Updated
Summary
TRMS obtains DOJ memo on opening criminal investigations into presidential candidates. Interview with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). Bans on abortion cause confusion for doctors trying to treat pregnant people.
Transcript
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, “ALL IN”: 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.
And thanks to you at home for joining us tonight. Really happy to have you here.
So his son was 18, his daughter was 16, and on Christmas Eve 2020, so that`s like a month and a half after the 2020 election was called for Joe Biden. On Christmas Eve 2020, his 18 year old son went online to the FBI website to tips.fbi.gov.
And he submitted a tip to the FBI about his dad. He told them that his dad was planning to do something violent, that his dad was not only calling for there to be violence against government officials. The son told the FBI when he submitted that online tip that he believed his plan his dad was actually planning to do something violent himself.
He told the FBI his father was planning to, quote, do some serious damage. That was Christmas eve when that young man submitted that tip to the FBI he didn`t hear back initially took a couple of weeks took until after the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building.
Then the FBI decided that maybe that tip deserved some follow-up. By the time, the FBI got in touch with the son, the son`s father had not only traveled from Texas to Washington, D.C. to take part in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. He had come back home to Texas afterwards and showed his teenaged kids video that he had taken of his part in the attack. He told his kids back home in Texas that, yes, he had participated in the attack and yes he definitely had had a loaded gun with him during the entire thing.
He also then threatened to kill his kids if they told anyone. He told his year old son and his year old daughter, quote, if you turn me in you`re a traitor and traitors get shot. It was that same day the day the father threatened to kill the son and his sister, if they told anyone that — same day, the son said, yes, when an FBI agent called and asked if he would meet with him to tell him what caused him to send in that tip about his dad to the FBI, the son that same day, the day that his dad threatened to kill him met with an FBI agent, told him what he knew about his father`s activities on January 6th and gave him something.
When the dad had told his son and daughter about having his loaded gun with him at the Capitol during the attack, turns out the son had been recording that conversation and that day when he met with the FBI agent, he gave the recording to the FBI. And so, that kid`s dad, that was the first man who was put on trial for his role in the January 6th attack. He`s a man from Wiley, Texas, his name is Guy Reffitt.
The attack in the Capitol building was January 2021, he was the first one put on trial. He was put on trial in March 2021. He was charged with five felonies. Armed trespassing was found guilty. Obstruction of an official proceeding, found guilty. Interfering with police in a riot, guilty. Transporting a firearm for the purposes of interfering with police in a riot, also guilty.
And the fifth felony he was charged with was witness tampering. He was also found guilty of that. Witness tempering, of course, for threatening to kill his own teenage son and daughter if they told anyone what he had done.
It emerged during Guy Reffitt`s trial that he was actually doubly armed in D.C. that day. He had an AR-15 assault rifle with him when he went to Washington. He apparently left that in the garage of his D.C. hotel on the day of the actual Capitol attack. But his loaded semi-automatic Smith Wesson pistol, that one he had holstered on his hip the whole time while he led the pro-Trump mob in attacking police officers at the wing doors of the U.S. Senate.
He also had flex cuffs with him, police-style heavy duty zip ties, because he planned on tying people up. He recorded video of himself talking about how he was looking forward to dragging members of Congress out of the Capitol building, quote, kicking and screaming. He said he specifically wanted to drag House Speaker Nancy Pelosi out of the Capitol building by her ankles, because he wanted to see her head hit every stair on the capitol steps as he physically dragged her out.
Guy Reffitt is part of a pro-Trump armed paramilitary group called the Three Percenters. That`s a group that was reportedly well-represented in Washington during the attack. It`s also a group that has surfaced in other instances of physical intimidation against people Trump has targeted, people like Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers. But Guy Reffitt was the first man put on trial for January 6th alleged crimes, and he was convicted on all counts five felonies. It is now time for the court to hand down his sentence.
[21:05:03]
Now, his defense lawyers have asked him — have asked the judge to give Guy Reffitt less than two years in prison. Who knows? Federal sentencing guidelines suggest a term of more like 9 to 11 years in prison.
