Updated
Summary
Former White House staffers will testify about Trump`s response in the middle of the January 6 attack. Interview with Rep. David Cicilline (D- RI). Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) stalls Biden`s climate agenda.
Transcript
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST, “ALL IN”: That is ALL IN on this Tuesday night.
MSNBC PRIME starts right now with Ayman Mohyeldin.
Good evening, Ayman.
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: Hey, good evening to you, Chris.
And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour.
You probably won`t hear him talk this way again. But, I want to play this for you. This was with the top House Republican, Kevin McCarthy said on live television back on January 6, 2021, as the attack on the Capitol was unfolding in real-time.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): I`ve spoken to the president. I asked him to talk to the nation, and don`t stop this. I told him we need to talk to the nation. I told him what was happening right then.
I was very clear with the president when I called him. This has to stop. He`s got to go to the American public and tell them to stop it.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: He has to go to the American public and stop this.
Kevin McCarthy was not the only Republican calling on Donald Trump to put an end to the violence on that day. In fact, we have learned that at least 11 other Republican members of Congress reach out to the White House, or at least made some kind of public statement that day to implore the president to do something — to do anything to stop the violence.
In fact, his eldest son, Don Jr., texted then White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows saying, he`s got to condemn this ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough. And he has to lead now. It is gone too far. It is gotten out of hand.
Three different Fox News host, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Brian Kilmeade — all of them, all of them texted Meadows saying Trump needed to make a statement telling people to leave. That is what we know is happening outside of the White House during the 187 minutes from Trump`s speech on the ellipse, urging supporters to fight like hell, and when he finally released a video telling the rioters, quote, go home, we love you. You are very special.
What we still don`t know, is what was happening inside the White House at that time. And we have learned some details about what was going on around the president that day, from former White House staffer, Cassidy Hutchison. But it looks like we are about to learn a whole lot more. Because on Thursday, the January 6th investigation is about to hold its next hearing to discuss what happened inside Trump`s White House during those crucial 187 minutes. Nearly three hours.
And today, we learned that Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson has tested positive for COVID, the committee says the hearing will go on without him. The live witnesses at Thursday`s hearing will be to former White House staffers — Sarah Matthews and deputy national security adviser, Matthew Pottinger, who both resigned, by the way, from the Trump White House on that day.
Now, we don`t know exactly what they plan on saying. But we have gotten a preview of what their testimony might look like from deposition played at previous hearings in the committee. In fact, here is with Thursdays witnesses told the committee about the key moment when Donald Trump decided to ignore the ongoing and violent attack on the Capitol. And instead, tweeted out about how his vice president, Mike Pence quote, didn`t have the courage to do what needed to be done.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: We had all talked about at that point, about how it was bad. And, you know, the situation was getting out of hand. We thought the president needed to tweet something. And tweet something immediately.
Then I remember getting a notification on my phone. We all got a notification. So, we knew it was a tweet from the president. And we looked down. And it was a tweet about Mike Pence.
MATTHEW POTTINGER, FORMER TRUMP DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: One of my staff brought me a print out of a tweet by the president. And the tweet said something to the effect of, my friends, the vice president, didn`t have the courage to do what should have been done. I read that tweet. And I made a decision at that moment to resign. That is where I knew that I was leaving that day, once I read that tweet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: All right. So, those are the two witnesses that we will hear from on Thursday, and what was supposed to be the final January 6 hearing. And I say supposed to hear, to be the final one, because the January 6th investigation now appears to be contemplating holding additional hearings, surrounding the release of a report comes September.
Here is how “Politico” described it today.
[21:05:01]
As new material pours in and a potential second round of hearings get slated for the fall, this week looks more like a season finale then a serious ender. Today, we got new information about the unfolding scandal around text messages sent by the Secret Service on January 6th, text messages that were erased after they were requested by Congress and a government watchdog. Today was the deadline for the Secret Service to hand those messages over to the January 6 committee. These missing text messages which could conceivably shed light on Trump`s actions, and movements that day, and either support or rebuke Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony that Trump got into a heated argument with a Secret Service detail, and demanded that he`d be driven to the Capitol.
Now, those text messages could also give insight into Mike Pence`s interaction with his security detail, and the vice presidents refusal to get into his armored limousine and evacuate the Capitol.
But the Secret Service has determined it has no new text messages to turn over to the committee, believe it or not. And anything it has not already turned over has in all likelihood been erased, following what it described as a routine pre-schedule technology upgrades.
