Updated
Summary
This week, the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection will hold its second primetime hearing which will be aired here Thursday night. Former President Donald Trump plans to run for office to run from law. 22 possible jurors were selected for Steve Bannon`s trial. Sen. Lindsey Graham moves to quash Fulton County Grand Jury subpoena. Georgia Republican Congressman Jody Hice was subpoenaed by Fulton County grand jury. The U.N. is holding a climate summit in Europe this week as it experiences a record-setting heat wave, with temperatures reaching as high as 113 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of Spain. American Medical Association President, Dr. Jack Resneck, joins Hayes to discuss the Roe v. Wade fallout that puts patients at risk.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Marco Rubio says you need to start writing checks. So, let`s see how that works out and if they even try to enforce it. Ria Tabacco Mar, thank you very much.
And that is tonight`s “REIDOUT.” ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.
STEPHANIE GRISHAM, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: All I know about that day was that he was in the dining room gleefully watching on his T.V., as he often did. Look at all of the people fighting for me, hitting rewind watching it again.
HAYES: The committee prepares for the next hearing. The trial of Steve Bannon begins in Washington. And new reporting on Donald Trump`s plan to run for office so he can keep running from the law.
Then, meet the second member of Congress served with a subpoena over Georgia election interference. Plus, the head of the American Medical Association on the Insane Reality of post-Roe America.
And as Paris boils and wildfires rage in Spain, a stunning case of Climate Reality from the U.K.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The RAF has halted flight in and out of RAF Brize Norton because the runway has melted.
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. This week, the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection will hold its second primetime hearing, only second time they`ve done that. And in advance of that big hearing, which will be aired here Thursday night, the committee is still uncovering new facts day by day by day and hearing testimony from people they hadn`t talked to before, including details pertaining to that bonkers meeting that took place in the Oval Office on December 18, 2020 with ex-President Donald Trump.
Now, remember that meeting initially didn`t include a single member of the White House staff. It was just a group of people that waltz in the White House, met with Trump. It included a ragtag group of coup plotters. People like Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn, Rudy Giuliani, and of course, who could forget, former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne.
Last week, we learned new details about what happened during that meeting and how Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone reacted when he first learned about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): After gaining access to the building from a junior White House staffer, the group made their way to the Oval Office. They were able to speak with the president by himself for some time until White House officials learned of the meeting. What ensued was a heated and profane clash between this group and President Trump`s White House advisors who traded personal insults, accusations of disloyalty to the President, and even challenges to physically fight.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I was not happy to see the people in the Oval Office.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Explain why.
CIPOLLONE: Well, again, I don`t think they are providing — well, first of all, the Overstock person, I`ve never met, I never knew who this guy was. Actually, the first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him, and I said, who are you? And he told me, I don`t think — I don`t think any of these people were providing the President with good advice. And so I didn`t understand how they had gotten in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Ever since that testimony, I`ve been thinking like did Patrick Byrne, the Overstock a guy, say like I`m the Overstock guy when he was asked who he was. During this meeting, this group discussed unhinged conspiracy theories, tried to make authoritarian suggestions on how to — not just overturn the election but functionally end American democracy including, you know, using the Pentagon to cease voting machines.
They met with the ex-President unattended for nearly 10 to 15 minutes before White House staff showed up. The meeting lasted over six hours. Now, on Friday, the Committee actually interviewed the Overstock guy, that would be Patrick Byrne, about that meeting for almost eight hours. Tomorrow, they`ll be talking to a guy named Garrett Ziegler. He`s a former aide to Peter Navarro who`s reported to be the junior staffer who let those people into the Oval Office for that meeting.
Also, late on Friday, the Committee issued a subpoena to the Secret Service after we learned they reportedly erased text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021 as part of the device replacement program after being directed to save those communications. Here`s how committee member Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, described that decision this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): We made the decision as the committee that we need to subpoena these records. The I.G. came in front of us and said, look, we have been working hard to get this. They claim it was this technological change. We moved everything. We lost these texts. And then they also put out a statement though that said we`ve only lost some of the tax and everything relevant to this investigation has been turned over. So, those are very conflicting statements. So, we decided as a committee, let`s request these by Tuesday and we can make a decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, all of this sets the stage for Thursday`s primetime hearing which is being described as the season finale rather than a series finale. It will be focused on the one person who could, of course, stopped all this, stop the insurrection, quash the coup, all of it. And that`s the ex- President Donald Trump. And of course he didn`t stop it because, as I think one the — one can fairly confidently conclude at this juncture, he thought it might have a chance to working.
