Gutierrez has been placed on paid administrative leave. She`s the second official to be placed on leave after the massacre that left 19 children and two teachers dead.
Transcript
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: It`s nice to see you, Rachel.
You know, I was just going to say, really quickly, as someone who spent time overseas and covered religious extremism and politics, I always noticed that people overseas admired America for being able to keep religion out of politics. It was a hallmark of American democracy and politics that our institutions were insulated from that.
But as you pointed out to9day, it seems more and more, as politicians own that they are Christian nationalists and the Supreme Court making the decisions that it has been making, grounded in religious interpretation, we are going down a slippery slope.
[22:00:50]
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, “TRMS”: Yeah, and it is. I mean, thank you for saying that. I think sometimes it is easier to see that from the outside looking in, contrasting us with other countries that knowingly don`t have that. We`re telling ourselves that we do, but, you know, from the very beginning and from all the most noble Americans who have upheld that tradition, separation of church and state is just as good for the state as it is for the church.
It is — it protects religion as much as it protects the polity, and giving it up endangers both, giving up that split endangers both. And we are — we play with that line a lot and it`s in a really dangerous place on some parts of the right.
MOHYELDIN: Absolutely. So good on you for putting a spotlight on that, Rachel. Thank you. Greatly appreciate it. Good to see you.
MADDOW: Thanks, Ayman. Thanks, my friend. Appreciate it.
MOHYELDIN: Take care.
Tonight, new reporting is shedding light on the state of justice — the state of the Justice Department`s investigation into the January 6th attack on the Capitol. “The Washington Post” is reporting tonight, quote, copies of two subpoenas issued to Republican state senators from Arizona, were actually released Monday via public records request, confirming what has been previously reported about the June demands for records related to the signing or mailing of any documents purporting to be a certificate certifying elector votes in favor of Donald J. Trump, and/or Michael R. Pence.
The subpoenas issued to Karen Fann, president of the Arizona senate, and Senator Kelly Townsend, also see communications relating to any effort, plan, or attempt to serve as an elector in favor of them then president and then vice president.
That`s not all the news that`s coming out tonight from the DOJ`s investigation. NBC News is reporting that Marc Short, the vice president, excuse me the vice president`s former chief of staff, Mike Pence`s former chief of staff, appeared last week under subpoena Washington, D.C. grand jury, investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
“The Wall Street Journal” adds that Greg Jacob, Pence`s legal counsel, also appeared before a grand jury. And “The Journal” reports that Jacob told the grand jury, quote, during that meeting on the 4th, I think I raised the problem that both of Mr. Eastman`s proposals would violate several provisions of the Electoral Count Act. Mr. Eastman acknowledged that once the case, that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions.
Both Jacob and Short`s grand jury appearances indicate that the Department of Justice`s investigation has actually now gone beyond the Capitol rioters, to include perhaps people involved in the so-called fake electors came. Meanwhile, the January 6 committee may be done with their summer season of public hearings, but we certainly got proof today that they are their investigation is far from over. It is still very much ongoing.
Let me explain that for a moment. At last week`s hearing, the committee released these never before seen outtakes of Donald Trump`s struggling to make it to a speech on January the 7th, the day after the riot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack yesterday, and to those who broke the law, you will pay. You do not represent our movement. You do not represent our country, and if you broke the law — can`t say that. I already said you will pay. Demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defied the seat of justice — defiled, right? I can`t see it very well.
OK, I`ll do this. I`m going to do this. Let`s go.
But this election is now over. Congress has certified the results.
I don`t want to say the election is over, I just want to say Congress has certified the results without saying the election is over, okay?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: Well, today, committee member Elaine Luria released new testimony and evidence showing exactly how Donald Trump actively resisted efforts by those closest to him to de-escalate the situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you recognize what this is?
[22:05:01]
IVANKA TRUMP, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: It looks like a copy of a draft of the remarks for that day.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. And as you can see throughout the document, there are lines crossed out. There are some words added in. Do you recognize the handwriting?
