Updated
Summary
January 6th Committee to hear testimony from former Trump White House aide Sarah Matthews and former Deputy National Security adviser Matthew Pottinger who both resigned right after the January 6th insurrection. 17 Democratic lawmakers were ultimately arrested today at the Supreme Court abortion right protest. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) joins Melber to discuss the SCOTUS protest that got 17 Democratic lawmakers, including her, arrested. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) joins Melber to discuss Sen. Manchin blocking Joe Biden`s climate agenda.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. We are grateful. THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Hi, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. Thank you very much. Welcome to THE BEAT. I`m Ari Melber. And this is the story we`re tracking tonight, opening arguments of the Justice Department`s criminal case against Steve Bannon. And on a busy week in Congress we`re joined live tonight by two heavyweights, Senate Judiciary chair Dick Durbin, and one of the lawmakers in this scene arrested while protesting for women`s rights, Ilhan Omar, is here.
So we have some significant guests for you here on the big stories. We begin right now with new steps, though, in this insurrection probe. Bannon on trial for hiding evidence from this committee while an aide to indicted Trump adviser Peter Navarro is breaking with the Navarro-Bannon approach and is cooperating and testifying today to the committee as it readies its final prime time hearing featuring a rarity in the Trump administration. People who actually quit in protest over his actions.
Americans will hear directly from Trump spokesperson Sarah Matthews at the Thursday hearing. She quit on the day of January 6th reiterating support for a peaceful transfer of power. Another witness slated to speak out, high ranking deputy National Security adviser Matthew Pottinger who had the same concern.
And while, as we`ve discussed, most Trump aides just quietly served until the last day he had in office and then later offered these tardy self- serving accounts only when compelled by subpoena, we should note the committee will be choosing to end its presentation here to the public with these counter examples.
Pottinger`s described his disgust on how in the middle of the violence Trump not only failed to protect Congress but doubled down on the vigilantism that put Mike Pence in danger.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATT POTTINGER, FORMER DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: One of my staff brought me a printout of a tweet by the president and the tweet said something to the effect that Mike Pence, the vice president, didn`t have the courage to do what he what should have been done. I read that tweet and made a decision at that moment to resign. That`s where I knew that I was leaving that day once I read that tweet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Once read that tweet. What you see here was set out here`s what exactly was going down when that tweet was sent out. You can see on the other side of the screen. And that`s why this witness left, didn`t wait another two weeks, didn`t wait for subpoenas either.
The testimony also shows that Trump was informed of the violence, quote, “before that very tweet attacking Pence.” So Trump knew of the violence just like he knew the marchers were armed, just like he knew the whole point was to threaten or hurt or even kill lawmakers in order to overthrow that election that he knew he lost. It was the point, not an accident according to the committee evidence and what we`re hearing from investigators who say this final hearing will show that Trump not only knew of all that violence but that he liked it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): This is going to open people`s eyes in a big way. The reality is, I`ll give you this preview, the president didn`t do very much but gleefully watched television during this time frame.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: And as he watched he was gleeful about the violence. You can consider it Donald Trump`s Eminem moment, inciting his supporters. Basically saying hey, do you like violence? Want to copy me and do exactly as I did? Investigators say Trump liked it, plotted it and got everyone to copy it which is why they say he should be held responsible.
Let`s get into it now. I`m joined by former Obama acting solicitor general Neal Katyal and a former Obama campaign official, Che Komanduri.
Welcome to you both. Che, your view of the Eminem of it all, the evidence, the testimony from Trump`s own people who were around him saying he liked the violence which, as Eminem told us and that so many people reacted then just as content not as reality, it`s bad if you`re someone who`s gleefully liking violence.
[18:05:04]
CHE KOMANDURI, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Absolutely, and I think that the narrative that the committee is going to lay out tonight is sort of the Nero fiddles while Rome burns narratives of January 6th, that Donald Trump sort of looked on gleefully while this was all occurring and was fully enjoying it, endorsing it, and saw that the benefit to him that could result from it. And we should be reminded, by the way, that Nero fell because the Roman Senate declared him a public enemy of the state so the imperial Romans 2,000 years ago had far higher ethical standards than Mitch McConnell and the current U.S. senators and the GOP did.