But this is interesting, and this provides us some new insight. The federal prosecutors in the Guy Reffitt case have now asked the judge for something called an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Again, sentencing guidelines are for like 9 to 11 years. They`re asking for the court to consider a longer sentence than that. They`re asking the court to consider adding a sentencing enhancement in his case on the grounds of terrorism, on the grounds that what he did fits the statutory definition of terrorism.
Quote: Reffitt engaged in acts of violence that were intended to influence the government through intimidation or coercion, acts that have been defined by statute as domestic terrorism. Now, it is up to the courts, up to the judge whether or not to actually do that to accept this terrorism enhancement on Guy Reffitt`s sentence.
But if the judge does agree to prosecutors` request on that, the practical consequence is steep, and the practical consequence is that prosecutors are saying this guy should get 15 years in prison. For context, that would be roughly triple the sentence that anybody else has received so far for their role in the capital attack.
And that incident, that handling of that one case tells us a couple of things. First, it tells us that the U.S. Justice Department has concluded that it`s okay to treat the January 6th attack as terrorism, as domestic terrorism. They have concluded at the Justice Department that in some cases, the perpetrators of that attack should be prosecuted as terrorists and that should go off like the rockets red glare to the 300-plus other defendants who are still waiting to go on trial on charges related to January 6th.
I mean, the Justice Department like big picture, right, they want people to cooperate with prosecutors. They want defendants to help prosecutors investigate the overall crime and help put other criminals away. And, of course, you`re under no obligation to cooperate. You`re under no obligation to agree to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors in their efforts. If you`re innocent, there`s no way that you should plead guilty.
You go to trial, you fight the charges. You get acquitted because you didn`t do it.
But if you are guilty, and you decide you`re not going to plead guilty and cooperate you`re instead going to go to trial and you get yourself convicted — well, this new decision to seek a terrorism enhancement, this new decision by Justice Department prosecutors shows what you`re going to face in that instance could be something very much like what this guy, Guy Reffitt is now up against, with this terrorism enhancement they`re asking for 15 years in prison, which is no joke.
That could change everything for, you know, every other defendant who right now is weighing their options, weighing the risks of going to trial versus pleading guilty asking for mercy and agreeing to tell the truth about what they know. If you know that you could be facing sentences that stiff — again, the previous stiffest sentence was like five years. They`re asking there for 15.
And we can see how that operates strategically in terms of the Justice Department trying to get people to plead guilty and cooperate with them in their own ongoing investigation of the people who physically attacked the capital.
This is also just a good reminder about how much leeway prosecutors have, how much of their own discretion the Justice Department and prosecutors can bring to bear in pursuing and punishing crimes like this through the courts, right? This is not — this is not just math. It`s not just an automatic process.
It`s not like, you know, X crime happens, that produces Y prosecution and that produces Z sentence. These are human processes. These are humans making strategic decisions for good and for bad.
And sometimes, you know, they`ll get it right. Sometimes they won`t.
But right now, we`re at an inflection point. We`re in this crucial moment in American history wondering if this Justice Department will use its discretion wisely, whether they will make good strategic decisions. Are they going to get it right or are they not?
Some of the most crucial decisions toward those ends are being made right now. Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend for example that the part of the Justice Department investigation that`s looking at people higher up, looking at people other than those who physically attack the capital that part of the investigation is getting larger and getting more resources. Quote: A Justice Department team focusing on elements of the investigation beyond the violence at the Capitol on January 6th has in recent weeks been given more personnel more office space and an expanded mandate.
Okay. More resources, that`s part of the Justice Department`s strategic thinking here. Now, whether that part of the Justice Department investigation actually does result in any prosecutions remain to be seen. So far, it hasn`t.
I mean, as yet, the only prosecutions the Justice Department has moved forward with beyond people who took part in the capital riot itself the only prosecutions they`re actually acting on are two contempt of Congress prosecutions against former Trump advisers who refused to respond to subpoenas for them to testify and hand over documents to the January 6th investigation in Congress.
