Updated
Summary
The Washington Post Reports That Former President Trump Could Waive the Privilege to Steve Bannon if Bannon Testifies to the January 6th Committee. Former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone Testified to the House Committee for Eight Hours And it was on Videotape. Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear in a concurring opinion that the justices, quote, “should reconsider all of this court`s substantive due process precedent”. He then listed decisions that legalized the right to obtain contraception, the right to same-sex intimacy and the right to same sex marriage.
Transcript
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: It`s been targeted, challenged, banned all over the country including ones famously following a viral video of an angry parent attacking the book at a local school board meeting.
That`s this weekend at 8 a.m. Eastern. Time now for The Last Word with Jonathan Capehart filling in for Lawrence. Good evening, Jonathan.
JONATHAN CAPEHART, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ali. It is great to see you, I feel like I haven`t seen you in ages.
VELSHI: Well, you have a great show. I will be watching it.
CAPEHART: All right, Ali, have a good evening.
VELSHI: Thanks, buddy.
CAPEHART: So, everyone, how worried is Donald Trump tonight? Today, the January 6th committee heard eight and a half hours of testimony from Pat Cipollone. Trump`s White House counsel at the time of the January 6th insurrection. And it was all on video. Meaning we might hear from Cipollone during the next hearing on Tuesday.
As Trump`s former White House counsel, Cipollone was in the room for many of the key events during Trump`s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Cipollone`s name has come up extensively throughout the six hearings the committee has already held. But it was after we heard from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson late last month that the pressure really ramped up on Cipollone to testify, under oath, before the committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS: I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto west exec that morning and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don`t go up to the capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We are going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAPEHART: There are developments today about potential new testimony the committee may hear from two other individuals who were closely aligned with Trump.
Here`s the headline for my paper, The Washington Post. Trump considers waving claim to executive privilege for Steve Bannon. My colleagues Isaac Stanley-Becker, Josh Dawsey and Jacqueline Alemany report, quote, “former President Donald Trump is considering sending a letter to Stephen K. Bannon, saying that he is waiving executive privilege, potentially clearing the way for his former chief strategist to testify before the House select committee investigating the pro-Trump riot at the capitol.”
The letter, quote, “would say that the former president is now willing to give up that claim if Bannon can reach an agreement on the terms of an appearance before the panel, according to three people familiar with the matter.”
Now to be clear, Trump doesn`t have a legitimate claim to executive privilege over Bannon`s testimony. He is not the president anymore and, more importantly, Bannon didn`t even work for him during the insurrection. But wait, that`s not all.
The lawyer for the founder of the far-right militia group, known as the Oath Keepers, tells NBC News that his client is willing to testify publicly, under oath to the January 6 committee. But he is setting some conditions. According to his attorney, Elmer Stewart Rhodes will only sit down with the committee for testimony if they agreed to do it during a live public hearing that is carried on TV. Network TV, not just C-SPAN.
Mr. Rhodes, have you ever heard the phrase, beggars can`t be choosers? Well, considering you are currently locked up and waiting to face trial for seditious conspiracy charges, I think it applies here.
The committee`s next hearing, scheduled for Tuesday afternoon next week, is expected to focus on the connections between Trump world and the extremist groups that led the charge on the capitol. Committee member Jamie Raskin tells Politico, quote, “our investigation shows that there was a tremendous convergence of interests between the domestic violent extremist groups and the broader MAGA movement. This hearing will be the moment when one sees both the convergence of efforts at a political coup with the insurrectionary mob violence. We see how these two streams of activity become one.”
The committee gave us something of a preview of that connection during their last hearing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): The White House continued to receive updates about planned demonstrations, including information regarding the Proud Boys organizing and planning to attend events on January 6th. Although Ms. Hutchinson has no detailed knowledge of any planning involving the Proud Boys for January 6th, she did note this.
HUTCHINSON: I recall hearing the word Oath Keeper and hearing the word Proud Boys closer to the planning of the January 6th rally, when Mr. Giuliani would be around.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAPEHART: Joining us now, Jill Wine-Banks, who served as assistant Watergate prosecutor. She is an MSNBC contributor. We are also joined by Ryan Reilly, a justice reporter for NBC News. And Harry Litman, former U.S. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general. Thank you all very much for being here.