So I think that this is a very strong argument. It`s one I remember during the second impeachment FOX News had legal analyst like Andrew McCarthy who said, oh, if only these impeachment managers had dereliction of duty as their sort of main focus, that would be something to get Trump on but we don`t like the case that they`re presenting now so Trump should be let free.
So I do think that the committee is now answering that criticism, and is going to bring forward those arguments.
MELBER: Make Rome great again is the vibe I`m getting from you, Che.
KOMANDURI: Right.
MELBER: And as you say it`s a low bar, and Neal, I mentioned all of that with regard to ethical accountability which is distinct from the legal requirements which we`ll get to later but I`m curious as someone who`s also told stories in court what you think about this aspect of the story and that the committee is ending on.
NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, I think it actually picks up a different Eminem song, “Lose Yourself,” I mean basically the narrative that Trump is telling — that they`re saying about Trump is he had one chance, he couldn`t let it go, and he was willing to do anything in his power to try and keep the reins of power despite the election.
And I think what`s so significant, Ari, about these two witnesses coming forth in the next hearing, Matthews and Pottinger, is that these are truth- Trump people. I mean, Pottinger spent all four years in the Trump White House so he`s not some deep stater or anything like that. He`s as Trump as it gets, and yet both of them when they saw what was unfolding on January 6th resigned right away so this isn`t something in which like people in hindsight look at and say, oh, we should have known about the risk of violence.
They were in real time watching it. They saw Trump`s tweet on 2:24 p.m., and Pottinger, as you`ve just showed a moment ago decided to resign right then. Trump knew what was going on, he did nothing, he sat on his hands, if anything it looks like he was gleeful. This is both a story for kind of his legacy but it`s also a story that will hold up in court if it comes to a federal indictment as I believe it should.
MELBER: As for Miss Matthews, because of the nature of these investigations, they have these depositions style interviews, Che. Here is what we`ve heard from her previously.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE AIDE: He had the door of the Oval open to the Rose Garden because you could hear the crowd already assembled outside on the Ellipse, and they were playing music, and it was so loud that you could feel it shaking in the Oval. He was in a very good mood and I say that because he had not been in a good mood for weeks leading up to that. And then it seemed like he was in a fantastic mood that evening.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Che, you can hear almost the second nature of people accustomed to serving that particular president. Everything was emotional. We could call him histrionic. We could call him unhinged as some of his aides did. It was this whole emotion but it seems that in this audience that they`re going to have in the prime time hearing they want to close by showing that his emotions were tied to something that apart from politics and ideology most people would say is I don`t care what letter you have next to your name.
If you`re someone who gets a high, a rush of, quote, “good mood” out of that, there might be something wrong with you.
KOMANDURI: Yes, I mean, you know, we talked about Trump as a man-child. You know the Baby Trump balloon that was often used. It was a fairly accurate description of what his demeanor was during his entire presidency and even now where you kind of see that sort of demented glee at something that really was rather sick and repugnant that was occurring.
I also think it`s interesting that we are hearing this from Sarah Matthews. It`s very similar to what we heard from Cassidy Hutchinson as well. You know these are not sort of household names. They`re sort of mid-level staffers in the White House. We haven`t really heard this from the top officials I think for the most part. You know we`re still waiting.
[18:10:03]
We certainly haven`t heard any outrage from GOP senators. I mean, why isn`t somebody who`s considered like sensible like John Cornyn saying, hey, this is really terrible. This is ridiculous. This has gone on way too much. We need to stand up against this. So I think it`s really interesting the sort of the type of person who`s coming forward in this committee and how telling they`ve been. And also the type of person who`s been silent.
