Updated
Summary
While Trump`s legal team pushes for a “special master,” the Justice Department says it has already completed its review of the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago. Republicans, who had their PPP loans forgiven, get called out from the White House twitter account. And as more states choke off abortion access, others are stepping up to help with the economic burden for women.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: Today`s “LAST WORD” is Quisling. THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.
[23:00:12]
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC ANCHOR: Tonight, the Justice Department tells a judge it is reviewed all the documents were covered at Mar-a-Lago as pressured to indict the former guy weighs on the attorney general. And while Republicans predict violent fallout from a potential prosecution of the former guy, Democrats are unveiling a bold new messaging strategy, punching back at critics of some of their latest policies.
Plus, the economic impact of abortion bans across the country and burdens women are facing who are trying to get reproductive care. The current reality of our post Rose Society as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Monday night.
Good evening. Once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. It is good to be back here. We have got a lot to cover. It has been exactly three weeks, three weeks since the FBI searched Donald Trump`s Florida home. And tonight we know the Justice Department has completed its review of all of the documents that were seized by the FBI.
DOJ lawyers say a limited number of the items recovered potentially contain attorney client privileged information. A judge is now considering a request from Trump`s legal team to now appoint a neutral special master to see if any documents are covered by executive privilege. Over the weekend, Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee signaled preliminary support for a third party to review the recovered documents our own Kelly O`Donnell has more.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
KELLY O`DONNELL, NBC NEWS SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Today, the Department of Justice told the court that the initial sorting of documents has already been completed. But Mr. Trump`s team pushed back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a lot of problems really accepting everything at face value that`s coming out of DOJ these days. It`s a very politicized place, I`m sad to say.
O`DONNELL: When he was a candidate, Donald Trump pledged to protect official secrets.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: In my administration, I`m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information.
O`DONNELL: But Trump ally Lindsey Graham suggests any charges could actually lead to violence.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I`ll say this. If there`s a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information, there`ll be riots in the streets.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
RUHLE: We`ll have much more on Lindsey Graham`s headline making comments later in the hour. But let`s stay where we are now, because the Justice Department is facing with the New York Times is calling a quote, unparalleled test. Katie Benner writes, What had started as an effort to retrieve national security documents has now been transformed into one of the most challenging, complicated and potentially explosive criminal investigations in recent memory with tremendous implications for the Justice Department, Mr. Trump, and public faith in our government.
She goes on to write this attorney general Merrick Garland now faces the prospect of having to decide whether to file criminal charges against a former president and likely 24 Republican candidate a step without any historical parallel. We`re also following important developments tonight in another criminal investigation involving that very same former president.
Today, a judge ruled in Georgia that the Governor Brian Kemp must testify before a Fulton County grand jury that is investigating possible 2020 election interference by Mr. Trump. The judge said Kemp does not have to testify until after the November election.
With that, let`s get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel. Phil Rucker, Pulitzer Prize winning deputy national editor for The Washington Post. Katie Benner herself, we were just quoting Pulitzer Prize winning Justice Department Reporter for the New York Times, and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. She is now a law professor at the University of Alabama.
Katie, since we were just quoting you the first question is of course for you. Your new reporting says this investigation poses an unparalleled test for the Justice Department. How about an unparalleled test for a President?
KATIE BENNER, THE NEW YORK TIMES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REPORTER: Well, that is an interesting question, because again, I mean, we`ve seen a little bit of this Lindsey Graham statement they referenced earlier, so much of the conversation has been around Merrick Garland and the choice that he will make very little of the conversation is around the former president and how he`s been pushing this choice again and again,
The Justice Department did not go into this investigation related to presidential records and classified information thinking would get to a point where it needed to use a search warrant to be sure that it had obtained all the information that it sought. In past cases it had worked with people Whether it was you know General Petraeus, whether it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to obtain information that was classified and determine whether it had been mishandled
[23:05:10]
In this case, the Justice Department officials felt again and again, that they were not being given the whole truth, and they felt they needed to resort to this. But we frame it around the Justice Department`s actions and to your point, very rarely talk about the fact that it is the former president who created this situation, and that he`s been creating these situations for himself, again, and again. Now he`s taken to a social network, true social, to try to exert his followers to mistrust to no longer trust the Justice Department, and to say that he really should not be investigated.