I. TRUMP: It looks like my father`s handwriting.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: In my view, he needed to express very clearly that the people who made violent acts, went into the Capitol, did what they did, should be prosecuted, and should be arrested.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks like, here, he crossed out that he was directing the Department of Justice to ensure all lawbreakers are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We must send a clear message, not with mercy, but with justice. Legal consequences must be swift and firm.
Do you know why he wanted that crossed out?
JARED KUSHNER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: I don`t know.
CIPOLLONE: And that needed (INAUDIBLE) they did not represent him, or his political views, in any form or fashion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He also has crossed out, I want to be very clear, you do not represent me, you do not represent our movement. Do you know why he crossed that language out of the statement?
KUSHNER: I don`t know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: All right. So, let`s actually just take a closer look at some of the lines that Donald Trump crossed out. The draft speech reads, I am directing the Department of Justice to ensure all lawbreakers are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We must send a strong message, not with mercy, but with justice.
Now, just think about that first second. Why would the president of the United States — why is Donald Trump unwilling to tell the mob at the Capitol that they don`t represent him, and that they should face consequences for their attack?
Now, one possible reason, and this is just, I don`t know at the top of my head, because he knows they do represent him. And he doesn`t want his supporters to face consequences for doing what he almost explicitly told them to go and do.
So, where is Trump`s propaganda machine in all of this? Well, don`t expect to hear Tucker Carlson or any of the other primetime hosts over at Fox calling out Donald Trump. But there are hints that Rupert Murdoch may be ready to dump Trump.
The editorial boards of the Murdoch-owned “Wall Street Journal”, as well as “The New York Post”, both calling out Trump over the weekend. In a piece called the president who stood still on January the 6th, the journal`s editorial criticized Trump for not showing, quote, an iota of regret over January the 6th.
“The New York Post” called Trump`s silence damning, in case of this conclusion. There is no other explanation just as there is no defense for his refusal to stop the violence. It`s up to the Justice Department to decide if this is a crime, but as a matter of principle, as a matter of character, Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country`s chief executive again.
Now, throughout all of this, Donald Trump continues to be — well, he continues to be Donald Trump. He was in Arizona over the weekend, stopping for the states election, denying Republican candidate for governor. And, of course, making himself out to be the real victim of January the 6th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If I renounced my beliefs, and if I agreed to stay silent, and if I stayed home and took it easy, if I announced that I was not going to run any longer for political office, the prosecution of Donald Trump would immediately stop. You know that, right? It would immediately stop. They would go on to the next victim.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: It is not clear at all, tonight, that Donald Trump will be able to wriggle out of this one. We will see, though.
Leading off our discussion tonight is Paul Butler, a professor of law at Georgetown University, and former federal prosecutor. Jill Wine-banks, who served as assistant Watergate prosecutor. They are both MSNBC legal analysts.
And also with us, Stuart Stevens, a veteran of five Republican presidential campaigns, and author of “It Was All A Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump”.
It`s great to have all three of you with us.
Paul, I would like to start with you. Let`s start with this DOJ news tonight, with developments that we are learning about this investigation, what do you make of it? What does it tell us about the Department of Justice`s investigation, its scope, what direction is focusing on?
PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Ayman, today`s news is very encouraging for people who want accountability at the highest levels for the crimes of January the 6th.
[22:10:05]
The Arizona subpoena, specifically, requests and communications, the state officials had with people in the White House and Congress, and anybody in the Trump campaign. So, the DOJ is still not talking, but this is evidence that is on the case.
Listen, Merrick Garland`s silence isn`t just about Donald Trump. As an institution, DOJ is always extremely nontransparent about this criminal investigations, unless and until they bring charges. So even if the Justice Department was going to prosecute Donald Trump next week, we wouldn`t necessarily know that today. But with these developments suggest is that the federal investigation has expanded beyond the violence of the Capitol on January 6th, to include the conspiracy to keep Trump in office by any means necessary. And the guy at the top, with that criminal conspiracy, is Donald Trump.
MOHYELDIN: Jill, to pick up on the point that Paul was mentioning, obviously, the investigation so far around January the 6th has focused on the violence, the physical attack on the Capitol itself. But what we are learning today, or at least, certainly learning about not just today, but over the most recent reporting, is that the Department of Justice now is looking towards the top, as Paul was suggesting there.