[22:05:07]
Of course, Jill, let me start with you. So, Pat Cipollone spoke to the committee for eight and a half hours today. Just how important is his testimony to the work that the committee is doing?
JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Based on what we know from Cassidy Hutchinson, and other witnesses it is very important. First of all, he would corroborate some of her testimony and take away any questions about her total credibility. That is important.
But more importantly, he was in the room with the former president. He was there. He wasn`t over hearing conversations. He wasn`t hearing Mark Meadows say this is what the president wants or this is what the president said. He was in the room. So, he could really be the John Dean of this hearing. He could be the one who takes it to the next level.
CAPEHART: Harry, here is what The Washington Post has reported about Trump and Cipollone`s relationship. This is interesting. Though Cipollone has been a fairly reliable public ally to Trump, he is not close to the former president, according to multiple people in Trump`s orbit. Trump often castigated Cipollone, saying in private that he was one of the worst lawyers of all-time.
He even mocked Cipollone to his face in front of other advisers saying, quote, “why do I have the worst lawyer ever?” Trump yelled that Cipollone always said no to him, according to a former senior administration official. So, Harry, how concerned should Donald Trump be about what Cipollone might have told the committee today?
HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: A lot. He do it a long list by the way, of lawyers of Trump who Trump trashes and throws under the bus. Cipollone is a longtime acolyte of Bill Barr who, of course, has famously parted company with Trump. And that`s how Trump used him. That`s how he became White House counsel.
So, obviously no love lost. This hesitation about testifying — and he had some, it had everything to do with protecting the institution of White House counsel. And nothing to do with loyalty — or little to do with loyalty to Trump, notwithstanding that he defended him in the impeachment. He has two really important sources of testimony.
As Jill says he tells Trump repeatedly, this is illegal, that`s illegal, so it goes to Trump`s knowledge. And then second, he participates in or overhear some of the most incendiary pieces of testimony we have heard so far.
For instance, when Mark Meadows says, you heard Trump, he doesn`t want to call off the dogs. He thinks they are right and Pence should be hanged. He says that to Cipollone and there is no possible claim of privilege there. There are four or five things like that, including calling the DOJ letter a murder suicide pact, that Cipollone has the goods on Trump and presumably provided them to the committee today.
CAPEHART: Ryan, let`s talk about these developments from Steve Bannon and Stewart Rhodes, both now apparently willing to testify under oath before the committee. Rhodes already spoke to the committee back in February and pleaded the fifth dozens of time — times. Give us the latest on his legal situation. Do you see this as a serious offer?
RYAN REILLY, JUSTICE REPORTER, NBC NEWS: You know, I don`t. I think — the committee already has six hours of reported testimony, even if he`s taking the fifth for part of that. They already have a lot of this narrative. And I just don`t see the committee sort of handing over the reins to an accused seditionist and basically allowing him to dictate the terms, and essentially give him the platform to recruit potential members of the Oath Keepers going forward.
So, I think it`s pretty unlikely. You know, also setting that aside, the Justice Department isn`t going to be too keen about just allowing him to leave the cell and head over to Capitol Hill. So, you know, he might as well request that he gets a phony ride from jail to the capitol. I just think it`s so (Inaudible) that it`s never happened.
CAPEHART: Phony ride. Harry, let me get your read on this. Because the benefit of the committee making a deal with Bannon and Rhodes, is that it would all be admissible, but the downside is that they could turn the sober and serious committee hearings into a circus, potentially at the cost of losing the respect of the public. What would you do?
LITMAN: Forget about it. It`s a stunt on both ends. No chance the committee does it, and that`s what I would do with if you asked. First of all, they had zero witnesses that they haven`t videotaped before. They are not going to start with Stewart Rhodes.
And Bannon is, I think, just a ploy to help in his contempt trial and give the impression that Trump does have some privilege claim to waive, which, as you pointed out at the top, Jonathan, he surely doesn`t. It`s a trick having to do with his criminal conviction. No deals with him. The committee won`t touch it.
[22:09:56]
CAPEHART: What do you make of this, Jill? We know Trump was upset that no one has been defending him during the committee hearings? Could this be an attempt by Trump world to go on the offensive and at least try to level the playing field?