RUHLE: Joyce, how high are the stakes?
JOYCE VANCE, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY: The stakes here are very high. I think Katie does a great job of setting the table by saying that the decisions that are ahead of Merrick Garland are very difficult and very consequential decisions. It`s very easy for the armchair prosecutors among us, myself included these days, to look at the evidence and to believe the evidence is reaching that level where a prosecution should be forthcoming.
But in reality, it is more complicated than that. They`re important factual decisions in a case like this. And not the least difficult questions involving evidence in this sort of a case are how do you protect classified information while putting it in front of a jury. There are some important decisions about balancing equities with the intelligence community and selecting evidence if you`re going to go forward with a prosecution. So all of this very difficult.
The sort of wisdom that you carry with you at DOJ is that if you`re doing the job, right, you`re going to make a lot of people mad at you, with every decision that you make people will be angry. Your only hope is that you`re making people who like you, as angry as people who don`t like you, that suggests that you`re balancing things correctly.
But at the end of the day, it`s not a beauty pageant, you`re not there to make friends. As a prosecutor, what you have to do is the right thing. And that`s the decision that Merrick Garland will have to make here on the facts on the law is prosecution warranted or not.
RUHLE: Then Phil, if they do appoint a special master, doesn`t that say that they don`t believe that our government is doing the right thing that can`t be trusted?
PHIL RUCKER, THE WASHINGTON POST DEPUTY NATIONAL EDITOR: Well, not necessarily, Stephanie, the government has already reviewed the documents that were recovered from Mar-a-Lago two weeks ago. And you know, former President Trump has requested the special master, the judge in Florida that heard this motion has indicated that she`s open to that, maybe even leaning towards appointing the special master but has not done so and has not ruled, and in fact, was waiting for the Justice Department to file its motion, which came today.
And so we`re not sure what that ultimate decision will mean. But regardless of whether a special master is appointed, I don`t think we can extrapolate from that, that the FBI can or can`t be trusted. It`s just sort of a process where, you know, Trump has requested this compensation, and it`s up to this judge to determine whether to grant it.
RUHLE: Then Joyce, could this be another Be careful what you wish for? Remember, Trump said, let me see the affidavit. Let me see the affidavit yet Trump and his lawyers didn`t actually do anything. Originally, it was the media who requested to see it. Now here they are saying we want a special master. And if we get this 40-page response, which we could get from the Justice Department, couldn`t that be a terrible thing for Trump? 40 pages could be the DOJ`s opportunity to show the public and show the judge this wild goose chase Trump is trying to send them on.
VANCE: Merrick Garland has repeatedly — Merrick Garland has repeatedly made the point that DOJ doesn`t try its cases in the press that when DOJ speaks it`s in the courtroom and in its pleadings, and 40 pages is a lot of pleadings, Stephanie. DOJ said today that they wanted to address both factual and legal issues. And Trump and his lawyers may have opened just a big wide sort of door that DOJ can now walk through telling the American people more about what`s going on here.
RUHLE: I`m interested. Katie, let`s talk about what we learned that some of these documents from Mar-a-Lago are potentially covered by attorney-client privilege. How does that work? Who are the attorneys because if this was when Trump was in office, don`t these attorneys work for us? The American people, aren`t we the clients?
BENNER: Well, he did have his own attorneys. He had an army of attorneys while he was in office for various issues, including to impeachments, the Mueller investigation. There was a lot going on with Donald Trump vis-a-vis the law so he had lots and lots of lawyers. I think it`s really a matter of seeing the evidence seeing the filings in what they say it`s very dangerous I think to speculate about anything at this point, because so often we`ve seen it every turn in this investigation.
[23:10:06]
It`s only been within days or weeks that we have actually seen pieces of paper released to the public that have given us if not all of the answers some of the answers. And so again, I think that it`s a matter of waiting for these filings to come in.
RUHLE: Joyce, Queen Katie and her fellow superstar reporters on this are reporting that Trump`s legal team is still scrambling to find any sort of defense over why he had these documents in the first place. Does that surprise you? They`ve talked all about what has happened here, but they`ve said nothing about why in the world Trump had this stuff.