In fact, we already have accounts from Trump`s staff that he spent at least part of the day watching the insurrection on T.V. joyfully and relishing in the highlights.
[20:05:25]
GRISHAM: All I know about that day was he was in the dining room gleefully watching on his TV, as he often did. Look at all of the people fighting for me. Hitting rewind, watching it again. That`s what I know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: On Thursday, the committee is going to go through those 187 minutes of inaction when Donald Trump did nothing to save our Constitutional Republic and the U.S. Capitol from a mob attacking it. The committee will attempt to fill in the blanks about what happened during that time. They`re hinting they`ve got some new information.
Throughout all these hearings, they have been incredibly consistent and rigorous about how the ultimate culpability for that dark day and what led up to it rests with Donald Trump, about how it was he that plucked out these seemingly random people from former federal prosecutor turned conspiracy theory promoter Sidney Powell to, well, the right-wing pillow selling dude, to a random underling in environmental law in the Department of Justice, Jeffrey Clark, to another random right-wing law professor who became the author of the infamous coup memo John Eastman. And he put this crew together to try to end American democracy.
They didn`t all know each other beforehand. It was Trump that got them together. It all flows from one man, Donald Trump. He is the one ultimately culpable. And if you view this entire undertaking as criminal, which again, I`ll admit, I`m a little biased here, but it`s hard not to do this point given all the evidence, there`s no world in which the acts alleged to have been taken by people like Jeffrey Clark or John Eastman who are now the subject of actual federal criminal investigation, there`s no world in which those happened without the collaboration with an instruction from the guy at the top, Donald Trump.
So, if those were crimes like he was the one sitting atop the criminal enterprise, the question then becomes, do you prosecute the ex-president. And I think part of the reason we`ve gotten to this point is because this is an individual who even before he entered public life, political life, escaped accountability for all kinds of wildly egregious lawless behavior, that was his whole shtick from his very beginnings in New York real estate when he and his father were accused of turning black tenants away from their properties, to allegations that he and his family inflated their real estate holdings for financing purposes and undervalued them for tax purposes, to his charitable foundation dissolving and being accused of “shocking pattern of illegality,” to more than a dozen sexual misconduct allegations.
And he more or less escaped accountability while in office when he was at least partially protected by the notion that sitting presidents cannot be indicted. Now, as the Justice Department debates this, he is telling people around him, he is going to run for reelection as the ultimate get-out-of jail-free card. It`s the kind of strategy used by his first impeachment defense team.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, FORMER MEMBER, TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM: Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you`re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: If it`s good for me, it`s good for the country. Anything good for me is good for the country, ergo, there`s no corrupt way to benefit myself. However, the fundamental question is, are we a nation of laws or of man? Can the most powerful person in the entire country, arguably the world, be subjected to our laws or not? And Trump and his feral instinct for survival understands that tension. He laid out his view of the presidency early on in the pandemic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When somebody is the President of the United States, the authority is total. And that`s the way it`s got to be.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Total. The authority is total?
TRUMP: Total. It`s total.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Failing to do anything now would be the ultimate escape from accountability. So, now, it has become a test of our Department of Justice, our institutions, our collective wills as Americans whether we`re going to let that lawlessness stand. And what it can mean for our long term democracy.
Asawin Suebsaeng is a senior politics reporter for Rolling Stone. His latest pieces titled “Trump tells team he needs to be president again to save himself from criminal probes.” Olivia Nuzzi is the Washington Correspondent from New York Magazine. She actually recently interviewed the ex-president for a piece titled “Donald Trump on 2024: I`ve already made that decision.” And they both join me now.
Olivia, let me start with you because you just interviewed the man in question. And there were two things — there was the question of running for reelection and the Jan. 6 hearings. And they were clearly like, both circulating his mind. What did you learn about the intention for running for reelection?
[20:10:08]
OLIVIA NUZZI, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Well, when I asked him about it, you know, he — at first, he was a bit coy saying, you know, when I make my decision, when I pressed him on that, he claims that his mind is already made up. And it`s really a question of whether or not he announces before after the Midterm elections.