WINE-BANKS: It certainly could be. But I agree with Harry, that it is a stunt. That it is really intended to help Bannon, particularly with his upcoming trial. And there would be no gain in the sense of the overall hearing. They have been very effective in putting forth a narrative that shows all the strands of the conspiracy, to take down our democracy. The conspiracy to stop the counting of the ballots. The fake electors. The pressure on Pence, the pressure on state legislators. It is all part of one big conspiracy.
There is also the violence on January 6 that`s part of it. And there is no gain from getting the testimony of either Stewart Rhodes, particularly without it having been a videotaped deposition in advance. And the same is certainly true for Bannon. I cannot believe he would tell the truth. It just isn`t within any part of his heart or his brain.
So, why do it? It would only be the same as having had Jim Jordan on the committee to disrupt the committee. We don`t need any disruption. We need the facts. They have to pass legislation based on what they are seeing. The Department of Justice has to see what the case looks like. And that won`t help by having those people testify.
CAPEHART: Ryan, I got to get you on one more thing before we go. While the committee has been focused on getting new testimony and holding their public hearings, the Justice Department has continued making arrests from the people who were on the ground at the capitol that day. What can you tell us about some of the individuals who have been arrested today?
REILLY: That`s right, there were at least five cases unsealed today. There were couple of folks, two brothers actually who were turned in by one of the daughters who turned in their uncle and her father by tweeting about him, live tweeting about it. And then that was a tip they followed up on.
But there`s also a John (Inaudible), he is an individual who had an in God we trust tattoo on his head. And then there is Tyler Elbridge (Ph) from Colorado who, you know, brag and said, I hope this doesn`t get me thrown in jail. It may make me lose my reputation but I don`t care. So, a lot of these folks just, you know, brag about it online and then finally, 18 months later, they are getting arrested by the FBI.
CAPEHART: Ryan Reilly, Harry Litman, Jill Wine-Banks, thank you all very much for coming to the Last Word tonight.
LITMAN: Thank you, Jonathan.
CAPEHART: Coming up, Mallory McMorrow will join me to discuss the current state of our politics, which includes — which includes fighting election stealing, mass murders, police violence, forced birth, even for children and rape victims. That is a lot, I know. But there is a solution. It`s our superpower to change things. Mallory McMorrow and I will talk about it, next.
[22:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don`t think the court or for that matter Republicans who for decades have pushed the extreme agenda, have a clue about the power of American women, but they were about to find out in my view.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAPEHART: Today, President Biden signed an executive order that will safeguard access to medication abortions, protect patient privacy, launched public education efforts and bolster the security of and the legal options to those seeking and providing abortion services.
But there`s only so much the president can do, and one thing he can`t do is restore access to abortion. But there is something that can be done. You can vote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: Based on the reason in the court, there is no constitutional right to choose, the only the way — the only way to fulfill and restore that right in this country is by voting, by exercising the power at ballot box. Let me explain. We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice House to codify Roe as federal law. Your vote can make that a reality.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAPEHART: I believe as I wrote in my Washington Post column today that voting is your one superpower in our democracy. In order for Biden to do all of the ambitious things that Democrats wants, he needs a House and Senate that will send him legislation that he can sign into law. He needs a bigger Democratic majority in Congress, especially in the Senate, not the way for thin one that currently exists.
Now, there are some who will claim they are demoralized because of what they see as Biden`s legislative impotence and then stay home in November. And if they do, Republicans will win bigger majorities and demolish even more rights and then those same people will blame the Democrats.
On America`s 246th birthday, still raw from losing a constitutional right at the hands of the Republican appointed justices on the Supreme Court, a mass murderer was able to very easily obtain a weapon of war and kill a bunch of people and destroy a bunch of families forever because God forbid, we ever touch that right.
[22:20:00]
Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow who will join us in a moment tweeted this. Yesterday, I texted with a friend in Illinois who said they started their day yesterday walking to neighborhood field games and ended the day sheltering in place from a mass shooter. It`s too much, she said. It`s just too much.