VANCE: Well, there`s not really a great defense in the offing for that. This is classified material whether Trump has some pseudo I waved a magic wand and declassified argument is largely irrelevant, because reportedly, many of these documents are significant enough to qualify as defense related information, which is also protected by the Espionage Act.
And so what do you say, right? At first, maybe you say you inadvertently took the documents, but that`s not the argument that Trump is making. Nor can he make it at this point. He was on notice that the National Archives wanted documents that he withheld them. There`s reporting that he even said when White House Counsel advised that they had to be returned, that they were his documents, and he would not return them. He maintained that stance up into the point where high ranking DOJ folks came down to visit in an effort to shake the documents loose.
And ultimately, as we now know, it led to execution of a search warrant. There is nothing in that narrative that offers the former President the opportunity to say, oh, no, I was entitled to take all of this top secret classified information with me when I left the White House. It the reason we don`t hear him articulating in defense, Stephanie is because there is not a defense to retention of these documents, let alone mishandling of them at this point in time.
RUHLE: On another front, we mentioned earlier, Georgia`s Governor Brian Kemp will now be compelled to testify in the Fulton County investigation into election interference. And I want to share with Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter and our MSNBC colleague, Greg Bluestein, said on the DA`s progress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREG BLUESTEIN, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION POLITICAL REPORTER: Her investigation is broadening and at the same time it is tightening, it`s going towards his inner circle. And several others people including Mark Meadows have been informed that they could be targets of the investigation that could also face criminal charges.
And so this investigation has been going on for months. The DA said today she was looking to wrap it up by the end of the year to let the special Grand Jurors go about their business. And the question becomes does she subpoena Donald Trump but she`s told blame and others that she has not ruled that out?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Joyce, where do you think we are in this investigation?
VANCE: So what`s clear about this investigation is that Fani Willis`s intent on speaking with all of the relevant witnesses. In her moving papers in court, she`s indicated that she needs to speak with some of the people like Governor Kemp, who has done everything he can to elude her to make sure she`s identifying all of the witnesses and speaking to everyone with relevant information.
That sounds like the sort of thing a prosecutor does when they`re dotting their I`s and crossing their T`s. As they near the end of the investigation, trying to make sure that there`s nothing out there that they`re unaware of.
Whether or not she`ll end up subpoenaing Donald Trump, I think is wide open. Part of the reasoning behind that is that typically when you put a target in front of a grand jury, if the former president becomes a target in that investigation, then their Fifth Amendment implications and often that can become very messy.
So I don`t think it would be surprising to see her wrap up without putting Trump himself in the grand jury. But she certainly has made a good faith effort to get testimony from everyone who can shed light on his conduct as well as the conduct of the campaigns and others in Georgia. This does not look like a case that will end without some form of charges.
RUHLE: Phil, is this the investigation Trump should actually be most worried about?
RUCKER: Well, Steph, there are so many investigations that Trump should be worried about, but the Georgia one has been flying under the radar all year. It`s not gotten nearly as much attention as the January 6 investigation at the Department of Justice, certainly not in the last few weeks as much attention as the Mar-a-Lago classified documents search. And yet there is real legal Jeopardy according to the experts for the former president. In this case in Georgia.
Rudy Giuliani his longtime, you know, friend, advisor and lawyer was witnessed or was interviewed by this grand jury justice number of days ago.
[23:15:02]
This is an intensifying investigation. And the prosecutor there is, as Joyce noted, has shown signs that she wants charges to be filed that there were crimes committed and she wants charges filed.
RUHLE: Katie, is the Justice Department also focus on this investigation? As everyone has said, there`s a lot of investigations going on.
BENNER: A lot of investigations. It`s true. The Justice Department is very much watching all of the other investigations that are happening outside of its building. That includes the congressional inquiry, which of course, would not end in criminal charges, but just would bring a lot of new facts and evidence to the public, as well as what`s going on in Georgia with I think, great curiosity, in part because its own investigation. Particularly there are two that we know of its own January 6 investigation and its investigation to Trump`s possible mishandling of classified information. Those two things are not really anywhere near complete.