But you know, to your point about the investigations, many people around the president who I spoke to were talking about his concerns about facing prosecution. He`s under investigation in all sorts of different jurisdictions in New York, in New York City, with the Department of Justice, in Georgia. And the Georgia case in particular was cited to me as someone that he fears most, because that is a criminal probe.
And according to these people that I spoke to, there are people who are advising the former president now who were telling him that he has to announce before Lindsey Graham sits down and testifies before the grand jury in that case.
HAYES: That`s interesting that the Fulton County probe is the one that`s weighing the most heavily.
NUZZI: Well, it`s a criminal probe. And there`s also a tape that we`ve all probably heard at this point of him leveraging — him threatening in saying that he needs to get more votes from the Secretary of State in Georgia. And we`ve all heard that. It`s quite damning. He sounds a bit like a mob boss on that call. And I was told that that is one that he fears most.
HAYES: Asawin, you`ve been reporting along similar lines, and I want to talk about — zero in on this idea of the idea that like, if you run, it confers some immunity, whether that`s legal immunity, once you become president or some kind of armor where you can say everything against you was politically motivated. That seems to be a really front of mine rationale right now.
ASAWIN SUEBSAENG, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, ROLLING STONE: Oh, right. And going off of what Olivia was saying a moment ago, it`s not just that there`s one criminal investigation right now going on into Donald Trump`s and his inner sanctum, it`s that there are actually multiple. It`s plural. There are criminal investigations.
And when you talk to people who have spoken to former President Trump recently, when they are discussing the topic of a possible 2024 run, they will notice that he pivots pretty quickly as the conversation goes on to talking about the legal protections that come with the Oval Office, saying things like, oh, nasty, prosecutors couldn`t get away with this or get to me when I was president, or saying that when not if he likes to frame it as when he`s president, again, a Republican administration will put a stop to what is going on in the Biden Justice Department right now in terms of the investigation that`s going on to him and some of his close associates who tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
And the way he speaks, Olivia mentioned, Mafia talk earlier. He also kind of speaks in the form of David Mamet talk. So, when he`s connecting these two things in conversation, he`s leaving confidants with the very distinct impression that the more these investigations and the January 6 hearings on Capitol Hill intensify, the more he starts having the legal protections of being the head of the executive branch, front of mind.
HAYES: There`s also, Olivia — I mean, it`s — you know, we have that — we have the committee hearings that are ongoing, and in your interview, it`s very clear that this is like a person who obsessively watches TV, who is obsessively watching this. And even if like it`s not reaching huge amount of voters, it`s very clearly like causing him anxiety and from frustration that it`s something he`s very front of mind focused on.
NUZZI: Yes. And remember, he doesn`t have the kind of constant outlet that he had when he was not banned from Twitter or when he can command the attention was a press conference anytime that he wanted. It`s a lot harder for him, I think, to get people`s attention, which probably explains, you know, why he did an interview with me in part.
But I think that, you know, he`s definitely frustrated by it — He was very, very preoccupied with Cassidy Hutchinson, you know, when I asked him about certain aspects of her testimony. That received a lot of attention. The image of him throwing a plate at the wall, he said it was, “not my thing” and that he had never thrown a plate at any wall in the White House. He also denied having lunged at a member of the Secret Service to try and direct his motorcade over to the Capitol as the crowd that that became the insurrection marched over there.
But he was very preoccupied with it. This is a man who watches his own coverage. He reads his own press. As we all know, he could be watching right now for all we know. But I think besides the protections that the White House would afford him and did afford him previously, there`s also just a perception that if you were actively running for President, that just that alone provides like a cocoon of legal protection because it will render any type of probe, any decision from any jury, like a witch hunt.
That`s what he`s being told. This looks like a witch hunt. And if you get out ahead of it, if you get out ahead of any leaks from a grand jury say, you`ll be able to basically control the narrative. So, that`s my understanding of the advice that he`s getting now, and it`s certainly not hard to believe that Donald Trump, given all that we know about him, is taking that quite seriously.
[20:15:22]
HAYES: Yes, and it`s important point, right, because it`s — what it does is it attempts to unilaterally create this sense of what is political, that kind of plays on these institutional fears that are clearly like running through parts of the Justice Department, like how will it look. But of course, the logic of that is if you outsource it to the person accused, then you hand over the administration of justice to said person. You have to make your decisions independent of fear or favor. Asawin Suebsaeng and Olivia Nuzzi, it was great to have you both. Thank you very much.