We weren`t made to endure this much trauma. That`s why pleas of just vote feel so trite and disgusting. I know there`s a dystopian disconnect. Like elected officials don`t feel that trauma, don`t know the pain, the loss. Don`t understand how hard it is to want to participate in a system that doesn`t care about you.
I got into this work knowing this. Gun violence, reproductive rights, discrimination, these were all policy choices. Policy choices made for too long by other people for us. Without us. Politics won`t solve everything, but we deserve people making policy who give a damn.
Joining us now is Democratic State Senator Mallory McMorrow of Michigan. Senator McMorrow, it`s great to see again. Thanks for being here.
STATE SEN. MALLORY MCMORROW (D-MI): Of course, thanks for having me.
CAPEHART: So, all right. I want to start with you tweeted. Like elected officials don`t feel that trauma. You are an elected official, you are — you are one only because people voted for you. Can you just kind of expand on what you see as the disconnect?
MCMORROW: Of course, and I think that the president was right on today, because there is a difference between telling people to just vote and then there is laying out a plan. They are saying this is everything I`m able to do with my power and here`s what`s standing in the way of real action.
It`s treating voters like we`re on the same team because we are. If we work together and we`re honest about what`s standing in the way of policy changes, then we lay out the roadmap, and then we give people a reason and a belief in voting again. Because it hurts. It hurt that I was walking with my daughter in a 4th of July parade and then got home to the news that another parade where friends of mine live end it in horror.
And I think that more of us who express that, the more of us who feel what our constituents are feeling, but then lay out a plan that says that we`re all in this together and it needs every single person on the team.
CAPEHART: Isn`t some of this and this anger about a system that favors the minority, the Electoral College, the Senate, but also because the minority has shown it will break democracy in a way that Democrats will not?
MCMORROW: Absolutely. And we have to recognize the urgency of that moment. So, it`s not only voting. It`s voting in this election because what we`re seeing around the country and the Supreme Court is already nodded that they`re going to take this up. It is sending everything back to the states which some will argue, you know, that`s federalism at its finest.
But it`s sending things back to the states, and then partisan gerrymandering, and taking away the power of the courts to rule against that. So, we are going to get into a place if we don`t act now, where we will no longer be able to fairly elect people who represent us and potentially not even be able to elect the next president. So, it is on all of us and it`s on all of us right now.
CAPEHART: I want to bring up something else you tweeted because I think it`s really important. You tweeted, it also has to be said that those who have done the most work have often also endured the most trauma. Black women, LGBTQ people, to start, so it`s critical that all of us — especially those of us who are generally OK step up. Just because you`re OK doesn`t mean this is OK.
Senator McMorrow, we saw Black women push Biden to victory in Georgia in 2020 and give Democrats the majority in the Senate, so effectively Republicans passed a voter suppression law in that state. But I`m just wondering, not voting because you are demoralized is a privilege, isn`t it?
MCMORROW: Absolutely. You know, I`ve seen criticism of people who have been devastated because that shooting took place in Highland Park which is, you know, a wealthier community, a largely white community. And we see gun violence every day. We see gun violence every day in communities just here in Detroit. We saw a young police officer, a father of two get gunned down by an assault rifle responding to this — that happens every single day.
So, we have to get off of our butts, pull ourself out of this, it hurts, it really hurts the news every day, and lock arms with people who have been doing this work for a lot longer than people who look like me. Because it`s true, this is not OK, but we are the only ones who have the power to change it.
CAPEHART: You`ve been posting some photos of meetings that you`ve had with voters. What are they telling you?
[22:24:55]
MCMORROW: That is too much, that it hurts, that this country is in a really dark place that we`ve never seen this divided. But people fundamentally still believe in this country. You know, what`s reassuring to me is the fact that even despite all the demoralization, people are still coming out to meet me and they want to talk to about how we can work together, how we can make our state and our communities and our country better.
That`s what this country was founded on. And the fact that people are still showing up and showing a pretty big in Michigan. Michigan can be the playbook that everybody else follows.
CAPEHART: I`m going to say this right now. To all the folks who are watching, who have people on the ballot in their states wherever they are, if there is somebody who talks like and has the passion of Mallory McMorrow who you see on your screen, go to the polls in November and vote for them.