As far as we know from our reporting the Justice Department in its investigation into Trump`s handling of classified information, that is not something that`s really anywhere near the career prosecutors making the decision for themselves, whether they have the evidence necessary to go forward with criminal charges, they would have to really battle test that amongst themselves and lots and lots of meetings and lots and lots of debates before they bring that to the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General for them to weigh in.
RUHLE: So before we go, when Cassidy Hutchinson, former chief of staff to Mark Meadows testified before the January 6 committee, she detailed the conflict that went on between Donald Trump and a member of the Secret Service Tony Ornata. After she testified we heard from Trump camp that Ornato would be coming out publicly to dispute everything that she said that it was wholly untrue. We have not heard one single word publicly from him. And today, after 25 years at the Secret Service, he retired. Are we ever going to hear from this guy because they surely got their news out, but we never got the meat?
RUCKER: That`s really perceptive, Stephanie, because we haven`t heard him challenge publicly Cassidy Hutchinson`s public testimony in the January 6 hearing. In fact, we haven`t heard the Secret Service as an agency challenge what Hutchinson put forward in her narrative recounting the events of January 6. There`s certainly a chance that after Tony Ornato does retire and leaves government service, that he could tell his story, his version of events, at some point in time, perhaps he might even, you know, follow the path of so many other former Trump officials —
RUHLE: Don`t even say it. Don`t even say to it.
RUCKER: — be published. They all do it, Stephanie, they all do it. But look, keep in mind that Tony Ornato while a Secret Service agent for so many years, was very much a political actor in the Trump White House, so much so that Trump elevated him from the Secret Service detail to become Deputy Chief of Staff a political appointment to guard and protect the President`s schedule, his whereabouts where he was going. He was a very close and very loyal friend and aide to President Trump.
RUHLE: How many more people are going to tell us the country was in trouble. The democracy was at risk. He was unhinged. So I did nothing to stop it at the time. But then I wrote a book about it. How many more we`re going to do that. I want to know who buys them. Phil Rucker, Joyce Vance, Katie Benner and to the New York Times, please give Katie Benner a big long vacation in September. She has not had one single day off this summer. I would like to note that.
When we come back, Trump supporters warn of riots in the streets, while Democrats are suddenly punching back against GOP attacks. And the new report says at a congressional Republican meeting, they didn`t even talk about the former guy. And later the often overlooked costs of banning abortions, especially when it comes to education, employment and earning potential. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on a busy Monday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:23:40]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM: If they try to prosecute President Trump for mishandling classified information, after Hillary Clinton set up a server in her basement, they literally will be riots in the street. I worry about our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The senator`s comments on Fox News last night had been met by alarm across the political spectrum. So let`s dig in and discuss we are happy to have back with us tonight. David Plouffe, former Obama campaign manager and senior adviser to the President and David Jolly, former Republican congressman from Florida, and an MSNBC political contributor.
Mr. Plouffe, January 6 clearly proved that hardcore Trump supporters would do almost anything for that guy. So why on earth how dangerous is it for Lindsey Graham to say that now?
DAVID PLOUFFE, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, Stephanie, it`s incredibly dangerous and you know, Lindsey Graham, of course knows better. I mean, I think this is just par for the course, which is sort of Trump`s acolytes and for the most part Graham has been — he`s had a couple of moments where he said he`s done with them.
You know, they just don`t want him to face accountability. I think generally, there`s a lot of Republicans today that`s the whole idea is they want permanent power, and never face accountability from courts, from the press, ultimately from voters. So there`s a big principle behind it in this drive for autonomy.
[23:25:00]
What Graham should be saying, of course is, you know, people should turn out in droves at the polls. Instead of, you know, this very dangerous, dangerous threat. Now, I don`t think this is going to deter a single person who`s investigating Trump and ultimately decide whether to bring charges. So it`s feeble in that regard, but it`s incredibly dangerous mean, he`s a United States senator, multiterm United States senator then a counselor to Republican nominee John McCain to President Donald Trump. It`s incredibly scary.
RUHLE: The first thing David Plouffe said right there is Lindsey Graham knows better, he does David jolly. So what in the world is he doing here besides potentially, just trying to normalize this talk around? Oh, we always say things like this, which is not true.