Coming up, eight months after he was charged with criminal contempt, the trial of Steve Bannon finally began today. We`ll explain what happened in court on why he`s following the Trump playbook of running out the clock next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
HAYES: Today was jury selection day in the trial of Donald Trump`s former adviser Steve Bannon for refusing to cooperate with a lawful subpoena from the January 6 Committee. Jury selection was reportedly slow going today. Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner who`s in the room wrote, “One juror said, given the things Bannon has said and the people he`s affiliated with, I tend not to believe anything he says.” That juror was struck.
The court met until nearly 6:00 p.m. and finally agreed upon 22 qualified jurors which tomorrow they will narrow down to 14. Bannon could have chosen a bench trial, which means a judge sitting in judgment rather than a jury, which would have likely been quicker, but he chose a jury of his peers. Prior to that, Bannon tried to delay the trial twice and twice his attempts were shut down by the judge that would sit in judgment of him in a bench trial. You have to wonder if Bannon bought his own ludicrous hype enough to be in denial that this was where everything was always headed if he just defied the subpoena.
To talk more about that strategy and the broader political implications of it all, I want to bring up Michelle Goldberg and Charles Blow. Both of them are columnist in the New York Times. Welcome to you both.
Charles, there`s — I mean, there`s something surreal about this whole episode. You know, Bannon could just comply and go in and plead the Fifth to every question like Michael Flynn who was asked, do you believe in the lawful transition of power and said, I plead the fifth. He chose not to do that. And partly, it seems of a piece with the plot itself on January 6, which is a sense that the laws don`t apply to them, they can engage in whatever they want to do, no matter how dangerous or treasonous, and nothing would happen, which is why this feels like actually an important step. What do you think?
CHARLES BLOW, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it`s an important step. And I think you`re right that they believe that the laws don`t apply to them. But there`s another component which is that we always have to remember that this is a giant grift for all of these people involved. And what they want is the power to conduct this money — this money operation in peace and not be bothered and not be prosecuted for it.
Let`s not forget that Bannon was already caught up in this, you know, build the wall nonsense and was going to be prosecuted for that and Trump pardoned him. He may still be prosecuted for portions of that. But it was all about how much money can I make. Trump is still, you know, raising money on this idea of defending the — redoing the election or getting it right. That`s all craziness. But of course, that is what they care about. And they care about the idea of getting back into power to protect their ability to do that.
As your last segment just pointed out, Trump is talking now about getting back to power not because he has an agenda for the country, right? There`s no policies that he`s trying to conduct. He just — he wants to be back in power to protect himself from prosecutors to get his hands back on the Justice Department. And Bannon is counting on Trump getting back into power even if he doesn`t save him. If he gets convicted before Trump get back into power, has to go to prison for a little while. He believes that increases his legend, ingratiate him to Trump more. And when the time comes, he will be rewarded for that.
HAYES: Exactly.
BLOW: There is a monthly operation around Trump.
HAYES: And it`s also — I mean, to your point, Charles, about the sort of discussion now and the reporting that indicates that Trump`s decision is largely focused on this, Michelle, you know, there`s that old line from I think a South American (INAUDIBLE) that was you know, he`s summed up governance as for my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law. And like that`s Trump`s way of viewing this . And it`s just so amazing to see it just transparently laid out. Like, I need to run for president so I can do crimes and not be punished.
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: And this is the sort of inevitable outcome of the Justice Department policy, which is not even a law, its policy, right, that a sitting president cannot be indicted. So much is downstream of the impunity that this administration has enjoyed.
I think the impunity is almost the original sin. Once we decided that a president can get away with flagrant law-breaking, we incentivized flagrant lawmaker — lawbreakers to try to become president. And, you know, similarly, the message of all of Trumps last minute pardons was just what you said, that the law does not apply to my friends. And so, so much of what`s happening right now will determine whether or not that`s — whether or not that`s true, whether or not he was right.
[20:25:07]
HAYES: And this is why the Bannon — I mean, again, I don`t — you know, I don`t really care what Steve Bannon does with himself as long as he`s not hurting people, which he seems — you know, which his career seems largely intent on doing in some ways. But this is why the — going through this jury selection, the trial itself, the government, you know, filing these motions, the judge rejecting these claims of defense, are just — it is important, it seems to me, particularly amidst the atmosphere of the midterms, Trump deciding what he`s going to do, and the January 6 hearings for there to be concrete accountability for essentially telling this committee to go, you know, F itself.