The Arizona subpoenas, they actually want communication from these officials in Arizona, with anyone who is part of the Trump orbit. And some of the names include, Giuliani, John Eastman, various members of Trump`s inner circle that were part of this alleged scheme.
JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Ayman, it also shows that this is no longer just limited to January 6th. This is now investigation of the entire conspiracy to take down the results of the election, to interfere with democracy. It is the first time that we see real evidence of that, and it`s something that I`ve said from the very beginning, it`s that I was worried the Justice was not involved, because we weren`t hearing things like this week. We didn`t hear about subpoenas being issued.
Now, we have the spin as. And now, we can see how high up it is aiming, and to the scope, so that it isn`t just the violence, it`s the fake elector scheme. And then, we will start seeing all the other elements of the campaign that was underway to, basically, keep Donald Trump in power, despite having lost a fair election, where there was no fraud, and knew there was no front.
So this was really good news for everybody who`s been worried about accountability, and preventing a recurrence of this, even by Donald Trump, or some other wrongdoing incumbent of the White House in the future. So, this is very good news for democracy.
MOHYELDIN: Stuart, as the political expert here on the panel, you look at somebody like Donald Trump who has survived and thrived, because of the media ecosystem that he was able to cultivate, what is your reaction to two Murdoch-owned media outlets, who have been quite frankly, very friendly to Donald Trump from his pre-election to his post election days, now putting Trump on blast after last week`s hearing?
STUART STEVENS, FORMER REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It will be interesting to see if this is followed by other Republicans. I am unaware of any legal Republican, except for those who are known as Trump people, who, anti-Trump people, who have said they would not support Donald Trump if he was a nominee of the party.
And there`s really two dividing lines here. One is, will you support Trump if he`s a nominee? The obvious answer should be no. Two, will you assert the Donald Trump lost a free and fair election? If you don`t assert that, and you don`t really live in a democracy.
And as far as I know, no contender, no name we`ve seen, or anybody running for president, in 2024 on the Republican side. Is willing to assert the Donald Trump lost a fair election.
MOHYELDIN: Paul, we know that the committee is investigating the deleted secret service text messages from January the 6th. Vice Chair Liz Cheney promise that the committee would, quote, get to the bottom of that. And we know that they are going to resume some of these public hearings, perhaps, later in the fall, as early as September.
What are they looking for over the coming weeks, as the investigation continues? And really, zeroes in on, not just the missing texts, but you know, missing records, phone records from inside the White House, no pictures taken from the president when he was in the dining room, in those 187 minutes around January 6th?
BUTLER: You know, Ayman, when I was working public Russian cases of the trial attorney with the Justice Department, we had a line of prosecution memo before we charged the defendant.
[22:15:02]
And that made the case for charges.
To the people in the front office, like the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, I expect that the report that the House Panel will release will look like a prosecution memo, that the Congress people on the panel, like Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, they are the public face of the House investigation, but they have a panel that includes may prosecutors and investigators, and I think the report is going to be a roadmap to winning a criminal conviction against Donald Trump. It would be very difficult for Merrick Garland to ignore that.
So, I think we`ve heard from all of the witnesses that we need to hear from. It doesn`t mean that there won`t be more allegations against Donald Trump, but at this point, our objective is to get the ball firmly in Merrick Garland`s court.
MOHYELDIN: Jill, one of the things we learned in the chat with this committee`s investigation had to do with Ginni Thomas. She`s a conservative activist, the wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. I actually play for you and our viewers one of the committee members, Adam Kinzinger, told my colleague, Andrea Mitchell, earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): Ginni Thomas started out as a kind of an interest, you know, having a few pieces of evidence that we`ve seen, and then it just grew, particularly with some of the Eastman memo, those conversations reaching out to state electors. We would have a voluntary conversation, you know, just come in. She said, I think, somewhere in the media that she was eager to talk to the committee. That`s it.
Come in, let`s talk, if we need to subpoena, we will. But we prefer, obviously, just find out what she knows.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: So, Kinzinger wasn`t the only member of the committee to mention Thomas over the past couple of days, Jill. Are they trying to send her a message when they got it on public TV like this and make those statements?