Prosecutors said in court on Friday that Trump adviser Peter Navarro had refused their offer of a plea deal. They said he could have pled guilty they offered him a deal in which he could have pled guilty to just one charge of contempt and agreed to respond to the subpoena as he is legally quite required to do and in return, they would have made sure he did no more than 30 days in jail. Peter Navarro, according to prosecutors, said no to that and so he will go to trial.
He, of course, will be trying for an acquittal but if he is convicted, he will be facing up to two years in jail.
On the other contempt charges, jury selection was today for the other Trump adviser who`s facing criminal contempt charges in the Steve Bannon trial in Washington which started today we are expecting opening statements tomorrow.
And then, you know, blink and you might miss it. We expect for it all to be over fairly quickly after opening statements. Prosecutors have said in the Steve Bannon case that they think they`re only going to need one day to lay out their whole case against him. We don`t know how long Bannon`s defense will take but the judge has already told Bannon`s defense lawyers in pre- trial hearings that he doesn`t have much of a defense to mount.
But he is going to trial. He will be trying for an acquittal. If he is convicted, he will be facing a year in jail. Again, opening statements tomorrow in what is expected to be a fast trial of Steve Bannon in Washington.
So we`re seeing prosecution of individual defendants who took part in physically attacking the capital. We are seeing these couple of prosecutions for contempt of Congress people not participating — not following legal summons that they need to follow related to the January 6 investigation in Congress.
We`re also seeing some action around the fake electors` part of the scheme. That`s now resulted in a bunch of interesting activity by prosecutors in various places. In the state of Georgia, three Republican officials from the state of Georgia, including the state Republican Party chairman and the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Georgia, three Republican officials in that state have all now been advised by the Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney that they might get indicted over their part in the fake elector scheme, indicted under Georgia state law. We know that federal prosecutors are also looking at the fake elector scheme because federal grand jury subpoenas have been served to people who allegedly participated that in that scheme not only in Georgia but in multiple states.
We also know federal prosecutors are interested in the fake elector scheme because the chairman of the January 6th investigation, Bennie Thompson, has now told reporters that the committee is engaging with the Justice Department on fake electors specifically. We think that means that the January investigators in Congress are giving federal prosecutors some of what they have turned up on the fake electors issue. That issue specifically, not anything else.
So we see bits and pieces of this being moved on in at sort of different paces right and it to different degrees and with different amounts of resources being devoted to these various parts of the investigation.
The Justice Department has a lot of latitude. They have a lot of discretion in terms of how they go after this stuff, how many prosecutors and investigators they put to work on any one part of it, how quickly they move to get investigations started and then to get them moved into search warrants and subpoenas and testimony into indictments ultimately, how aggressively they ultimately charge what they believe to be provable crimes in court, what kinds of sentences they ask for when they do get convictions in court.
Given that, given the leeway they have the discretion they have is it worth worrying that they may be moving too slowly to ever even have the real have a real chance to bring charges against the people who are at the top of the conspiracy.
Well, to that end, we have something new. This is a document that we have just obtained that has not been published elsewhere. It is from Attorney General Merrick Garland. It is addressed to all Justice Department employees. It is dated May 25th, 2022. So, that`s about eight weeks ago.
But again, we believe the first time this document has been shown to the public as you can see, it is titled election year sensitivities. Department of Justice employees are entrusted with the authority to enforce the laws of the United States and with a responsibility to do so in a neutral and impartial manner. This is particularly important in an election year, now that the election season is upon us.
And as in prior election cycles, I am issuing this memorandum to remind you of the department`s existing policies with respect to political activities. And again, this is a memo that is from Attorney General Merrick Garland. It has his signature on the top of it in blue ink.
And then it says this under the heading statements: investigations and charging near an election. Quote: The Department of Justice has a strong interest in the prosecution of election-related crimes such as those involving federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage laws, corruption of the election process. As department employees however, we must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the department`s reputation for fairness, neutrality and non-partisanship. Simply put, partisan politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges.
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements attributed or not — meaning on background or not — investigative steps, criminal charges or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party, such a purpose or the appearance of such a purpose is inconsistent with the department`s mission and with the principles of federal prosecution.