If you like her voice on the screen right now, find the person who`s on the ballot in your jurisdiction and vote for them and send them to elected office so that they can do what the American people want to. Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow, as always, thank you for joining us.
MCMORROW: Thank you. Thanks.
CAPEHART: Coming up, reproductive rights were first, but what up — what other rights could face undoing by this radical Supreme Court and what needs to be done to stop it? That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:51]
SAMANTHA BEE, TV HOST: It`s not just about voting in November, it`s about doing everything in our power to protect and help vulnerable people access abortion across state lines. And we have to raise hell in our cities, in Washington, in every restaurant Justice Alito eats at for the rest of his life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAPEHART: It wasn`t Justice Alito but Justice Kavanaugh who was first to experience the kind of dinner table demonstrations Samantha Bee talked about on her show, “Full Frontal”. The deer-loving associate justice who voted to take reproductive rights away from millions of Americans had, at least for one night, his right to a peaceful meal, dare say a right to privacy taken away.
Politico was first to report the incident at Morton Steakhouse in downtown D.C., quote, “While the court had no official comment on Kavanaugh`s behalf and a person familiar with the situation said he did not hear or see the protesters and ate a full meal but left before dessert. Morton`s was outraged about the incident.”
Dessert courses aside, we know that a conservative super majority on the court isn`t ready to stop on abortion. But the decision on Roe came down, Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear in a concurring opinion that the justices, quote, “should reconsider all of this court`s substantive due process precedent”.
He then listed decisions that legalized the right to obtain contraception, the right to same-sex intimacy and the right to same sex marriage. And smart people are taking notice of that, including my next guest, NYU constitutional law professor Kenji Yoshino. His latest “New York Times” op- ed is headlined, “Is the right to same sex marriage next?”
And yes, even comedians like Samantha Bee are taking notice of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEE: I can`t describe how painful it is to be here now in a place where the Supreme Court has the power to erase 50 years of constitutional law. Make no mistake, this is not where it ends. Conservatives will not rest until they have come for all of our rights. Everything we have fought for could be lost, unless we take it back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAPEHART: Joining me now is Kenji Yoshino, professor of constitutional law at NYU Law School and the director of NYU`s Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging.
It has been a long time, professor. Great to see you again.
KENJI YOSHINO, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, NYU LAW SCHOOL: Great to see you as well, Jonathan.
CAPEHART: In your piece, you wrote, “Justice Samuel Alito`s majority opinion is at pains to say that nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. Yet that statement rings false.”
Kenji, I didn`t believe it when that language appeared in the leaked draft. Why does it especially ring false now?
YOSHINO: Well, I mean to start with the draft itself, that`s just not how adjudication works. If you announce a test and that test supports a (INAUDIBLE) to future cases before the court. The test that Samuel Alito articulated for the majority in Dobbs, was that unenumerated rights will not be protected unless they are deeply rooted in this nation`s history and tradition.
Now, last time I checked, the right to same sex marriage, the right to contraception, the right to same sex sexual intimacy — none of these were deeply enshrined in the nation`s history and tradition.
So, it`s just a QED, it`s just a matter of logic, that underneath that task, these precedents are practically imperiled.
Now, whenever I raise this, Jonathan, I get accused of fearmongering in many quarters whenever I say, oh Obergefell is next, Lawrence is next, people say, oh, Justice Thomas is a crank — he`s an outlier, he doesn`t really know what he is saying.
I would say a couple of things to that. One is he knows exactly what he is saying. He came to our country and what ways that he has done in previous cases, like Second Amendment cases, inviting litigation where he wants litigation to occur, right.
So to dismiss him as an outlier is simply false. And as you say, in the days since Dobbs, we have actually seen people take up that call to arms.
[22:34:54]
So whenever I am arguing against somebody who is usually not deeply embedded in the LGBT litigation community say, I am fearmongering. I don`t know whether or not to be sort of hopeful or pessimistic, right because all you need to do is wait and then the other shoe will drop.
So in fact, in the midst of having one of these arguments with a colleague Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, announced that he would be willing to have Lawrence reconsidered and would defend a (INAUDIBLE) statute if one were to be reenacted.