WINE-BANKS: I think they are, and I think she has heard it. I think that she is not going to come in voluntarily. And they`re going to have to subpoena her.
And I have to say, there is no reason not to use a subpoena. She is a private citizen. She is not her husband. She is an independent, active woman, on her own, and has done whatever she did at her own. And she`s long been a right-wing activist.
And she has to come in as any other member of the group that was involved in planning or paying, or communicating, and she did. We know that she sent messages, urging certain actions. She had more entre, possibly because of her relationship to Thomas.
But she should be subpoenaed, and should come in and testify. No privilege for her.
MOHYELDIN: Stuart, can I come back to the point that you sit in your first response, about why we haven`t seen the Republican Party breaking for Trump? I mean, besides those are currently serving, like Liz Cheney, or Adam Kinzinger, there are no prominent Republicans that are Never Trumpers. And I am curious to ask you why, and it is certainly not due to the lack of evidence that has emerged from the committee.
Why are we not seeing more Republicans break with Trump once and for all?
STEVENS: I think it`s pretty clear. Donald Trump is what the Republican Party wants to be. Everywhere he took the party, the sort of party grievance, this party of white nationalism, the party that looks to Putin, that`s where the Republican Party wants to be.
I mean, nobody makes anybody support Donald Trump. And of these people could oppose him. Any of them could stand up and say, I think the party should go in a different direction.
But this is what the Republican Party is. It`s not going to correct. There is no, sort of, coming back to some sense of what the party was. This is where the party is, and it`s accelerating.
I mean, most of the competition to possibly beat or replaced Donald Trump is just to see who can be the most extreme. And this is what happens in totalitarian movements. It becomes a race to see who can outdo the other person, and that`s where the party is.
MOHYELDIN: It is a dangerous slippery slope that we are descending upon. It seems, certainly within the Republican Party and could, you know, takeover the government as well.
Stuart Stevens, Jill Wine-Banks, Paul Butler, greatly appreciated. Thank you for starting us off this evening.
Coming up, a counterintelligence risk of the highest order. That is how Peter Strzok, who spent 22 years inside the FBI, describing Donald Trump`s Oval Office meeting on December 18th 2020. Peter Strzok joins us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:24:26]
MOHYELDIN: In the course of the January 6 committee hearing so far, we have learned about a heated meeting that took place in the White House on December 18th, 2020, between members of the Trump White House`s team crazy and team normal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CIPOLLONE: The Overstock person, I`ve never met, I never knew who this guy was. I don`t think any of these people were providing the president with good advice. And — I didn`t understand how they got in.
RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN LAWYER: I`m going to categorically describe as, you guys are not tough enough.
[22:25:04]
Or maybe, I`ll put it another way, you are a bunch of (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: Flynn screamed at me that I was a quitter, and get them standing up, and turning around screaming at me. At a certain point, I had with him. So, I yelled back. Either come over, or sit your f`ing ass back down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: Cassidy Hutchinson called the meeting, quote unhinged. But my next guest, Peter Strzok, the former FBI agent who earned Donald Trump`s fury during the Mueller investigation is actually calling it something else. He says, it is quote, a counter intelligence risk of the highest order. And in a new op-ed for “The Washington Post” titled, “In one Oval Office meeting, a triple Russian threat, Peter Strzok details how three people in the West Wing that night, feeding Donald Trump conspiracy theories about election fraud have significant connections to Russia.
First off, Rudy Giuliani, known to have interacted with Russian intelligence agents during trips to Ukraine, and was considered by U.S. intelligence at one point to be a target of a Russian disinformation operation.
Of course, there was Michael Flynn. He was paid $45,000 by Russian state TV to speak at a gala in Moscow, where he literally sat next to Russian president, Vladimir Putin. And, of course, he was convicted of lying to the FBI over conversations he had with the Russian ambassador.
Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock, well, he dated Maria Butina. And if that names sounds familiar to you, it is because Maria Butina was the accused Russian spy, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to infiltrate conservative U.S. political groups like the NRA and the Republican Party — but wait, Maria Butina received a hero`s welcome when she was deported back to Russia.