If you face an issue or the appearance of an issue regarding the timing of statements investigative steps charges or other actions near the time of a primary or general election, contact the public integrity section of the criminal division for further guidance. Such consultation is also required at various stages of all criminal matters that focus on violations of federal and state campaign finance laws, federal patronage crimes and corruption of the election process.
And now get this, finally: Department employees must also adhere to the additional requirements issued by the attorney general on February 5th, 2020 — February 5th, 2020? — governing the opening of criminal and counter-intelligence investigations by the department, including its law enforcement agencies related to politically sensitive individuals and entities. See memorandum of Attorney General William Barr, February 5th, 2020.
Any questions regarding the scope or requirements of the February 2020 attorney general`s memorandum should be directed to the Public Integrity Section.
Again, this memo from Merrick Garland to the Justice Department, to all Justice Department employees was sent out about eight weeks ago, in late May. We have just obtained it. We believe this is the first time it`s been made public.
And in large part, this memo from the attorney general follows both the letter and the spirit of previous letters from other attorneys general around election time, basically says, look, we can`t look like we`re acting to effectuate some particular partisan outcome around election time. That means we may delay certain steps we would otherwise take in order to avoid even the perception that we are trying to influence election outcomes.
We have seen that kind of guidance before from attorneys general of all stripes. That`s fine. That`s at least non-controversial.
But this last part about Bill Barr`s instructions from 2020, that`s kind of a surprise. February 2020, Trump Attorney General Bill Barr put out new guidance over and above what all attorneys general had previously said. And what Bill Barr said in February 2020 was specifically that in essence, nobody`s allowed to investigate anybody connected to a presidential candidate without his permission personally as attorney general.
Memo`s — Barr`s memo from February 2020, the language of it specifically it said, quote: No investigation including any preliminary investigation may be opened or initiated by the department or any of its law enforcement agencies of a declared candidate for president or vice president a presidential campaign or a senior presidential campaign staff member or advisor absent prior written approval of the attorney general, through the deputy attorney general.
Trump Attorney General 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. That new rule was established by Bill Barr when he was working for Donald Trump. Merrick Garland has just formally extended that guidance and told every employee of the Justice Department. That it is still in effect.
Notice when out in late May, we are reporting the memo here, making it publicly available for the first time.
Well, what`s happened in the meantime since that guidance went out from Merrick Garland to every justice department employee, telling them that the Bill Barr advice is still in effect and any investigation, including the opening of any investigation that applies to a candidate for president or anybody working for a candidate for president that has to get his personal sign off. What has happened since late May when this went out?
Well, former President Donald Trump has had the delightful experience of the January 6 investigation essentially rolling out a real-time prime time criminal referral of him to the Justice Department.
[21:20:09]
Justice Department which is poking along with its own cases at its own pace may be more interested in the fake electors part specifically maybe just spending a lot of time watching the January investigators, marveling at all the neat stuff they`ve turned up, that the Justice Department is apparently learning about the same time we all are by watching the hearings. That`s happened since this memo went out and also since this memo went out, Trump has responded to all these revelations about him in January 6th by reportedly moving to speed up his own declaration that he`s going to be a candidate for president again.
And that, of course, is despite the interests of the Republican Party which will likely not be helped at all by him telling the country formally that he intends to lead the Republican Party again right before people have to decide this fall whether to put Republicans in power in Congress. It wouldn`t be good for the Republican Party if Trump announces he`s a candidate for president again before the midterm elections happen.
It wouldn`t be good for his party but it would be very much in keeping with his own interest and putting as many roadblocks as possible in the way of any possible prosecution of himself.
Jennifer Rubin writing at “The Washington Post” today said, the January 6 committee`s remarkable success in fact-finding and presenting evidence against Trump leaves the Justice Department on the defense and scrambling to staff up. The department now faces the prospect that Trump will announce his presidential run in the fall which the former president will use to cast any subsequent charges as political efforts to keep him from office. Fair enough.
January 6th investigation Chairman Bennie Thompson was just asked about this tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NBC NEWS: What do you think the implication would be of the former president announcing another presidential run? He`s clearly toying with doing it at some point in early fall. What impact does that have on your investigation, if he`s an active candidate?