MELBER: And briefly, Che, before I lose you, what are you going to be evaluating in what is the final schedule here? What is the point of it all given that so much of the evidence has now kind of overlapped. Some people would even say, if you want to be skeptical narratively that oh, well, we get it. We get the point.
KOMANDURI: Well, I think that there needs to be sort of a clear final sort of argument that can really be used as sort of an elevator pitch to somebody who didn`t watch any of that hearings. Somebody says, I don`t watch any of these hearings. What happened? You should be able — at the conclusion of this, to be able to sort of easily communicate to them what you saw, what you understand about this.
I also think that there is a clear narrative that has been laid out, not just about Trump, but about Republicans and Republican governance. The type of malfeasance and mean-spiritedness often that they conduct themselves. You know, it felt to me a lot watching this hearing as Uvalde happened, as the Dobbs decision happened, as that terrible Indiana AG went after that doctor was occurring, that this was all part of one sort of piece.
This is the way the Republicans conduct themselves in office and I think that narrative is sort of something that we could work exploring as well.
MELBER: Interesting, especially as you draw those connections and that`s all real stuff people are living through.
Our thanks to Che Komanduri. Neal, I want you to stick around as we have this other DOJ story with this new memo leak. Rachel breaking the story last night about how Attorney General Garland`s guidance will require approval for investigating presidential candidates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, RACHEL MADDOW SHOW: It is titled “Election Year Sensitivities,” partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Department employees must also adhere to the additional requirements issued by the Attorney General on February 5th, 2020.
Bill Barr established that new rule in February 2020. No investigating any declared candidate for president or anybody working for that candidate unless I personally give my permission. Merrick Garland has just formally extended that guidance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: The guidance building on fairly standard procedures. Today DOJ officials say nothing about any of this will preclude their insurrection probe or would in any way interfere with the lawful indictment of a candidate which could by definition include Trump.
So, Neal Katyal, I do want your reaction. We`re going to get after our shortest break. We`ll be back in one minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MARTIN: We`re back with Neal Katyal. Your reaction to that DOJ leaked memo.
KATYAL: Well, I`ve been critical of Merrick Garland on the January 6th investigation, Ari, and how it`s taken a long time. It`s not even clear what Garland is investigating in terms of Trump and the higher ups, but on this one I have to say this memo doesn`t concern me at all. Far be it from me to disagree with Rachel Maddow.
But I just don`t think that this memo says anything particularly significant or troublesome. What it basically is as Merrick Garland acting like the Justice Department has traditionally operated which is apolitical, you don`t use the prosecution power the way Trump did to try and mess with elections, you don`t try and use your authority in office to go and browbeat state or federal officials as Trump did.
So that`s what Garland is saying, and the memo basically just says, look, if you`re a prosecutor, and you want to investigate something relating to the election, you`ve got to get it approved by me, the attorney general, first.
[18:15:03]
I like that. I think that`s concentration of responsibility and a good thing. Now obviously if Garland gets a request and denies it because he`s worried that, you know, the Republicans will get upset if they learn about an investigation or something, that obviously be wrong but I don`t expect Garland to do something like that.
MELBER: Understood. And just broadening out, a lot of this guidance is pretty standard because there are layers of approval in the Justice Department deliberately to deal with high profile individuals or corruption in government investigations.
With the sort of 45 seconds I have left for you, can you walk us through or remind us how that just traditionally works?
KATYAL: Yes, exactly. So normally you got to go to the deputy attorney general or sometimes just to the head of the Criminal Division who`s like the number seven person of the department and it`s all done because, you know, there are thousands of federal prosecutors, Ari, across the country. You don`t want any one of them to just pursue their own agenda perhaps leak information or something like that, that`s derogatory toward a particular political candidate or the like. So you concentrate responsibility.
What Garland has done here is concentrate it even more in himself for approval. That`s a good thing. That`s good government. It`s the opposite of what Donald Trump did trying to install lackeys like Jeffrey Clark in to run election, you know, disputes and so on, and trying to weaponize the Justice Department. This is Garland doing the right thing but he`s got to do the right thing when it comes to indicting Donald Trump.