Now, as Peter Strzok writes, quote, at a moment of grave national peril for the United States, this was an astonishing intelligence achievement for Russia.
Joining me now is Peter Strzok, adjunct professor at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, and a former deputy of the FBI`s counter intelligence division. He`s the author of “Compromised: Counterintelligence and the Threat of Donald J. Trump”.
Peter, it`s great to have you with us. Thanks for making time for us tonight.
I want to pick up more on your op-ed. In it, you clearly state, do I think any of the three men who graced the December 18th meeting or recruited Russian agents? No, but at a certain level, it doesn`t matter.
Explain what you mean by that?
PETER STRZOK, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE DIVISION: Yeah, absolutely. So, I think for an intelligence service, whether it`s Russia, China`s, hours, or anybody else, there`s no greater priority than to get gather intelligence and information about the leader of a foreign nation. So, in this case, the presidency of the United States.
That typically the president himself and his immediate advisers are hard targets to get to. They are difficult to get people next to, and get information, which you absolutely can do, is rely on people who have access.
Now, historically, the Oval Office is sitting next to the president, and have extremely job, and in most cases, intelligence agencies are going to use people that you traditionally think of, people think of as a spy. Somebody that they know they are working for a foreign intelligence service, and communicating clandestinely, they are getting tasking, reporting back, and maybe getting bait.
In most cases, intelligence agencies don`t use people like that. They much more rely on folks who they have a relationship with, whether it`s a friendship, or business association. And in these informal sort of contacts, the U.S. access agents to get exactly the kind of contact that you would want, and that we saw in this December 18th meeting.
But what sets this apart is, this wasn`t some, you know, academic meeting at a think tank somewhere. This wasn`t a business conference. This was a tiny little group in the oval office.
MOHYELDIN: Yeah, and perhaps one of the most important in the attempt to overturn the election. And into the broader picture of his connection to Russia, Peter, Trump, I mean, we all thought, the world thought. Trump welcome to Russia`s interference at the 2016 election to help his campaign. He was impeached the first time for a scheme involved in pro Russian Ukrainians to try and smear Joe Biden`s campaign.
How much more concerning is it when you factor in the totality, the whole picture of Trump`s history with Russia?
STRZOK: Well, I think it`s extraordinarily concerning. There`s been, you know, the entire force volume of the Mueller report, talking about Trump and those around him, their connections to the Russians, the Senate Intelligence Committee, putting out an entire report, also looking at these investigations. You know, I`ve written a book. Many folks have talked about it.
But what is particularly concerning is that this meeting, and again, recall just what was discussed at that meeting. There is a small group that was talking about invoking martial law. They were talking about using the National Guard or other armed elements of the U.S. government, to seize voting machines.
[22:29:46]
They were discussing things that were so against the concept of our democracy of the vote for our president, that it was extraordinary in terms of its threat to the nation. And again, you have all these people who have direct connections to Russian agents, to convicted Russian agents, to sanctioned Russian agents.
And to have that many connections in such a small group, I mean, it`s unprecedented. It`s extraordinary. And the fact of the matter is, these folks are still out, maintaining that, you know, Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election. Trying to undermine confidence in not only the 2020 election, but in elections to come.
And so, this isn`t a past threat. These are things that are still going on, and as we go to the midterms and the next presidential elections, loom quite large.
MOHYELDIN: Oh, yes, absolutely. Couldn`t agree with you more on that one.
Peter Strzok, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Greatly appreciate your insights, as always.
Up next, the Senate is closing to reach a deal on updating the Electoral Count Act, to clarify how electoral count votes are counted and certified. But there are some experts, including Marc Elias, who are raising a red flag about the power that could go to Republican governors in all of this.
Katie Hobbs who is actually running to be a governor in Arizona, and former voting rights lawyer Colin Allred will join us to break that down, next.
[22:31:20]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: Next week, the Senate is expected to hold a hearing on a bipartisan bill to reform the 135 year old Electoral Count Act. The proposed legislation would make it harder to overturn a presidential election in the wake of the January 6th attacks.