BLOW: Right. But Bannon wants the biggest show he can get, right? So, when Bannon was part of the administration, he was making Donald Trump the center of the show. This will be Donald — Steve Bannon`s show. And whether or not he goes down or not, he`s going to go down with as much fanfare as he possibly can, and that makes him a legend.
I think what we have to always remember is that all of this is about branding, that all of this is about showmanship, it really is not about — you know, there may be some penalty at the end. We hope that justice prevails here and there is some penalty at the end. But for Bannon, he doesn`t see it that way. He sees it as a branding exercise. I will never get a stage this big again. And so, he`s going to milk it for all that he can.
HAYES: Yes. There`s a faith here, right, that Bannon has and I think Trump shares that, like, enough attention is bigger than any force that can be brought against you, including the law and the state. And, you know, if you end up doing your bid, Michelle, like that may — that may change your mind.
GOLDBERG: Well, yes. I mean, I`ve seen documentaries about Steve Bannon where he is flying on private airplanes and staying in luxurious European hotels. And I don`t, you know, I wouldn`t downplay the severity of the year in even a minimum security American prison. That is pretty brutal for a man who`s used to very, very soft living.
I also think that — you know, I think that he might have believed his own propaganda in as much as Bannon and all the people around Trump like to pretend that they represent “the people,” right? This is the essential populace line. We represent the people as opposed to just a few elites out there, which might have convinced him that if he has a jury of his peers, he can — he can achieve some sort of jury nullification, and maybe he can. But I wouldn`t bet a year of my life on it given the overwhelming revulsion that these hearings have elicited.
BLOW: But I will say this. The criminals often build in risk into their calculation about being a criminal. Like, so they can live a life of past luxury. They always have the idea in the back of their mind that I`m doing something against the law, I could go away, and they absorb that very often into their thinking about it.
So, I understand what you`re saying about like, he may not want to give up his life of luxury. But criminals do that all the time. They know that they`re living on the edge. They build that into the calculus.
HAYES: Yes. And I mean, sometimes, you know, a single ride on an ex-Chinese billionaires yacht is worth a lot, you know. And I think in the end, that may be the lesson here. Michelle Goldberg and Charles Blow, thank you both.
GOLDBERG: Thank you.
HAYES: Coming up, it`s full steam ahead for Georgia`s 2020 election probe as another Republican member of Congress is served with a subpoena. What does this latest development mean for the case against Donald Trump? Next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is the senator from South Carolina calling the Secretary of State in Georgia anyway?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Because the future of the country hangs in the balance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham was the first member of Congress subpoenaed as what one judge called a “necessary and material witness by the special grand jury investigating Trump world election interference in Fulton County, Georgia. Today, a second sitting member of Congress was subpoenaed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JODY HICE (R-GA): This past election was an absolute disaster under the leadership of Brad Raffensperger. And it`s for that reason that I`m leaving a very safe congressional district to take on one that I believe is the worst Secretary of State perhaps in our nation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Raffensperger, you want to take 30 seconds to answer that or wait till later?
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGIA: Well, Jody Hice is lying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Today, we learned through a court filing that Georgia Republican Congressman Jody Hice, seen there in that debate, who lost that primary challenge to Brad Raffensperger, was also subpoenaed by that same Fulton County grand jury. Congressman Hice, you may recall, gained Trump`s full endorsement to replace Raffensperger as Secretary of State because Raffensperger refused to manufacture the votes to overturn Georgia election. And now, just like Senator Graham, Congressman Hise is trying to fight the subpoena.
Tamar Hallerman is the senior reporter from the Atlanta Journal- Constitution who has been the go-to reporter on all the latest developments coming from the Fulton County special grand jury. Tamar, welcome back. Great to have you in the program. First of all, how did we learn about this Hice subpoena?
TAMAR HALLERMAN, SENIOR REPORTER, ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION: In a court filing, as you mentioned at the top of the show. He was apparently subpoenaed by the special grand jury in late June. They wanted him to come in tomorrow, July 19. We did not find out about it till today as he was trying to move his challenge from state to federal court.
[20:35:18]
HAYES: So he is trying to fight this as Graham was. What is the — what is the procedural path that Graham has set forth that we imagine that Hice would follow?