The proof will be in the pudding. It`s not these memos. These memos are a side show. It`s what he does after these hearings in Congress concluded.
MELBER: Neal Katyal, always giving us a informed and straightforward view of the law based on all of your experience so we appreciate it on more than one topic tonight.
Thanks to Neal.
And let me tell folks what`s coming up. AOC and Congresswoman Omar were just arrested at this women`s rights and abortion protest. The congresswoman joins us live. But also the Bannon trial I`ve been telling you about. Today was the first day of opening arguments. The first witness. We`re going to go inside the courtroom and bring that to you with Bannon facing up to two years in prison. That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:21:51]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER CHIEF STRATEGIST TO DONALD TRUMP: It is outrageous and for them to sit there and try to get a complete hearing and they won`t bring in any testimony, any testimony about FBI involvement, any testimony about DHS involvement, any testimony about any other involvement, and what`s driving this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Steve Bannon sounding like he did not like his day in court today. The jury has been seated and this is the first day of actual arguments in his criminal trial, with the first witness taking the stand. And here`s how federal prosecutors opened their case with plain English emphasizing everyone must comply with lawful subpoenas which are a foundation of a justice system that conducts investigations with people`s cooperation and their testimony. That`s true in local criminal probes as well as House investigations.
Now in a tight and fiery 19-minute opening statement, the DOJ prosecutors said that the subpoena Bannon defied was not optional. It wasn`t a request and it wasn`t an invitation. The prosecutor telling the jury it was mandatory. Now that may sound like an obvious fact but it is why Bannon is having such an uphill battle here in court because much of this looks pretty straightforward. The prosecutor then bringing it all home by accusing Bannon of operating like he was above the law, quote, “That`s why we`re here today.”
Now you can`t understand a trial unless you look at both sides of the case. In the rebuttal from Bannon`s lawyer focuses on two points which we`re hearing in court for the first time today. One, they argue the whole case is political targeting since he worked for Trump and they claim that Bannon actually did want to testify, but there was some attempted negotiation that fell apart. And that is a long shot defense which was previewed when Bannon tried that last-minute gambit pushing the idea that he would partially cooperate.
Now here`s how the lawyer put it today, quote, “It`s called negotiation. It`s called accommodation.” They were casting basically months of defiance as some sort of intricate game of chicken that just didn`t work. They also argue the reason Bannon was indicted was, quote, “affected by politics, not a nonpartisan approach to the law.”
Today the jury also hearing from the first witness, a lawyer from the actual House January 6th Committee, laying out the facts and the details of how they got here. We should also tell you Bannon lost another and third request to delay this trial, and he came out of the courthouse as you saw a moment ago really trying to turn attention away from these legal setbacks with the kind of recycled attack on the committee that has now brought the former Trump aide so close to prison.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANNON: I challenge Bennie Thompson today to have the courage to come to this courthouse. If he`s going to charge somebody with a crime, he`s got to be man enough to show up here or send somebody like Shifty Schiff. We have a constitutional crisis in this nation right now and they`re charging me with a crime. The total and complete illegitimacy of Joe Biden. Trump won. Joe Biden is illegitimate. Bennie Thompson is a total, absolute disgrace and the show trial they`re running is a disgrace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[18:25:03]
MELBER: As for the show trial, well, that is the defendant`s opinion. We`re joined by someone who has run many such high profile criminal investigations and prosecutions. David Kelley ran the famed Southern District of New York and is my former boss.
Welcome back.
DAVID KELLEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, SDNY: Thanks, Ari. Good to see you.
MELBER: Good to see you. So we finally get the case. We hear that opening statement from the DOJ. It looked tight, concise as I mentioned, almost telling the jury hey, you don`t have to think about this too much. He had a requirement and he broke it. Is the case that simple? What do you think of the opening argument?