So, this is the 2003 Lawrence case, often seen as the Brown Versus Board of Education, the LGBT rights movement, that is now freshly on the chopping block and people are taking up that invitation that Justice Clarence Thomas calmly issued in his concurrence.
CAPEHART: And a Lawrence case is Lawrence v Texas — so, the symbolism there is high.
I want to pick up on something that you said. Also Professor Yoshino, when I read the draft, the Alito draft, I immediately wrote a column saying, Obergefell is in danger. Just the logic — you take away Roe and the right to privacy, where does that leave — where does that leave Obergefell?
But I want to pick up on something you just said that Justice Thomas is inviting litigation. But do you also buy the contention that he is also sending a signal to those conservative judges in lower courts, many of whom clerked either for him or justices on the Supreme Court that, hey, I am inviting litigation. And then when that litigation gets to you, you all know what to do.
YOSHINO: That`s exactly right. And so again, for those who would say he is a voice crying out in the wilderness, that may have been true about ten years ago. But people need to update their (INAUDIBLE) under the Trump presidency, the lower courts were filled with jurists who, as you say, were if not former clerks of Justice Thomas, at least fellow travelers in the Federalist Society who are going to be very, very attentive to the kind of bread crumbs that he drops in these concurrences.
CAPEHART: One more question for you, Professor. With Justices Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas all seemingly to the right of him, has Chief Justice John Roberts, in effect, lost control of the Supreme Court?
YOSHINO: Absolutely. I mean we saw that in the Dobbs opinion itself, where he was actually not a member of the court who joined the majority. He was actually waving his hands at the majority saying, you are doing too much, too fast. But you can actually strike down — actually, rather, you can uphold the Mississippi statute, without actually doing anything to Roe. Because you can say that there is enough time for the woman to make a decision, or the pregnant person to make a decision in the 15 weeks that Mississippi law affords it.
So, he was saying, just you know, uphold this particular law. Don`t do anything to Roe or to Casey other than adjusting the viability line.
But he lost on that one. And so this kind of maximalist, very aggressive court, sort of run roughshod over him. And that five member majority that you just named is now upholding the reins. So, he is really the chief justice in name only.
CAPEHART: Kenji Yoshino, thanks for joining us tonight. Great to see you again.
YOSHINO: Always great to see you, even on this sad occasion.
CAPEHART: All right. Coming up — an even better than expected jobs report was good news for Joe Biden today. And a totally expected billionaire tantrum was bad news for Donald Trump. That is next.
[22:38:32]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAPEHART: In tonight`s breaking news that is totally not surprising, Elon Musk is officially trying to pull out of buying Twitter. In a new filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Musk claimed Twitter was in a material breach of the $44 billion contract.
For the last three months, Elon Musk`s Twitter ambitions have given him endless media attention, with vague promises of free speech, lobbing poop emojis at current Twitter policies and vowing to right the wrong that was stopping Donald Trump from tweeting.
But there were signs early on that he never actually wanted the deal to go through.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAPEHART: But also isn`t it impossible to put a deal on hold or even back out of a deal.
FELIX SALMON, CHIEF FINANCIAL CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Yes.
CAPEHART: It is.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is totally — a deal on hold is meaningless, that means nothing. He has a bunch of lawyers and financiers running around trying to make sure that all of the financing gets done. So you can`t just stop that. In fact, I`m sure those people are running around even more right now than they were yesterday.
So can he pull out? Not really. There is no obvious way to him to do that although I`m sure he would love to be able to threaten to be able to do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAPEHART: We`ll see what Felix has to say about Musk`s move today in a moment. But first we can`t let Musk`s Twitter tantrum make us lose focus on today`s blockbuster jobs report. 372,000 jobs were created last month, far outperforming expectations. The private sector has recovered every job lost in the pandemic and there still room to grow with two job openings for every person looking to be hired.
[22:44:56]
And even more good news? Increases in full time jobs and in wages. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.6 percent, the lowest in modern history. And gas prices are coming down.
Joining us now Felix amin chief financial correspondent from Axios and host of the “Slate Money” podcast.
Felix, let`s start there. There`s been a lot of talk about a possible recession. Prices are still high, but can you have a recession with a jobs market this strong?