Nine Republicans were part of the negotiating group, but the bill would need the support of ten Republicans to pass the Senate. Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, a co-sponsor of the bill, actually said this about the bill`s prospects.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-MD): We have bipartisan support. We think we have enough support to pass this bill. We have already talk to our colleagues in the house, and I think they are ready to take it up as soon as we pass it in the Senate. So, we do hope that this bill will be enacted Prior to the November elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: Now, this bill comes as many Republican candidates for governor are running a Donald Trump`s election lie, which should be concerning considering that one of the measures that is actually in the bill requires that each governor, quote, “issues a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors that shall be treated as conclusive”.
So, think about it like this. If election deniers like Doug Mastriano of Pennsylvania or Kari Lake of Arizona win in their respective states, they could have the authority to certify the Republican candidate as the winner of the presidential election in their states, even if that candidate actually lost the vote.
Now, voting rights attorney, Marc Elias, voiced his concern for this measure, writing in part, quote, “The new bill fails to provide any legal standard for a court to use to overturn a governor`s conclusive certification. A court will be left to wonder what standard, if any, is appropriate to overturn a determination by the governor that federal law says is conclusive.”
Joining us now is Arizona secretary of state Katie Hobbs. She is running as a Democrat to be the next governor of Arizona. Madam Secretary, thank you so much for joining us.
As Arizona`s secretary of state, you watched many Republicans in your state, and really around the country, trying to overturn the election results there.
Would you trust a Republican governor to do the right thing in 2024, if they were in power?
KATIE HOBBS (D), ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, certainly, if you look at things that Kari Lake has said over and over again about Donald Trump`s big lie from 2020, she`s been a super fan from day one. And what she is saying now about the 2024 election, she`s refused to say whether or not she would certify those results.
And so, this is very concerning. I think that reform act is an important first step, but clearly, we need to do more. And working to make sure that these election deniers aren`t elected into these positions is probably the first step there, and folks can join me in that at KatieHobbs.org.
MOHYELDIN: You`ve obviously had a front row seat to Arizona`s election fraud-it, and that`s certainly something that you have called it. What changes would you like to see made to the Electoral Count Act based on what you have witnessed upfront to ensure the integrity of the vote in states like Arizona and elsewhere across the country?
HOBBS: Well, as I said, I think the act is a very good first step, but I share Marc Elias` concerns about it, and the loopholes that it`s leaving. And so, what is clear across the country and in Arizona, where you have folks like Kari Lake running, is that democracy is on the ballot.
And we need to ensure that we are working to elect governors, who will uphold the will of the voters, rather than uphold the will of a former president, who doesn`t like the outcome of the result.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, this is going to be a very important bill to keep an eye on, to see if it goes one step further, even if this one, or this version of it passes.
Arizona secretary of state Katie Hobbs, thank you so much for joining us this evening. I greatly appreciate it.
HOBBS: Thank you.
[22:39:57]
MOHYELDIN: And joining me now is Democratic Congressman Colin Allred of Texas. He`s a former voting rights attorney.
Marc Elias` criticism of the Electoral Count Act reforms is that the bill would empower big lie governors, Colin. And he argues in part, in its current form it is not ready for enactment.
You are a voting rights lawyer, voting rights expert. Do you agree with that assessment?
REP. COLIN ALLRED (D-TX): Right. I also have some issues with the judicial review section of it. So I do think that it needs to have some tweaking, but to Katie`s point, the most important thing we can do, Ayman, is to make sure these folks don`t become governor.
Because at any point in the system, wherever power is aggregated in the hands of people who will try to overturn an election, that is very difficult to legislate your way out of, because at some point somebody`s going to have to certify or be a voice that`s going to send on, you know, these electors to us in Congress for the final certification. And so the best thing to do would obviously be keep them out.
But yes, I have some issues with the legislation as I`ve seen it. And I`ve worked with Marc. I know that if he is raising this point, it`s for a good reason.
MOHYELDIN: So Congressman, do you think that this is a first step, meaning as the secretary of state there was saying, pass this version of it and then try to build on it? Or do not pass this, because it will create the false illusion in the public, in the American public`s eyes, that we have addressed the issue, we have resolve the concerns of 2020, and we are good to go for the next election?