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): Two years, two years before the election?
NBC NEWS: Yeah.
THOMPSON: I would think none.
NBC NEWS: It`s unorthodox to announce but even if it is —
THOMPSON: Look, we are a nation of laws, and if a person breaks the law, or is accused of breaking the law, he`s not one who can just do what he chooses because he`s running for president. So Donald Trump is just like every other American citizen in this situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: If a person breaks the law, or is accused of breaking the law, he`s not one who can just do what he chooses because he`s running for president. So Donald Trump is just like every other American citizen in this situation.
Yes, it would be unorthodox for him to announce two years in advance that he`s a candidate for president. Why would he do that? Well, now, we know now that we`ve obtained this Justice Department memo from a few weeks ago. Now, we know for sure that it does kick something into action if he in fact announces himself as a declared candidate for president that means any investigation that relates to him or anyone working for him has to be personally cleared in writing through the very highest echelons of the Justice Department.
The Justice Department has a lot of discretion in how it pursues criminal prosecution, how many resources to apply to a particular problem how aggressive to be in charging and in sentencing decisions. And honestly, and how fast to move are they being outflanked?
Joining us now is Andrew Weissmann. He previously served as the FBI`s general counsel. He was a senior member of special counsel Robert Mueller`s investigative team.
Mr. Weissmann, it`s nice to see you. Thanks for being here.
ANDREW WEISSMANN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Nice to be here.
MADDOW: So we`ve obtained this relatively recent memo from Attorney General Garland and in some ways, it re-ups what we`ve seen from previous attorneys general saying there are sensitivities that`s the phrase sensitivities around election years. But he also extends a Bill Barr policy requiring a special highest level of written approval for any investigations of publicly declared presidential candidates. I just wanted to ask your reaction to that from the attorney general.
WEISSMANN: So I — I`m sort of two minds about this memo. On the one hand, I think that it is understandable for a reputable, honest attorney general to want to make sure that there`s no improper political interference by anyone at the Department of Justice, whether it`s prosecutors or agents.
On the other hand, the Bill Barr Justice Department was anything but a Justice Department. The rule of law was so flouted that the idea of re- upping something that he put in place is one that I`m not sure if I were at the department, I would look at you know as anything other than saying I am not bringing a case against anyone at the White House until such time as I personally approve it no matter how much evidence seems to be being accumulated in the January 6 committee hearings.
So, you know, I think it`s a sort of plus-minus, and, you know, it probably could have been phrased a lot better and clearer to people at the Justice Department.
MADDOW: You`ve been critical of what seems to be publicly evident about the way Justice Department prosecutors have pursued January 6. You`ve described how in lots of — in lots of criminal prosecutions, it makes sense to sort of approach this from the bottom up, to bring people at the lowest levels on board as quickly as you can and then pressure them to flip and tell what they know as you`re moving towards bigger fish.
You said that while that might be the most appropriate way to approach most big investigations, in this case, that might be too slow and that might mean that prosecutors are missing some of what`s obvious. I wonder if you still feel that way and if recent events have borne that out for you.
WEISSMANN: Well, the thing I was really interested in, Rachel, that you quoted from in “The Wall Street Journal” reporting was this idea of an expanded mandate. Not just more personnel and more office space but an expanded mandate. And, of course, everyone`s question is, what does that mean? Is it expanded to include all of the evidence of criminality that was laid out by the January 6 Committee?
In other words, not just who attacked the Capitol on January 6, and not just fake electors but what was going on at the department of justice in terms of beheading Jeffrey Rosen in order to put it in lackey, what was going on in Georgia, what was going on in other states, the pressuring of the vice president of the United States — all of that seems to me to be appropriate for a criminal investigation.
And I think to make people understand the concern here, the concern here was raised when Cassidy Hutchinson testified and there was wide reporting that prosecutors of the Department of Justice who were listening to what she had to say were just as surprised by what she had to report as all of us you know who were just citizens and that`s really surprising to me. It`s — I think should be surprising to people as to where was the department and why were they so behind in the investigation that they were learning along with us, what she had to say. Because obviously what she had to say I think for most people who were looking at this objectively, it was — it was quite disturbing about what was happening and not happening at the White House.