SALMON: No, absolutely not. There is this famous rule — well, it`s not really a rule but they call it a rule — called the (INAUDIBLE) which basically says that you can`t have a recession unless unemployment is half a point below its lows at least. We`re not even close to that.
As you said, we`re right at the lows on unemployment, we`re creating new jobs at a really quite torrid pace. Probably, weirdly faster than the government would actually like.
So this is not a recession. I see no chance that we`re in a recession right now. There could be one in the future. But as you say, gas prices are coming down and things are looking pretty rosy these days.
CAPEHART: Ok. So then Felix, that leads to the political question I have. Can people be convinced to feel better about the economy and is the consumer gloom a reflection of inflation or a response to a generalized uncertainty of a pandemic, Russian aggression in Europe, loss of freedom, rights here in the United States, et cetera.
SALMON: Yes. But The vibes are bad right? And so when people hear the word recession, they don`t look at the official (INAUDIBLE) definition of what a recession is. They just kind of think, are there bad vibes? And for the vibes question, they`re not really looking at do I have a job. They`re looking at things like how much does it cost to fill up my car? Or, you know, is the stock market down?
And they look at these things and they also look at a bunch of talking heads on the television saying we could be in a recession. And they go, especially if they`re a Republican, they say yes, this is terrible, we`re in a recession.
CAPEHART: All right. We got to talk about Elon Musk because that`s what we talked about the last time we saw each other. Can he get out of this deal? What could it cost him?
SALMON: So he`s certainly trying. It`s going to wind up in Delaware Chancery Court which I know is your favorite place and it`s going to go up against a judge. And maybe there will be a settlement out of court. Maybe he will win, I find that very improbably.
Most you know — it could that he will wind up settling for a few billion dollars. But it`s also possible that the court could just say no, you signed a deal to buy this company, you have to buy the company. It`s called specific performance. And they could force him to buy Twitter even if he doesn`t want to.
CAPEHART: That would just be genius. All right. So then, what do you think his — Musk`s motives were here? Because it seems like the effect of Elon Musk`s bid to buy y Twitter was to damage it.
SALMON: I mean he certainly did that. There`s not a lot of productive work going on inside Twitter right now. All they are doing is glued to the headlines about Elon Musk. The product isn`t improving. And if the bid goes away then the share price falls to the floor. We know that. I mean it`s already way away from where Elon has promised to pay for.
So it`s a huge distraction for Twitter. And yes, the minute that he put in the bid, suddenly the stock market started falling and specifically Tesla stocks started falling. That was where all his wealth was.
He changed his mind. He got cold feet. He wants to pull out, but it`s not clear whether he has the legal ability to do that.
CAPEHART: I mean I just — you`re just forced to buy a company for $44 billion dollars that you don`t even want anymore.
SALMON: There are not a lot of people rich enough where a court can force you to spend $44 billion dollars on a company. But Elon really is rich enough. He has that kind of money.
CAPEHART: Oh my God, I`d love to see it.
Felix Salmon, thank you very much for coming back to THE LAST WORD.
Coming up, the power of Trumpism is on the ballot in November and some Republicans are clinging to the most extreme Trumpist views in their campaigns. Can Democrats use that to their advantage with voters? That`s next.
[22:49:22]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAPEHART: We`re just four months from election night in America and the power of Trumpism is on the ballot. We`ve seen some Republicans continue to cling to the lie that the election was stolen from Donald Trump while dismissing the investigation of the January 6th attack on the Capitol, supporting election subversion tactics, and working to strip a constitutional rights from Americans.
The generic congressional ballot shows a tie between Democrats and Republicans, but some Republican candidates are running on the craziest ideas of the Trump platform. And no surprise, they`re all endorsed by Donald Trump.
Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker who denied being a father to multiple children and allegedly hid the details from his staff is trailing Democratic candidate Senator Raphael Warnock by ten points.
[22:54:50]
Nevada`s senate candidate Adam Laxalt who supported Donald Trump`s attempts to overturn the election won the primary with more than 50 percent of the vote.
And State Senator Doug Mastriano who`s running for Pennsylvania governor was plotting with Rudy Giuliani to try to figure out how to give Donald Trump Pennsylvania`s electoral votes.