DAVID JOLLY, FMR. REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: Yes, Stephanie, I would agree with you six years ago about Lindsey Graham, but I think the Lindsey Graham, we saw in that clip is the real Lindsey Graham, somebody that just reflects the politics of Donald Trump in the moment. And what I would suggest is what we saw is a sitting U.S. senator who was not trying to discourage violence, political violence, but was accepting its inevitability. And that is the great danger.
And I would suggest that, you know, we got a glimpse of kind of the tinderbox that the nation could be. When we saw the search of Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump realized in that moment, his ability to mobilize and catalyze not just sitting U.S. senators, but the very voters we saw on January sixth storming the Capitol. Donald Trump can recreate that moment, and he knows it. And that is the biggest worry of all.
So what should leading Republicans be doing? As David Plouffe said they should be talking about exercising your franchise not exercising acts of violence, but that`s not what we got from Lindsey Graham. I don`t suspect we`ll get anything different from Republican leaders that who are asked to respond to his comments.
RUHLE: Donald Trump may have the power to mobilize angry people and obviously storming the Capitol is a terrible moment in our history, like democracy held, and Trump`s name. And his own name, though he`s so powerful, apparently was barely mentioned at Kevin McCarthy`s recent donor retreat. Puck News just reported and I want to share this quote, Trump was not raised as a factor in political discussions not even when discussing turnout. He was only mentioned in passing in some small breakout groups around policy, which like, let`s be honest, David Plouffe, that`s almost laughable. If there`s one thing Donald Trump doesn`t talk or think about its policy. So the fact that he`s not even being discussed, does he really have this massive power to mobilize and control the party?
PLOUFFE: Well, it`s fascinating, Steph. I think what that tells you by the way, I`m sure we`re going to get an angry missive on true social any minute, Trump when he reads that Puck News report. But I think that —
RUHLE: Good news, very few people follow truth social.
PLOUFFE: Yes, right. I think that what it says is, I think a lot of donors, not all but many donors, the House Republican leadership behind closed doors, probably most House Republican candidates in a swing district. Most Senate candidates, not all, of course, you don`t know that Trump`s liabilities swing voters. And there`s no doubt and in `16 in his own race, in `18 in red Senate states in particular, where the Republicans won some close Senate races, and then again, in `20, Trump was able to generate huge turnout on his behalf, particularly in smaller counties. You couple that with winning those counties 80-20, 85-15. It puts a lot of votes in the bank.
So but I think generally right now, what you`re seeing is a belief that he is more harm, much more harm than good. Certainly when anybody takes truth serum, which is basically what happens behind closed doors. So, you know, that`s what I think is going to be interesting over these next few weeks is there`s a lot of people who still want Trump out there making the case of a turnout. But every time he does that, he reminds people that basically every Republican candidate, and the entire Republican apparatus in Washington is basically there to do his bidding. That`s their most animating principle right now. It`s not a piece of policy. It`s that Donald Trump is an aggrieved person, he was wronged. And we`re going to restore them.
I mean, Trump`s out there tweeting today that the election should be postponed. He shouldn`t be reinstalled in power. And generally I have learned that almost every election is about the future. It`s not about the past. And that`s the other thing where Trump comes on. I think there`s a lot of even Republican voters who say, I`m going to like some of the things he did, but he`s going to hurt us in the elections.
RUHLE: OK, well, I`m going to have to correct you there. Donald Trump didn`t tweet anything today. He`s not allowed to use the Twitter. David Jolly, then here`s a really basic question, because there`s millions of Americans who don`t like politics or politicians at all. They care about policies that worked for their lives. So what are Republicans running on?
JOLLY: Well, and it relates to this conversation exactly. Republicans actually still want to be running about Joe Biden.
[23:30:00]
They want to prosecute a case against Joe Biden, notwithstanding the remarkable legislative successes of the President over the summer, from guns, to climate to corporate tax rates to Medicare prescription drugs, they still believe because Joe Biden is under 50 percent. And because the economy still has some challenges. They want to prosecute a case against Donald — against Joe Biden history would suggest that that would turn out favorably, but they can`t do that for two reasons right now. Donald Trump has remaining front and center in America`s mind, and as David just said, that actually hurts Republicans. That is not a favorable Republican environment. And then secondly, Stephanie, we`re living in a post Dobbs world and that has shaken this race dramatically.