MADDOW: Andrew Weissmann, former FBI general counsel former senior member of special counsel Robert Mueller`s investigative team and a veteran of lots of big consequential complex investigations at the Justice Department — Andrew, thank you for making time tonight. It`s good to see you.
WEISSMANN: Nice to see you.
MADDOW: All right. We`ve got much more to get to tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:32:55]
MADDOW: Thursday night, this week is the next January 6th hearing and perhaps the last one for a while. The United States Secret Service is facing a deadline of tomorrow to respond to a new subpoena from the committee. And, of course, this is all happening now alongside the ongoing criminal trial in Washington, D.C. of Trump adviser Steve Bannon. He`s being tried for defying his own subpoena from the investigation.
Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff. He`s a member of the January 6 investigation. He also, of course, is chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Chairman, sir, thank you very much for joining us tonight. It`s nice to have you here.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Good to be with you.
MADDOW: Let me start by asking you first about what`s going on with this subpoena to the secret service. A lot of this drama unfolded late last week, including the inspector general of the department that oversees the Secret Service coming in, and I understand briefing you and all of your colleagues on the committee about what may have happened at the Secret Service when they faced a request for information from their department related to January 5th and 6th.
What can you tell us about the status of this sort of conflict with the secret service and what you`re expecting to get in response to that subpoena?
SCHIFF: Well, my understanding at present, and this is still very much an ongoing investigation is that some of these text messages were either lost or destroyed. And now, whether they were lost or destroyed because of negligence or willfully we have yet to determine, but there`s a very strong conflict between what we`re hearing from the inspector general, the Department of Homeland Security and what the Secret Service is telling the public.
I have to say that statement that we saw from the Secret Service that basically there were messages lost, but none of them pertained to what we`re investigating, I don`t know how if they`re lost you can draw that conclusion with such confidence. So something doesn`t seem quite right. And we hope to find out as soon as tomorrow what has been preserved what was lost, and begin to find out from the circumstances in which those messages may have been discarded.
MADDOW: We`re getting a little more information tonight about what to expect on Thursday. Obviously, it`s a decision of some consequence in its own right that the hearing on Thursday will be in prime time.
[21:35:04]
You can expect a larger audience for that and I think expect larger expectations to go along with that.
We also have been told to expect a couple of — at least it`s been reported a couple of live witnesses who were both inside the Trump White House in fairly high level positions leading up to and including the days of January — days around January 6.
What should we understand in terms of how close to the end you are? We keep hearing from you and other members of the committee that there`s still more to find out, there`s still more to get to the bottom of, that the investigation has turned up a lot of stuff actually in recent days since the hearings have been in public.
At the same time, it does seem like this is going to be the last public hearing for quite some time.
SCHIFF: You know, I think at the beginning of this process, when we were scheduling and sketching out the hearings, we did conceive of this as probably the end of this first set of hearings even while we were considering another set of hearings in the fall that were focused on our recommendations for protecting the democracy going forward.
But as we`ve gone along and new witnesses have come forward and we`ve added hearings like we did with Cassidy Hutchinson, we realized that witness continued to come forward and we may very well be adding other hearings to accommodate new evidence, new testimony.
You know, we haven`t made firm conclusions about that we want to give ourselves the freedom and flexibility to present to the public whatever we feel the public really needs to know. I think in the next hearing, you will hear a combination of live testimony, you`ll hear part of a video testimony that you haven`t seen before. And most importantly, as we`ve done in other hearings, we will try to weave it together so that people understand just what happened during that lengthy period of time when Donald Trump sat in the White House and watched the Capitol being attacked,.
MADDOW: In terms of that timeline, one of the reasons that I`m thinking anew about the overall timeline of your investigation is this memo that we just obtained from Attorney General Merrick Garland. It`s an all-employee`s memo from the attorney general to everybody at the Justice Department, reminding them about election year sensitivities, reiterating the kind of advice we`ve seen from previous attorneys general about the department not taking any steps in election season that might look like they were designed to effectuate some particular outcome or advantage or disadvantage some candidate or some political party.