The question now is can Democrats use Republican support for Trumpism to their advantage at the polls in November.
Joining me now, Eugene Daniels, White House correspondent for Politico and an MSNBC political contributor.
All right, Eugene. So how are Democrats going to take advantage of this. What strategies are they looking to use to defeat Republicans running on Trumpism?
EUGENE DANIELS, MSNBC POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. It depends on which Democrat you`re talking about. If you are looking at — if you`re looking at for example the Democratic Governors Association that`s working on getting some of these gubernatorial races in the D column, then they are meddling in some of the Republican primaries kind of boosting up some of these Republicans with the ideas that, you know, you talked about quite a bit, kind of anti-democratic ideas. That`s one way.
They are also as you see the Supreme Court changing a lot of American life and actually going against what most of Americans in this country wants whether that`s on gun safety, whether that is on abortion where polls are on the other end of the Supreme Court. You have them highlighting that.
And so it`s all about trying to, for Democrats trying to figure out how to make it clearer that in their eyes Republicans are more extreme than before. President Biden in fact say you know, this is not your dad`s Republican Party, and tying them Donald Trump as much as they can.
Now, last year in Virginia, it didn`t really work because you had Glenn Youngkin who was running and ended up winning the gubernatorial race there. Not really wanting to be — ask Donald Trump`s help — he didn`t Donald Trump to come support him, but these other folks that are running up and down the ballot do want Donald Trump to come to their side.
So it is a little bit different giving Democrats what they feel is an advantage on tying Donald Trump to these other Republicans.
CAPEHART: Eugene, let`s talk about Roe as a motivator for Democrats in 538 Nate Silver writes that the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade could give Democrats momentum going into the midterms.
Your thoughts. Is that even possible? Is it enough of the motivator do you think?
DANIELS: Is it enough, that`s hard to say, but it is a motivator, right. If Democrats play their cards right, and you have to admit that sometimes on messaging, they have proven this last year and a half not to really have it together how most of their voters wouldn`t expect and want them to. And even some of the Democratic strategist that I`m often talking to.
But this is something that Democrats rested on their laurels on and they know that. Vice President Harris said that in the interview that took place today that Democrats should have codified Roe into law.
So now all they can do is tell voters that we are going to continue fighting at the federal level to codify Roe but we need your help, you have to give us enough senators in Congress to do so.
And to that is something that we are seeing voters get excited I guess is probably the wrong world, but it`s motivating them for November.
Is that enough to kind of counteract all the history that we know that goes in the midterms. All of the wind that`s at the back of Republicans?
CAPEHART: Right.
DANIELS: Right now, it`s hard to know, but it definitely is giving Democrats a reason to vote and making them take the court much more seriously than they have in the past.
CAPEHART: Right. And part of the message — part of the president`s message is give me two more seats, just give me two more seats for that majority and we could do all the stuff you want.
One more question Gene because we got like 90 seconds.
If Donald Trump announces that he is running in 2024, what impact would that have on the midterms? Who stands to benefit? Democrats or Republicans?
DANIELS: I think it makes it really difficult for Republicans who are trying to run and run their own race and not have to answer for everything that Donald Trump says. It makes their live very difficult, if he runs.
Democrats are going to do everything they can to tie folks really tightly to him so if he does announce that he`s going to run for president he`s not only the leader of the parties. He is the presumptive nominee for the Republican nomination in 2024.
That makes Democrats` job a little bit easier, and I will say Republicans behind the scenes have been saying for a long time, they did not want Donald Trump mucking about and meddling in the primary because of some of the folks he talked about Mastriano possibly and getting the nominations and making their jobs much harder in November.
[22:59:50]
CAPEHART: I keep saying this, I don`t think he`s going to run, but if he makes an announcement before the midterms, oh baby.
Eugene Daniels —
DANIELS: Unprecedented times.
CAPEHART: Unprecedented. Thanks. Eugene Daniels thanks for joining us tonight.
That is tonight`s LAST WORD.
I will see you this weekend on “THE SUNDAY SHOW` starting at 10 a.m. Eastern here on MSNBC.
“THE 11TH HOUR WITH STEPHANIE RUHLE” starts exactly now.