ALLRED: Yes, sometimes I worry that we are fighting the last war. And we are preparing for the last war, when the next one is coming. You know, the next attempt to overturn the presidential election is probably not going to look like the last one.
But that doesn`t mean that we should not clarify, for example, the vice president`s role, which this legislation does. And we should increase the number of legislators needed to challenge the states electors, which this does. We shouldn`t restrict what state legislatures can do, which this legislation does. So it does some good things.
Let`s also recognize that in the next election, the attempt to overturn that election is being done at the state level. It`s being done through voter suppression. It`s going to be done perhaps by sending a false slate of electors to us in Washington.
And so, it`s not going to be, you know, Mike Pence sitting in that seat. It will be Kamala Harris. And so, and the folks who are trying to plan how they maybe overturn the next election, also know that.
And so, we have to be prepared, understanding that this ECA reform might be a good first step, but it certainly is not enough. And to be honest with you, the fact that we are having this much of a complicated conversation about the Electoral College is the best example of why we should just get rid of the dang thing.
MOHYELDIN: Yes. I was going to ask you. I mean what`s the silver bullet here? Is it going to a direct national vote —
ALLRED: Yes. It is.
MOHYELDIN: — abandoning the electoral college, right?
ALLRED: Yes. I mean, the fact that as a voting rights lawyer, I could not walk you through every step of what`s happened for the certification of the election, or that I need to, you know, gather some of my colleagues.
I actually was talking to Jamie Raskin on the phone before I spoke with you. We were going through some of this, and trying to game plan it out, how it worked. The fact that we`re having to put our heads together just to figure out what we are going to need to do shows you that it`s overly and unnecessarily complicated.
We should be electing the president the way we do, a senator, or member of Congress. Whoever gets the most votes should win.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, he`s a constitutional lawyer. You are a voting rights lawyer. Two of the smartest minds in congress. If you guys can`t figure it out, I`m pretty sure the rest of us here laymen are not going to be able to figure it out.
Let me ask you really quickly, though, just about the threat that you are talking about, the future election. Where do you think that big threat is? I mean, when you look at the totality of our system right now, the suppression of voting rights in some states like Georgia, the attempt to perhaps have this loophole in the Electoral Reform Count Act. Where do you see the biggest vulnerability in our system?
ALLRED: Yes, you know, Jamie and I have talked about this. We talked about this with some of my colleagues. I think there`s a very high chance where we may have at least one state send a false slate of electors. And you know, you can talk about how is that false slate going to be derived? Is it going to be derived from throwing out a certain number of votes, whatever it takes, that`s what President Trump called the secretary of state in Georgia, and asked him to do. He wouldn`t do it, but maybe someone else would. Or is it going to be by suppressing the votes? Or is it just going to be as, you know, we`re worried about in this legislation where they`re talking about a governor to certifying a false slate?
And then the problem we have is that whenever you make it more difficult to deal with a false slate, you also open the door for them to do that and for us to be more have a harder time at the congressional level to then say, this slate shouldn`t be accepted, right?
And so this is the point that I come back to, which is that most important thing we can do, as not just Democrats but as Americans, it`s to make sure that we don`t elect these people to office, who don`t believe in your democracy.
[22:44:48]
ALLRED: And that you take this election as seriously and understanding that it`s the most important election in American history is this next one and the one after that, because there is a concentrated effort that is going on that we saw culminate on January 6th. But that has continued and it has transformed and changed now into a legislative effort at the state level to try and make sure that your will is not reflected in the outcome of the next election, the next presidential election. We can stop that though by doing well in this election, doing well in the next election, electing people of high character who won`t do these things.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, I mean, it has to be a litmus test for anyone running, that you actually believe in America democracy and not try to overturn it, after the ballot. Congressman Colin Allred, thank you so much. It`s a pleasure, as always, good to see you.
ALLRED: Thanks, Ayman.
MOHYELDIN: Up next, Democrats are working furiously to pass laws protecting American rights after the Supreme Court took away the constitutional right to an abortion. Senator Tammy Baldwin is fighting to get same-sex marriage passed in the Senate. She joins us next.