We are seeing Democrats now performing three, four or even six points better than they were before the Dobbs decision. Republicans don`t have anything to run on going into November. This is quite possibly the worst case scenario for Republicans.
RUHLE: Well, we`ll soon find out. A very big thank you to the devil David`s this evening, Plouffe and Jolly. I appreciate you joining us. When we come back, it`s no secret, Republicans used to dominate trolling their opponents. The Democrats they spent the weekend hitting back hard not below the belt right between the eyes going after Republicans for their hypocrisy. That`s when the 11th hour continues. You`re going to want to see this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:36:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, U.S. HOUSE SPEAKER: We have every intention every single day to do everything in our power. We haven`t decided to win. And that`s what we will do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Six months after Nancy Pelosi made that promise, Democrats are doing something many voters have been begging for quite a while they are fighting like Republicans. Take the recent GOP criticism of the Biden administration student debt relief. Republican lawmakers were all over social media complaining the relief was for elites. It was reckless. It was unfair.
Well now for fact, fake loan forgiveness is not nearly as uncommon as they would have you think. The government does it all the time. It is called a tax break. We see it for corporations, the government does not make them pay as much as they owe, which gives them more money to grow and thrive. And that is exactly what student loan cancellation is meant, meant to accomplish, helping Americans have more money so they can succeed.
And now the newly feisty White House Twitter account is trying to drive home that point by publicly naming and shaming Republican members of Congress who took PPP loans. And the truth is all along with some significant wins, that may finally be helping push President Biden`s approval rating higher and possibly crushing GOP dreams of a red wave come November.
Here to break it all down. Sam Stein, a veteran journalist and White House editor for POLITICO, and A.B. Stoddard, veteran Washington journalist and associate editor and columnist for Real Clear Politics.
Sam, here`s something I just need to know. If you`re a member of Congress, it is a full time job. We are talking for days about PPP loans. This was the forgivable loan program that the government put in place to keep small businesses across the country afloat. Why on earth do so many members of Congress whose job it is to govern also run small businesses that got hundreds of thousands, in some cases, millions of dollars from the government?
SAM STEIN, POLITICO WHITE HOUSE EDITOR: It`s a really good question. Being a member of Congress is a full time job or should be, I would say, comes with a pretty nice salary too. But members do have holdings and businesses sometimes tied to family members or that had been in their family for a while that they do operate on the side. And yes, some of them did get loans from the government. Some of them do business that involves government subsidies. Oftentimes, this is the nexus of some element of corruption in our political system.
In this case, it`s becoming the nexus of an element of hypocrisy in our political system. As he noted a number of these members who have been hypercritical of this student debt relief that they bought administration before did in fact, receive government loans through PPP.
Now, of course, there`s fundamental differences in the program. One was there to help with pandemic era closures. The other one is there to help the students who are struggling with debt, but fundamentally at its core, as you noted, Stephanie, it is the government coming in to help relieve debt from someone who needs the debt relief. And I think, structurally, that`s the similarity. And that`s why the White House is hitting back hard on these members.
RUHLE: They are hitting back hard. What do you think of this new strategy, A.B., because traditionally, Democrats are way more careful than that? They might say, well, there were Democratic lawmakers that also got PPP loans, but not here. They are punching between the eyes. We haven`t seen that before.
A.B. STODDARD, REAL CLEAR POLITICS ASSOC. EDITOR AND COLUMNIST: No, and suddenly one of the criticisms of President Biden early on was that, you know, Democrats didn`t see him out there punching back. He came into office saying he was going to unite the nation and full tempers and he wanted to work with Republicans and much of the grassroots energy, you know, all the frustrations over the long, long road of Build Back Better would finally became the inflation was born out of the fact that they felt that he wasn`t — he was taking too much time negotiating with Republicans on other things hoping for things like infrastructure, and maybe other deals that he comes up.
[23:40:15]
His career really was during an arc of a more civilized time, he was this genteel man of the Senate, and he really wasn`t going to take on the fight of our time. And so it is an interesting turn, everything happening at once, not only the slate of really, really productive and successful and meaningful, new laws coming out of the Senate, with the help of Republicans passed by — signed into law by President Biden, as gas prices are going down as president — former President Trump is back in the news, yet under yet another criminal investigation of a very serious nature.