He also though goes a step further and says that Attorney General Bill Barr`s advice from February is still in effect and is still Justice Department policy. And that new guidance from Bill Barr as of February said that any investigation involving a declared candidate for president had to be personally cleared through the attorney general in writing.
A declared candidate for president or anybody working at a senior level for somebody in that position, with Donald Trump now openly sort of mulling the prospect of declaring himself once again to be a candidate for president, I wonder if you and your colleagues on the committee feel pressure at all in terms of the time ticking? The Justice Department by policy is a little more reticent and has some more puts more hurdles in the way of bringing any sort of federal prosecution or even opening federal investigations of people who are declared candidates. We`re getting closer and closer to that each day with Trump.
Is that affecting your thinking about the timing here?
SCHIFF: Well, we are moving on I think as expeditiously as we can. So I don`t know how much it will affect our own timing. But it does, and I think you know again raise the question of why the Justice Department was so slow to pursue these other lines of effort to overturn the election. They did seem to proceed with alacrity when it came to those breaking into the Capitol, but with respect to all of these other lines of effort, the effort to pressure state legislators into finding votes that didn`t exist or the fake electoral plot or the pressure campaign against the vice president, any number of other efforts which uh many like Judge Carter in California believe violated the law, why it appears only now that that is given a sense of urgency?
I will say this to add on to what Andrew Weissmann was saying, it is a bit rich to be citing Bill Barr for anything that has to do with the independence of the Justice Department considering how badly he uh disrupted the independence of that office. Yes, we`re glad that Bill Barr finally found a line he wouldn`t cross, but he crossed a lot of lines before he got there.
And I agree, that`s not the precedent I would cite, even if that`s the policy which the new attorney general wants to adopt.
Finally, Rachel, I agree with the assessment whether it`s based on this memo or otherwise that Donald Trump believes among other things that running for president is lucrative, but it also may help them stay one step ahead of the jail.
MADDOW: Yeah, and whatever the obscure and contested derivations of the Justice Department`s decision to not bring political pro — to not bring prosecutions against people who are serving as president of the United States, whatever the derivations are of that policy, President Trump — former President Trump feels very, very, very aware of it and seems to be factoring it into his future political plans in the midst of your investigation.
Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, member of the January 6 investigation, chair of the House Intelligence Committee — sir, it`s always a pleasure to have you here. Thanks for making time tonight.
SCHIFF: Thank you.
MADDOW: All right. We`ll be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:45:22]
MADDOW: In Wisconsin, a woman had an incomplete miscarriage. She bled for more than days after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue from her uterus. They were afraid they could be prosecuted if they did so under a law banning abortion that is now in effect in Wisconsin. Doctors at the hospital in Michigan found themselves treating a woman from out of state. She had to cross state lines to get care for a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, an ectopic pregnancy is never viable.
Doctors say that it could have caused a rupture at any moment that could have killed this woman but a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat made a procedure to remove it illegal and wouldn`t do it even though it risked her life.
In Louisiana, a doctor described treating a patient whose water broke at 16 weeks. The fetus was not viable continuing the pregnancy at that point would put the woman`s life at risk. The patient wanted her doctor to perform a common 15-minute abortion procedure. But the patient was told that under Louisiana`s new law outlawing abortion, she would have to have an induced delivery.
Instead in an affidavit filed in court, the doctor said her patient, quote, was supposed to go — forced to go through a painful hours-long labor to deliver a non-viable fetus despite her wishes and best medical advice, quote, she was screaming not from pain but from the emotional trauma she was experiencing. And then she hemorrhaged nearly a liter of blood. The doctor said quote there is absolutely no medical basis for my patient or any other patient in the state to experience anything like this. This was the first time in my -year career I could not give a patient the care they needed. This is a travesty.