HALLERMAN: Well, it`s a little bit different for Graham because he`s not a resident of Georgia. Fulton DA Fani Willis had to deliver what`s called a Certificate of Material Witness to a judge in South Carolina, a federal judge there. Senator Graham is in the process of fighting that as we speak, or expecting a hearing before a federal judge in Charleston in the days ahead. It`s a little bit different for Jody Hice because he is a Georgian.
So, the court of jurisdiction here is Fulton Superior Court. He argued in this filing that because he was a member of Congress, and he`s he was arguing kind of doing his job as a member, that a federal judge should hear any challenge, not a local one here in Fulton County.
HAYES: Yes, this is the argument filed by his lawyer. “Since Congressman Hice is a member United States House of Representatives and is being asked to testify pursuant to a state-issued subpoena, the Federal officer removal statute should apply. These actions should therefore be removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That`s a statute about jurisdictional questions.
But on the other side of this, and this is in response to Lindsey Graham, I want to read this for you and get your thoughts on it. This is from a motion by the Fulton County DA`s office about Senator Lindsey Graham where they wanted to dismiss his bid to quash the subpoena. They said, “In this motion, we refer to Lindsey Graham as Mr. Graham rather than Senator Graham. We do not intend for this to be in any way insulting. Rather, we refer to Mr. Graham and make clear we do not agree with opposing counsels assertion that Mr. Graham was operating in his official capacity when he called the Georgia Secretary of State related to the Georgia vote count.”
There`s a sort of fundamental issue here which is the Fulton County bas office saying, these are just individuals who were subpoenaed unlike any other. They don`t get any special claims.
HALLERMAN: Yes, exactly. You know, the D.A. is arguing, just because you`re a member of Congress doesn`t mean you get to do potentially illegal acts, for example, calling up the Secretary of State of Georgia asking him if he has the power to toss and legally cast absentee ballots.
And then there`s a question of jurisdiction, especially when you have a person like Senator Graham at the time when he called Brad Raffensperger, HE was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has a very wide jurisdiction. He`s making the argument that that falls squarely, you know, within his duties at the time calling up a Secretary of State in a place like Georgia.
For Congressman Hice, it`s a little bit different. He`s a member of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee which, you know, in theory, does have kind of a wide berth to investigate what it wants, but there`s going to be real arguments made about kind of the activities that he was undertaking between November 2020 and January 2021 if that really does fall within his duty.
You know, he participated in this White House meeting on December 21, 2020 that Cassidy Hutchison mentioned in her testimony before the January 6 Committee, you know, where there`s discussion about appointing a slate of fake electors, of trying to get Mike Pence to discard the votes of folks in seven swing states, including Georgia. Is that part of his jurisdiction in House Oversight? That will be a question.
HAYES: It`s a great — a great point. And just to remind us about — I mean, grand juries are secretive bodies, you know, by law and by procedure. So, we found out about this in just a filing from Hice`s attorneys trying to challenge this date, right, where he`s supposed to give testimony. I guess the question is, what other parts of the iceberg can we glimpse above the water in terms of what we know about compliance with or testimony in the grand jury?
HALLERMAN: Sure. I mean, we can see folks who are challenging them like Senator Graham. We have a couple of state legislators here in Georgia who argue that legislative immunity kind of blocks a lot of potential questions that the D.A. would likely ask them. You know, we`ve of course used open records requests here in Georgia to confirm that folks like Brad Raffensperger, Governor Kemp have plans to come and testify before this special grand jury.
And we`ve also heard word here and there of folks kind of confirming on their own that they went in voluntarily, that they see it as part of their duty to go in and testify. So, it`s kind of lots of different ways.