And then you have this new tactic, which is that they`re going to fight back and punch Republicans back in the nose, it`s really obviously being on defense. You`re always losing when you`re on defense, and the Democrats feel that all these things happening at once have given them, you know, finally a position of offense, but it is definitely long sought by the base of the party, and in a welcome development.
RUHLE: Sam, what`s your take on this new strategy?
STEIN: Well, I think A.B. hits a number of valuable points here. I mean, the context is really what matters, right? If this was two or three months ago, pre the Roe v. Wade decision, I don`t know if we`d have this strategy. If this was two or three months ago, prior to gas prices coming down, it might be difficult for them to execute a strategy like this.
Well, you`ve had those two developments, which are incredible wind behind the sails of the Democratic Party. And then on top of that, you`ve had a few legislative successes that were elusive for a while, but now seem to be well, they`ve been achieved, obviously, the inflation Reduction Act, and then the student loans relief.
And so that gives the party the ability to set the stop playing defenses, A.B. says, and to go after the Republican critics more. And fundamentally, I mean, this is, you know, this is the only way they salvage just midterm elections. I mean, it`s sort of a cliche at this point.
But for the party in power in the midterms, you do everything you possibly can to create a contrast with the opposition party. You don`t want it to necessarily be a referendum. In this case, they`re not as discomforted by it being referendum and they get the ultimate gift, and that they have Donald Trump out there with all his problems happening with the Mar-a-Lago search with the possibility the likelihood, the certainty, I should say, of the January 6 committee coming back, they get that contrast heading into November, and it creates this, this do this political stew that could potentially actually give the party a chance in the midterms, when historically they should not have.
RUHLE: The gift of Trump coming to a midterm election near you. Sam Stein, A.B. Stoddard, thank you for joining us on this busy Monday.
STEIN: Thank you.
RUHLE: When we come back. A really important story. The abortion story not enough people are talking about the enormous financial burden it is putting on women across this country when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:47:53]
RUHLE: One part of the debate over abortion rights that can be overlooked and shouldn`t be as around an unexpected costs financial burden. For example, lawmakers in California are about to vote on a budget that would set aside $20 million to cover some out of state abortion travel. Supporters hope to ease some of the economic consequences for those in states where abortion is now essentially illegal.
Joining us now to discuss my dear friend Sheelah Kolhatkar. She`s a staff writer at The New Yorker where she covers Business and Economics. Sheelah, it is so good to see you you`re writing about the devastating impact of abortion bans before the Supreme Court rolled back row so help explain to us where we are because 70 percent of women who seek abortions live at or below the poverty line. How does this leave them?
SHEELAH KOLHATKAR, THE NEW YORKER STAFF WRITER: Well, so listen, the fact that states Democrat leading states are setting aside funds to help pay for women from other states to come and get abortions is an acknowledgment of the financial consequences of not having accessible, safe legal abortion services. And the fact that those consequences can really be devastating.
One thing that we know very clearly is that abortion bans hurt the most vulnerable women the most so low income women, women of color, rich ladies will always find a way to get what they want and what they need, even if they need to leave the country to get an abortion for example, but black women are far more likely to experience unwanted pregnancies. Childbirth is much more dangerous for black women.
And as you mentioned, a huge proportion of abortions are obtained by people living below the federal poverty line. So, you know, one thing that people who are opposed to abortion choice, like to ignore is this terrible financial toll, but it`s important that we continue to keep attention on it.
RUHLE: So if it what are those states offering the states that are looking to limit or eliminate abortion access, are they now offering more financial support? I`m thinking about all of those women who might lose their homes who might lose their jobs who might potentially lose their education because they`re pregnant?
[23:50:07]
KOLHATKAR: Well, so of course, yes, it`s just not really possible to live in a modern democratic society with a modern economy if you have your entire female population in a situation where they can`t control their own family planning. And all you really need to do is look at what happened to women as a whole after abortion became legal.
So, you know, it had dramatic effects on the ages at which women became mothers and the circumstances under which they became mothers, it reduced the number of teenage mothers by a third, it reduced the number of teenage marriages by a fifth. And women who were able to delay becoming mothers and do it on their terms when it was right for them were much more likely to go to college, to finish college, to pursue higher degrees, they spent longer time in the labor market, they were much more likely to enter higher paying professions, and they were much less likely to be in poverty in old age, which is huge, because, you know, once a woman falls into poverty, she passes that down to her children, it becomes a generational burden.