One OB-GYN in Texas described a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous infection in her womb. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat though, so an immediate abortion which would be the usual standard of care, that would have been illegal under Texas`s abortion ban. The doctor said, quote, we physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day and then we could intervene. The patient developed complications required surgery lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine all because we were essentially hours behind.
Those are just a handful of the stories that doctors have been willing to put on the record about the practical consequences all over the country of the Supreme Court overturning the right to an abortion. It is not theoretical. It is happening now and we`ve got more on that straight ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:52:30]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DR. COLLEEN MCNICHOLAS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWEST MISSOURI, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER: We are already seeing mass chaos among OB-GYNs, emergency room physicians, and quite frankly, pharmacists. OB-GYNs who are sitting on patients in emergency rooms while they bleed, while their vital signs become unstable, while they`re waiting for hospital lawyers to decide is this patient sick enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: That is Dr. Colleen McNicholas. She`s an OB-GYN who practices in Missouri and Illinois. That`s her telling a Senate hearing last week that in states like Missouri where abortion is now illegal. The landscape for pregnant women with medical emergencies is in her words quote mass chaos.
Joining us now is Dr. Colleen McNicholas. She`s chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis region in southwest Missouri.
Dr. McNicholas, it`s nice to see you. Thanks very much for making time to be here.
MCNICHOLAS: Thank you so much, Rachel. Happy to be here.
MADDOW: So, in Missouri, one of the places you practice abortion is now illegal except in medical emergencies that cause irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. You said that standard in Missouri is basically causing mass chaos at a practical level in terms of what care doctors can provide and what women have to go through.
Is anything resolving over time? Is anything becoming more clear?
MCNICHOLAS: You know, we`ve heard — you opened with lots of stories from not just Missouri but from across the country where physicians are really struggling because this medical emergency exception is totally unworkable. Folks are not practicing the best medicine because they`re afraid of going to prison.
MADDOW: In terms of what remedies are available here, I was curious when you talked about hospitals lawyers and health systems lawyers, particular big hospitals of big legal departments, big institutions that are considering issues like this. Could they be taking a more proactive stance on this and tell — instead of telling doctors to you know wait for a patient to be sick enough? Could they say — you know, give your best care?
And if they come after you, if it comes to it, we will defend you. Is there a way to be more forward leaning on this, particularly doctors who have more institutional support than people who are operating in private or small practices?
MCNICHOLAS: You know, sure it`s always great to have the support of your institution and the lawyers there. But the truth is, if you live in a state with an aggressive and rabidly anti-choice attorney general no reassurance from your hospital or from your hospital legal system or lawyers is going to make you feel comfortable enough to continue to provide that care when the reality is, is that it`s a criminal penalty to violate this law.
[21:55:12]
And so, it`s just totally unworkable and has led to as I said in the hearing, total chaos among a group of healthcare professionals who went in this to heal people and not to have to sit there and wait for other lawyers or attorney generals to tell them it`s okay to proceed.
MADDOW: And you told that hearing last week that you wanted Congress to use every bit of your power to do something. What do you think they could do given what the Supreme Court has undone?
MCNICHOLAS: You know, we`ve seen a good step in the statement around enforcement of EMTALA, the emergency medical clause that does say that hospitals and physicians when presented with a patient in an emergency situation must be treated.
But the truth is, that`s only going to affect the small minority of folks who need abortion care. We need the administration and we need folks not just at the federal level but at the state level and states where there is opportunity to further protect access, to do so, to allocate funds and resources for patients who are needing to get that care, to provide safety and security for patients crossing state lines to get that care. We really need a whole of government and truthfully a whole of medicine response to this public health emergency.
MADDOW: Dr. Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis region and southwest Missouri, I know this is a really difficult and as you say chaotic time. Thanks for helping us understand. Thanks for what you do.
MCNICHOLAS: Thanks so much.
MADDOW: All right. More news ahead. Stay with us tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MADDOW: All right. That is going to do it for us tonight. Great to have you here. Ayman Mohyeldin will be here tomorrow.
I will see you again Thursday night at 7:00 Eastern for the next January 6th hearing. I`ll see you then.
Now, it is time for “THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL”
Good evening, Lawrence.