HAYES: All right, TamarHallerman, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Still ahead, as Republican politicians try to run from the results of overturning Roe v. Wade, the head of the American Medical Association joins me to explain the new reality for doctors across the country next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:40:00]
HAYES: Believe it or not, the U.N. is holding a climate summit in Europe this week as it experiences a record-setting heat wave, with temperatures reaching as high as 113 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of Spain. At the summit, the delegate from Spain pointed out the obvious connection between record temperatures and raging wildfires.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I left my country under fire, literally under fire. More than 20,000 hectares have been burned these last three days. More than 400 casualties are being caused by this heat wave, the second heatwave in less than a month.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:45:19]
HAYES: It almost seems too obvious to point out but it`s worth it. Because this climate continues to warm, not only will we have worsening heat waves, we will have them more often. And there is only so much heat human beings can take and function properly. And in places that are not built for this kind of heat like much of Europe, the high temperatures are taking their toll.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLAUDIO LAVAGNA, NBC NEWS: The death toll because of the heat for the past week in those two countries reads like a war bulletin. 650 people died in Portugal, 60 people died in Spain. Tens of thousands of people evacuated due to forest fires in France as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: In fact, those numbers are even higher now. There are reports tonight as many as 1100 people have died in just Portugal and Spain. It is so hot in the U.K., all flights into Luton Airport have to be diverted when the tarmac actually melted. And so, people across Europe are left looking for ways to stay cool.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t like the sun, to be honest, a lot. So, I just keep on drinking. And I tried to find shadows also here in Paris but you can barely find them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sun is hard. It`s a little harming for our body.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 40 degrees, 45 degrees when I`d be working abroad. You just get on with it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, it`s a region where air conditioning is a rarity. And these kinds of dangerous temperatures reveal the full spectrum of the challenge before us, right, because we need to immediately and drastically reduce carbon emissions which the U.S. is not doing, nor is really the rest of the world. The U.S. is not doing it now thanks in pretty large part to people like Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia who just announced he`s rejecting proposals to combat climate change and reduce emissions in the upcoming Biden agenda. That`s not helping.
But here`s the thing. That`s not all because even as we need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, we also have to work on creating the infrastructure for resilience from this kind of weather which we can expect to become our new normal. And there are countries doing their part, countries like Italy are leading the way.
“If you live in Italy and want to insulate walls and windows and install a heat pump boiler or solar panels, the government will pay you 110 percent of the cost. In the first eight months of this year, they have reduced emissions of CO2 from home heating by as much as they did in the last 20 years.” Think of that, eight months of carbon reduction more than the last 20 years. This is the kind of initiative we should be replicating.
The heat pumps are fully electric, so they can eventually be run independently of fossil fuel and put them on the grid. They`re much more efficient than other meet means of heating homes. They are capable also of cooling homes in the summer and heating them their winter eliminating the need for a furnace in all the coldest climates.
I always find it useful when I`m doom-scrolling about the climate to remember there is still lots of low hanging fruit out there, stuff we can do. We can address it. It`s there right now. The climate crisis is huge. It`s not insurmountable. We need to work on pairing political will with these kinds of straightforward technological solutions that are again available right now, not in the future, because the heat is here right now not in the future.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:00]
HAYES: In the wake of the conservatives on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, you may have seen a bunch of anecdotal stories, some of them on social media, about the unintended consequences of the court`s decision in getting rid of Roe vs. Wade. There were reports of course of people unable to get their lupus or arthritis medication due to the concerns that drugs would be used for an abortion.
There were stories about children who are victims of rape having to flee their state to get an abortion in neighboring state where they`re still legal. That of course, ultimately confirmed in light of an onslaught of misinformation. Now, nearly a month after the Supreme Court ruling, we`re starting to see well-sourced reporting that nails down the ground level insane reality the post-Roe world, particularly in the world of health care.
In a new piece from the New York Times, they detail how “in Wisconsin, an obstetrician treated a woman who said that just after abortion rights from nullified, she showed up bleeding at a hospital which determined she had miscarried but told her they couldn`t do a D&C, a procedure commonly done to treat a miscarriage, because of the laws.
Not only that. “The hospital didn`t offer her miscarriage medication either, advising her to find an obstetrician-gynecologist to help.” By the time she found a doctor who gave her the appropriate medication, the woman had been bleeding intermittently for days, putting her at increased risk of hemorrhage and infection.
Dr. Jack Resneck is the head of the American Medical Association. He told the AP, “For positions and parent — patients alike, this is a frightening and fraught time with new unprecedented concerns about data privacy, access to contraception, and even when to begin life-saving care.”
Joining me now is that doctor, Dr. Jack Resneck, the head of the American Medical Association. Tomorrow, he will be testifying before House Committee on Energy and Commerce about the medical impacts of taking away the constitutional rights to an abortion. It`s good to have you on, Doctor.
Can you sort of characterize for me doctors, the AMA`s concerns about the landscape now post the Dobbs decision in which abortion is outlawed and indeed comes with criminal penalties for doctors in a number of states already?