KELLEY: Yes, I think it`s that simple. I think the prosecutors need to keep it that simple. You know the old saying, you know, kiss, keep it simple, stupid. It really comes down to, look, he was subpoenaed. It`s not an invitation. He`s required to come. He has to abide the law just like anybody else, just like anybody sitting in the jury box. You get a subpoena and you have to go. And he didn`t.
And I think the judge has rightfully and correctly cut back a lot of this, you know, white noise that Bannon is spouting off outside the courthouse steps but he can`t use in the courtroom about it being a political charade and so forth. And so he`s pretty much limited to saying, one, now I got a little confused about the date or, two, maybe we can get some nullification here, maybe we can get at least one juror to agree that this is political and they`re just picking on. I don`t see that that`s the odds are really in his favor there.
MELBER: Yes, you mentioned something that John Flannery who also worked at SDNY, although not at your level, David, said on the program last night that sometimes you find that one juror who says, well, maybe he did break the rules but it smells funny, I think it`s unfair, I think it`s political, and you find that hook.
As for the arguments, I want to read again from the prosecutor just a little bit more. She said look Bannon didn`t get stuck on a broken down Metro car, he just decided not to follow the rules. How standard is it in your view to try to appeal to the jury with the idea that hey, it ain`t fair if you all have to come in and pay your taxes and serve on a jury and this guy flouts everything. Go ahead.
KELLEY: I think he has a really — this can easily backfire to him. You know, look, I think he`s got to try that defense in order to get his teeth into at least one juror because that`s all he needs. But I think it can backfire because I think that defense really has a big potential, probably a bigger potential to insult the jurors. Like what are you saying? I mean, I pay my tax, I get a notice, if I can get — I get subpoenaed to come, I get a notice to come for jury duty. Do I want to go to jury duty? The last thing I want to do particularly in the middle of July. But I went because I know I have to go so what`s up with you?
MELBER: Yes. No, I mean —
KELLEY: And I think the jury, they could find that insulting.
MELBER: Juries are an important part of our system but as you say a lot of people don`t want to go and they certainly don`t want to give up summer vacation or summer plans to go. The other question for you, David, is this whole gambit. We were misinterpreted, we were, quote, “negotiating” with the committee. What do you think of that?
KELLEY: I think it`s going to fall flat particularly when you have the testimony from people at the House who are negotiating with them. I think, although I haven`t had an opportunity to look at all the back and forth and the correspondence, my guess is that the government is pretty much locked down the fact that look, you need to come. I think jurors, you know, typically you get juries in that jury box, they fight like hell, they don`t want to serve, but once they`re sworn in they do their duty.
And I think that they`re going to do their duty and they`re going to look at this. And I think they`re going to be insulted that by that defense. I had to come, what`s your story?
MELBER: Yes. Yes.
KELLEY: And I also think it`s going to be hard for him to not take the stand, and it`s going to be — it`s going to be a difficult challenge for him because there`s a lot of things that he`d love to say that the judge is not going to permit him to stay.
MELBER: The traditional advice is not to take the stand. You think, though, the nature of the case that the paper cases so hard and strong against him that he should?
KELLEY: Well, I wouldn`t say he should. I think if he`s going to say he`s confused, and look, it`s a good faith thing. I really tried, I tried to work it out with them. I don`t know how effectively that comes off, unless you`re saying it yourself. But at the same time I`m sure he`s being told that there`s huge potential downside when he gets on that stand. So I think it`s a bit of a challenge for him.
[18:30:00]
I think a lot of lawyers would say, don`t take the stand, but on the other side of the coin, I think if you try to convince a jury that you were confused and that was really a good faith misunderstanding, it`s hard to present that effectively with (INAUDIBLE) on that one.
MELBER: Makes sense. Really interesting. David Kelley, your insights and legal experience. Appreciate it.