[22:45:47]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: With the very real consequences of the radical Supreme Court`s decision to end the right to an abortion being felt by women, girls, families and health care providers around the country, Democrats in Congress are racing to try and codify a number of other at risk rights into law.
The House recently passed legislation to try (INAUDIBLE) access to contraception, same sex marriage, even interracial marriage into federal law. 47 Republicans in the house joined all House Democrats to protect same-sex marriage by a vote of 267 to 157. That still means that fewer than one third of Republicans voted for it.
And despite the fact that marriage equality has been the law of the land since 2015, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider all of this court`s substantive due process precedent, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
Now in the Senate, our next guest Senator Tammy Baldwin is working to secure the 10 Republican votes needed for a filibuster — for a filibuster proof majority to protect same-sex and interracial marriage.
A recent opinion polls show that more than ever, the Senate does not represent the opinions of the majority of Americans. In fact, a recent Gallup poll shows a record 71 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage.
If the 2015 Obergefell decision were to be overturned, at least 25 states would see same-sex marriage become illegal due to laws that are already on the books.
Joining us now is Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. Senator, it`s great to see you again. Thank you for making time for us. You are working hard on the Hill to try and whip up ten Republican votes in support of the Respect of Marriage Act. Bring us up to speed on how that effort is going?
SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI): Well certainly with regard to people who publicly declared, their support, we are halfway there. But I`ve been having many encouraging, hopeful conversations.
And what I would say to all of my Republican colleagues in the Senate, if you are now in a position where you support marriage equality, then you need to support the Respect For Marriage Bill because you know, people who are married now and are able to because of the Obergefell decision, need certainty.
Marriage confers with it all sorts of rights and responsibilities that are really important. And so, we need to get this job done. And I am feeling very hopeful that we`ll have in excess of ten votes from the Republicans that we need.
MOHYELDIN: Let me, Senator, ask you about a colleague of yours. Senator Mike Braun of Indiana, who said he supports interracial marriage. He is not sure about same-sex marriage. Why do you think people like Senator Braun think that Loving is settled? Loving which obviously, basically, allowed interracial marriage in this country.
(CROSSTALK)
Why — yes, interracial marriage. Why would they think that Loving, which allows interracial marriage settled by Obergefell, which allows same-sex marriage, is not settled?
BALDWIN: Well, I think that he probably would say just the length of time since the Supreme Court made the ruling. But as you`ve mentioned in the outset, people right now need certainty.
Obergefell — not that many people who had struggled for years to be able to protect their families, including things like hospital visitation, or you know, things that most people take for granted that same-sex couples didn`t have before Obergefell.
And so if you support that type — that set of rights and responsibility, then you need to support the Respect for Marriage Act. And I would also say that look at the change in public sentiment in the United States since that decision. People overwhelmingly believe that you ought to have a right to marry the person you love, and to be able to protect your family through the laws of marriage. And so, again, that is why I`m hopeful.
[22:54:45]
BALDWIN: And increasingly, we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have friends, family, coworkers, et cetera, who are really, personally impacted by this issue of marriage equality. And I`d like to see them stand by those friends and family.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, I was going to say, not to mention some members of Congress, who oppose this legislation, and you know, their sons are getting married. They are having gay weddings. They are attending those gay weddings, as we saw with a number of the Republican Party.
Senator Tammy Baldwin, it`s a pleasure as always. Thank you so much for your time this evening.
BALDWIN: Thank you.
MOHYELDIN: Coming up, an update on the fallout from the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas. We`ll tell you about that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MOHYELDIN: There is news from Uvalde, Texas tonight. NBC News has confirmed that Robb Elementary School principal Mandy Gutierrez has been placed on paid administrative leave. She`s the second official to be placed on leave after the massacre that left 19 children and two teachers dead.
[22:59:50]
MOHYELDIN: School district police chief Pete Arredondo, has been on unpaid leave since June 22nd. A meeting to determine his future which was scheduled to take place this past Saturday has been delayed.
Uvalde school officials have not confirmed when that meeting will be rescheduled. Yesterday, marked two months since that mass murder.
That is tonight`s LAST WORD.
I am Ayman Mohyeldin. Thanks for watching.
“THE 11TH HOUR WITH STEPHANIE RUHLE” starts right now.