[20:55:03]
DR. JACK RESNECK, JR., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION: Chris, thanks for having me on to talk about this really important topic for doctors and our patients. And as you alluded to, this is far more than anecdotes now. I get to talk to colleagues across the country and many physicians in these restrictive states are finding themselves in just impossible situations.
They have patients coming in the door, again, as you said with ectopic pregnancies, with miscarriages who –that have developed infections. And literally, they are having to think in their minds and having to call hospital attorneys to get permission to treat patients when their lives are in the balance and when minutes or hours can matter.
And it`s just devastating for these decisions that really should be between doctors and their patients to be complicated by having legislators and State Attorney Generals really sort of sitting on your shoulder trying to second guess everything you`re doing.
HAYES: You just mentioned ectopic pregnancies. Of course, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. They can never result in a birth. And they — the medical care they require is an abortion. I`ve seen some people who are anti-abortion activist tried to say, oh, this is — this is just propaganda. We all know that ectopic pregnancies need to be terminated. And this is just the pro-abortion forces trying to muddy the waters. What do you say to that line of argument?
RESNECK: That`s just not what we`re experiencing on the ground and what we`re experiencing with our patients. We`re not seeing that these are exaggerations or that they`re just anecdotes. This literally is in the back of the minds of my OBGYN colleagues and my emergency medicine colleagues every day when they`re saying these conditions.
And we`ve seen politicians, as you saw Texas, for example, this week, saying that they`re going to sue the federal government around this EMTALA Law, which is the law that normally would preempt state law and tell physicians that yes, when you have an unstable patient in front of you or somebody who`s very sick, you have an obligation to treat them even if that may involve terminating a pregnancy with their informed consent, of course. So, this is — this is literally what we are seeing around the country in these restrictive states.
HAYES: Just to reiterate, you said that that the sort of federal preemption for emergency care which was sort of reiterated in the executive order that the President put out, Texas responded by suing, just to be clear, I mean, they`re saying — I mean that that is the state of Texas and the Texas Attorney General going to federal court to say no even in conditions of what we call the health of life of the mother, right? Even in urgent emergency conditions. It`s the position of our state that you don`t just treat the patient in front of you.
RESNECK: Yes. And we were incredibly happy with that executive order. It`s a great step. It is somewhat reassuring. But I think you can understand how physicians are facing really hard decisions as on the one hand, they have their medical ethics, which directs and really is what drew most of us into the profession in the first place, and tells them the best way to take care of that patient in front of them.
And on the other hand, I don`t think that most physicians feel confident that when the health of the mother is at stake, that they`re absolutely safe in some of these states to make the right decision and be able to take care of that patient.
And the other thing you got to in your introduction is that this doesn`t just affect pregnancies, this doesn`t just affect ectopics, this doesn`t just affect miscarriages. We`re seeing a whole host of medications where patient — where our patients can`t get access. I happen to be a dermatologist in my day job when I`m not functioning as president of the AMA. I use a drug called methotrexate to treat patients with psoriasis, or some kinds of skin cancer like lymphomas. It`s a great drug. It also happens to be useful in the treatment of ectopic pregnancies.
So, in some of these states, my colleagues are literally having their patients show up at the pharmacy and be told by a pharmacist, I`m sorry, I`m too nervous to fill this drug for you, or we`re not stocking it anymore because they might be accused of giving a patient a drug that`s also used for abortion. So, it`s — the spillover effect is quite dramatic.
HAYES: Yes, and just quickly, just to reiterate this. I mean, obviously, doctors practice under conditions of legal uncertainty and civil liability. But this introduces the possibility of criminal penalty in many of these places, which is just a different thing for doctors, hospitals, and caregivers to consider I imagine.
RESNECK: Criminalizing the practice of medicine is something that the AMA is always going to stand up and oppose. It`s incredibly dangerous. It`s dangerous for our patients. It`s just — these decisions turn out to be quite complicated in a lot of instances. So, trying to make hard and fast rules and legislative bodies that apply the same across the board is just incredibly dangerous for patients.
HAYES: All right, Dr. Jack Resneck, thank you very much for sharing some time with us tonight. I really appreciate it.
RESNECK: Thanks so much. I appreciate it.
HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Monday night. “THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW” starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks, my friend. Much appreciated.