Coming up, we have a power player in the Senate. Dick Durbin is here live. We`re going to get into a lot. Also, Pelosi and the civil disobedience as they push back on the Supreme Court and also vow new action on guns. 17 Democrats arrested at the Supreme Court. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is one of them. She says it`s time for Democrats to think and act different. She`s my guest next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You`re currently engaged in illegal demonstration activity. Cease and desist or you will be arrested.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Some of what happened today at the Supreme Court, lawmakers leading direct action, civil disobedience, and protests. 17 Democrats ultimately arrested underscoring the standoff for women`s rights after the Supreme Court`s legally extreme ruling that overturned Roe despite half a century of precedent.
These lawmakers including some of the newer members of Congress, who have pushed the party to find ways to use its power more assertively like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Hands off our body! Hands off our body! Hands off our body!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do we want?
CROWD: Justice!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When do we want it?
CROWD: Now!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Congresswoman Omar joins me now. What happened today and what are you calling for?
I`m sorry, I made a mistake. We`re going to fit in a break and then we will have the congresswoman on the other side. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: Hands off our body! Hands off our body! Hands off our body!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What do we want?
CROWD: Justice!
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When do we want it?
CROWD: Now!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That was the scene at the Supreme Court today Amidst that direct action. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar joins me now. We had a little bit of technical difficulties, but I`m glad we have you now here. Thanks for joining me.
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): Thank you for having me.
MELBER: So, I`ll ask you the question. What happened today and what are you advocating for?
OMAR: Well, our reproductive rights are under assault. Our — the autonomy to our body is being under assault. We know that so many people across this country are devastated by Roe v. Wade being overturned. Although we`ve passed pieces of legislation to codify Roe into law and pass legislation to protect women who are crossing state lines to seek legal abortion, we still have to do everything that we can — we can.
We know that the people who came before us who assured many of the rights that we have, have put their bodies on the line to guarantee those rights for us. And today, that is what we were doing for my daughter`s generation and the generations to come.
MELBER: Where does direct action and protest fit in here? Because we are a nation of laws. That means that people are supposed to and most people really do follow what the Supreme Court says even when they vigorously disagree. There`s also a tradition of nonviolent and peaceful direct action that can make a point. I`m curious what your thoughts were about this today with so many other lawmakers joining you.
OMAR: I mean, dissent is fundamentally American. Protest is fundamentally American. It is really important for us to continue to always exercise our First Amendment rights when we agree with something to show up in support and when we disagree with something to show up, and share our discontent with it. I`ve raised my children to always believe that their voice matters regardless of what people make them believe about the power their voice has.
And today, we are encouraging young people and people across this country to know that legislators do not only make laws but they also stand with them in advocating for change. As you know, Speaker Pelosi always says public sentiment always wins the day. And we want to continue to make sure people understand that we are fighting with urgency, that we are standing with them, that we`re not only working to pass legislation as we did moments ago in the votes that we have taken to codify Roe into law and push the Senate to do the same, but that we are going to be out there in the frontlines with them sharing our dissent with the public.
MELBER: Yes. And you mentioned the House and we`ve covered some of that the action on women`s rights, on assault weapons ban vote. I mean, they`re things that are actually happening even though Americans are sometimes told oh, nothing`s happening. Well, some things are happening and it would appear, factually, some things are being blocked from getting a vote in the Senate. But that is the reality.
Is there anything else that you think this President, this administration should do now with his executive power on this issue?
OMAR: I mean, of course. I think the President and the administration, you know, has been very vocal in expressing their discomfort, their disappointment, their outrage, and anger about the court decision. They have taken executive decisions with the executive order that was signed. If there is more to be done, I expect the administration and the President to do so.
[18:45:10]
But, you know, it`s also important for people to recognize that, you know, we need to keep the House, we need to win two more — we need to get two more senators that are going to codify Roe v. Wade, and we need to keep the White House. It is important for our country to be set in the right direction. The right-wing Republicans are regressing us back to a day where none of these freedoms existed for all of us. And we want to make sure that we are clear about not being sent back.
We have to keep this country moving forward. And we have to do everything that it takes for us to do so.