So of course, yes, it would be logical for some of these states banning access to this service to introduce new services to help make up for this. But that is not happening, which will not surprise you.
RUHLE: California wants to be a safe haven for women across the country who are seeking abortion services. Is this budget proposal going to pass $20 million? Is that what the people of California want? Many of them could say they live in California, they pay those high taxes because they want the policies that that state passes, could they not pass this budget and say, we understand it`s terrible, or we don`t support what`s happening in other states, but we don`t want our tax dollars to go to that.
KOLHATKAR: I could certainly see some California`s making that argument. This is really — this whole idea is based on compassion, really. And there`s less of an argument for self-interest for California residents and doing this.
However, it is again, a nod to the fact that this will overall raise costs for everyone and, you know, one area I`ve looked at really close to the inch health insurance market. Any health insurance company that covers women under its health insurance plans may end up in a situation where, you know, they`re going to have to readjust their cost estimates for women because they`re going to be having more high risk pregnancies, more high risk childbirths a lot of pregnancies that might have been terminated will now be carried to term, you might end up with more newborns with health issues.
All of those things are going to lead to higher costs. And you know, the fact that California wants to take a compassionate step like this is an acknowledgment of that burden that is going to fall on to every one unfortunately.
RUHLE: And for many of those women, California is far, far, far away. It can take them hours and hours to get there. Sheelah Kolhatkar, it is so good to see you, my friend. Great reporting, really important reporting that people need to pay attention to. When we come back, game set match. You knew I wasn`t leaving you tonight without talking about the queen. Serena Williams taps into her competitive fire to extend her career at least one more round. The tennis grades goodbye tour began tonight when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:39]
RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight, tennis anyone? And the answer to that is yes, baby. The hottest ticket in town. It was in Flushing Queens to see the goat herself, Serena Williams, perhaps one last time. Even former President Bill Clinton and Dr. Ruth were there sitting next to one another.
Serena Williams famously does not like to lose and tonight decked out in sparkles head to toe. She did not. The tennis star singles career continues after she won round one of the U.S. Open. The spotlight on Williams has only gotten brighter since she revealed recently that she is stepping away from tennis after this year`s tournament. The 40-year-old has 23 Grand Slam singles titles. She won her first when she was only 17 years old and wearing white beads in her hair at the 1999 U.S. Open.
Tonight, Serena`s four year-old-daughter Miss Olympia was sporting similar beads. After the win Williams had this message for fans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SERENA WILLIAMS, PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: It`s so important to give your all no matter what you do, no matter how many obstacles you face. Like I`ve been down and out so many times in the public eye and I`ve had to like come back and you know you just never give up and it sounds cliche, but that really means something. You have no matter what you`re going through out there and I just wanted people to be inspired by my story. I`m from Compton, California, you know, shout out to Compton.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Today also had us thinking of another tennis legend. Before Serena, there was Althea. It was Harlem native Althea Gibson, who broke down racial barriers in the sport of tennis. In 1950, she was the first black player to compete in the U.S. Open.
In 1957, she became the first black player to win Wimbledon. The 29-year- old was greeted with a ticker tape parade up Broadway, a first for a woman of color. By the end of the decade, Gibson had won an impressive 11 Grand Slam title.
[00:00:00]
And the next black women, the next black woman to win a Grand Slam title, none other than Serena Williams herself. The New York Times points out both Serena and Venus Williams are known admirers of Miss Gibson. In 1999, Serena then 17 faxed Ms. Gibson a list of questions in connection with a school project. And the sisters used a photo of Ms. Gibson on the back cover of a black history newsletter that they created.
Last week on what would have been Althea Gibson`s 95th birthday, the black on 143rd Street in Harlem where she grew up, was renamed Althea Gibson Way, a celebration of two tennis legends whose greatness will stand the test of time. These two great ladies, take us off here tonight.
And on that extraordinary note, I wish all of you a very good night. From all of our colleagues across the networks and NBC News, thanks for staying up late with us. I will see you at the end of tomorrow.