MELBER: Well, you mentioned the upcoming midterms by saying you want to hold the House and add to the Senate Majority. What do you say to people around the country, including many young people who might agree with you more than Kevin McCarthy, Trump, or McConnell, but who say and I`m sure you`ve heard this, they would say to the Democratic Party, to you, they gave you control of Congress and the White House, and they`re seeing things get worse. Why would it be so important to mobilize for the Midterms if this is what life is like with the Democrats in power now?
The question, I guess, respectfully, is what would you say to that potential voter?
OMAR: Well, what I will say to them is that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans have been on record — on the record, saying that if they were to get the House, the Senate, and the presidency, that they will ban abortion nationwide. SoM we have an opportunity to not only stop them from doing that, but actually doing the opposite by codifying Roe into law and making sure these rights that we`ve enjoyed for nearly 50 years stay with us for generations to come.
MELBER: Congresswoman, on what was certainly an eventful day for you and those other members. When we heard about this, we definitely wanted to cover it. And to learn about it directly from you is interesting. So, thank you for your time.
OMAR: No, thank you for covering it. I really appreciate you getting the word out there.
MELBER: Absolutely. We will see you again.
I`m going to fit in a break and tell everyone what`s coming up. The powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Dick Durbin live next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:00]
MELBER: There`s a ton going on right now. And we turn to someone in the middle of the action on more than one issue, the powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrat second command running the Senate, Majority Whip Dick Durbin. Thanks for being here.
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): It`s good to be with you.
MELBER: Absolutely. Many topics to get to. Let`s start with something that affects so many people, the heat wave. It`s killed over 100 people. There are calls for Biden to use executive power to take emergency action on climate. Much of this even more urgent after the Supreme Court ruled to limit certain environmental regulation which as you know is a legal issue before your committee. So, starting on something on people`s minds in this summer, Senator, I`m curious your views. Should the President take that action and what else can Congress do?
DURBIN: Whatever the president can do, he should do to try to protect this earth that we live on from what clearly coming our way. Climate change is real. We can see it in the extreme weather that`s taking place all over the globe. And the sad reality is the American political scene is not very helpful at all. The Supreme Court had a terrible ruling on the EPA regulations just a week or two ago, and the United States Senate, I`m afraid, has fallen short of what we wanted to achieve to pass environmental legislation as well.
So, it`s up to the President. We`re counting on him to do all he can. And I hope that we come to our senses in the Senate too.
MELBER: Interesting. OK, so you think he should basically move forward because that`s something that experts and climate activists are talking about. You mentioned the Senate. I think viewers know, you`ve been a leader on a bunch of this stuff. And you`ve had your differences or maybe the whole party almost has had its differences with Senator Manchin who has spiked what was going to be climate action.
Here`s some of how he talks about all of this stuff, including just generally negotiating with, frankly, what the American people voted for, which was a Democratic Senate and President. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I cannot accept our economy or a basically our society moving towards an entitlement mentality.
I think corporate should have been at 25 percent. As the bill exists today, it needs to be changed.
I`ve always been for child tax credits. We voted for it many times.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you want to continue it the way it is with $300 a month for youngest kids?
MANCHIN: Guys, I`m not — I`m not negotiating with any of you all, OK?
I haven`t walked away from anything and inflation is my greatest concern.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: You know, Senator, I know you`re respectful. I try to be respectful. Let me ask it like this. Is the global macro inflation a reason not to do something on climate right now? How do you work with your colleague there when sometimes his reasons don`t really match what`s happening?
DURBIN: I respect Joe. I disagree with him. I think the global situation is an emergency. And if we`re not serious about it in this generation, our kids will pay a heavy, heavy price. We have to do everything that we can do, more important than any current economic statistics. And the fact that if we don`t move soon, we`re going to do lasting damage to this planet we live on and our children will have fewer opportunities because of it.
So, I would say to Joe, we may disagree, my friend, but when you think about your kids and grandkids, you`ve got to take an extra step forward.
[18:55:02]
MELBER: Yes. That makes sense. I mentioned we`re going to cover more than one thing because we have you. And a big issue in the committee of course is the Supreme Court. As you know, Roe fell, and then Clarence Thomas, use that ruling to argue that maybe people should have their personal or sexual lives, sexual intercourse regulated by the government. Maybe people shouldn`t have the right to marry anymore. Here`s what Ted Cruz is saying about one of those rulings, Obergefell. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): The Obergefell, like Roe vs. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation`s history. Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. I think that decision was clearly wrong when it was decided. It was the court overreaching.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Let me ask you a two-parter. One, as a legal expert, do you think this Supreme Court could also overrule marriage equality? And two, what if anything is the Congress doing about all of this?
DURBIN: Well, using the distorted logic that the court applied in the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe versus Wade and other rulings that have made, I`m not a bit surprised that Justice Clarence Thomas is predicting that there is another tick list they`re looking at, the right of couples to decide contraception and family planning, gay marriage. I don`t know where this could end. But it basically gets down to the following.
And I can understand Senator Cruz. I`m well aware of his philosophy. They want to give the power back to the states. They want to ignore the 14th Amendment in the middle of the 19th century which really conferred on individual Americans rights as citizens that hadn`t been recognized before. They want to do away with it and go back to state decisions.
We know how this can be an outcome that is absolutely unmanageable. Think about that 10-year-old rape victim in the state of Ohio who had to be transported across the state boundary to Indiana for an abortion, 10 years old. If you have a 10-year-old in your household, you think twice before you let them cross a busy street. And some on the other opposite side of the issue and myself are arguing that that 10-year-old should have been forced to carry that baby to term. I think that is unthinkable.
It was six weeks of pregnancy, six weeks and three days — the three days were operative under Ohio law. And look at the extremes they had to go through to make this decision. That`s what happens when you turn these decisions over to states to guide the way.
MELBER: Yes. Now, you mentioned that case, and it`s really striking. And yes, that`s — I mean, Thomas said what do you do, so it sort of — people are in a sense on notice. We`re covering all these different topics, then, of course, there`s these insurrection hearings, the House with their final primetime hearing Thursday. I want to play just a little bit of what we learned now about something that your own committee has investigated some of these various plots to overturn the election, including that controversial meeting trying to get the military involved. Let`s play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I waved in General Flynn and Sidney Powell on the — on the 18th, on the Friday night of the 18th.
PETER NAVARRO, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: I had no knowledge on that. He was working off the reservation. It was not at my direction.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You did get to see the President without an appointment.
SIDNEY POWELL, TRUMP LAWYER: We did.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Actually, the first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him and I said, who were you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were people shouting at each other, hurling insults at each other.
ERIC HIRSCHMAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY: What they were proposing, I thought was nuts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Was it an attempted coup? And what do you think the public should take from the conclusion of these rather packed hearings?
DURBIN: There was a fear that many of us had for years that in the right circumstances, Donald Trump would try to take over the government and basically void the Constitution, that he would consolidate power. Many of us had that fear. He is that irrational. He does things in a chaotic fashion and he always has. And so, we were relying on those in the military and the highest levels of leadership to come to the rescue of the Constitution if it was under attack.
It was — it was not an easy thing to ask because they would have had to defy their commander-in-chief, their president, to stand by the Constitution. Thank goodness, enough of them did to save this democracy. But what Donald Trump had is — his ultimate goal is now eminently clear. He wanted to basically overturn a legal constitutional election. It would have been the first in American history that it may have spell the end of our democracy as we know it.
HAYES: You put it clearly. I hope people are listening. And I know you`re busy, so Chairman and Majority Whip Durbin, thanks for being here tonight. Thanks, Ari.
MELBER: Absolutely. I appreciate the senator`s time. We`ve been covering a lot of different stories. I will remind you as I sometimes do, you can always connect with me on social media @AriMelber or arimelber.com. I`ll tell you in my own words, I do look at what some of you guys share with me there including guest ideas, story ideas, or whatever you want to share. So, connect with me there.
And thanks for spending time with us here on THE BEAT. “THE REIDOUT” with Joy Reid is up next.