And the Secret Service informed the January 6 committee that it was still attempting a forensic search for the text this morning. But that they were probably not recover-able. Now, the National Archives opened its own investigation into this matter. You may remember the National Archives is already investigating the troves of sensitive White House document that somehow wound up in Trump`s Florida home after his presidency.
The National Archives is now also demanding that the Secret Service start providing answers about the troves of deleted text messages from the days around the Capitol attack. The Archives is giving the Secret Service 30 days to provide answers about how and why these messages were deleted and not backed up.
So with new information, new investigations popping up almost every day, the big question is, what should we expect to see next?
Joining us now is “Politico” congressional reporter Nicholas Wu.
Nicholas, thank you so much for joining us.
I should note, you are one of the reporters byline on the story about the National Archives, demanding answers from the Secret Service. What can you tell us about that? And what does the National Archive hope to get the Congress can`t?
NICHOLAS WU, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, POLITICO: The Archives, you remember, is the caretaker of all these records for the federal government. And the fact that they`ve taken an interest in this particular matter goes to show they think something is up, potentially with the disappearance of these messages.
That`s why, as we reported today, the Archives under federal law notify the Secret Service they had 30 days to tell them what happened to these messages, and if they were improperly deleted, to explain how that happened.
Now, as we reported in that story, the Secret Service told us they actually do still have all these phones, despite the story and reporting of throwing away as part of the device replacement program. And so, they are going to try to recover them from the phones. But there wasn`t a lot of hope they would be able to do so.
MOHYELDIN: What has your reporting indicated about the committee`s reaction so far to today`s news? Have they given any kind of reaction behind the scenes to how all of this is playing out?
WU: Committee members are mostly tightlipped about it when we asked about it today. Although, we can expect some kind of response from them in the coming days, especially as they process this information.
We know the committee is taking an interest in this aspect of this investigation, because of what we mentioned earlier. What Secret Service might be able to talk to about Trump that day. What — the protection of the vice president.
And also the Secret Services protection of then Vice President Kamala Harris, who you will remember, was at the DNC as the pipe bomb threat was discovered, and as she was protected by the Secret Service. This is all part and parcel of how the January 6 committee is trying to put all this together.
MOHYELDIN: One of the interesting points was that early on in this process, Nicholas, the committee actually manages subpoena the phone records directly from phone companies. Is there any reason to believe they could do the same to retrieve these text messages? Or are Secret Service communications on a completely different system that`s not subject to these types of subpoenas?
WU: It`s a little more unlikely they`d be able to get the messages from the phone companies. So, basically, early on, the subpoenas went out for the phone records from individuals I believe in the investigation and the committee actually stressed in a lot of the litigation related to these subpoenas, that they weren`t seeking messages, that they solely want the records, partly because of the legal concerns that try to go over the messages themselves would be.
[21:10:14]
And that`s why a lot of the messages that we have seen so far presented in these hearings, it came from, you know, former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, for example.
And, you know, the Secret Service, it`s a famously opaque agency, right? I try doing a FOIA of the Secret Service for example, of documents related to their protection of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on January 6, including messages. But I got basically nothing.
MOHYELDIN: You and your colleague, Kyle Cheney, Nicholas, you reported that committee in fact has extended its timeline for the investigations. We were under the impression that they were trying to wrap it up. You write in part, quote, the only hard deadline they say is January 3rd, 2023, when Republicans likely take over the House.
Do you expect there will be more hearings to present new evidence? Or are we just expecting more hearings later in the year when they release their final report?
WU: You can definitely expect hearings around the release of the final report. Members have talked about that for sometime. Whether or not they will do more in the interim, I think it depends on what evidence comes forth.
The Cassidy Hutchinson testimony, you remember, was an emergency hearing. And so, committee members I`ve talked to have reserve the right, basically, to do something like that again, if evidence of that magnitude were to emerge, if you had another Cassidy Hutchison of a witness.
MOHYELDIN: Looking ahead to tomorrow, two important notes. It`s happening in primetime, expect a large audience, that`s to tell us something. Have your sources, Nicholas, on the committee, giving you a sense of what we should expect in Thursday`s hearing, given the platform that it is going to be held in? And what`s new information might these two witnesses have?
WU: Well, with regard to the witnesses, Congresswoman Elaine Luria, one of the two lawmakers, was asked about the witnesses stand. She said that — and also, Matthew Pottinger, the former security official — would be able to talk to how he was believing in the work he was doing in the Trump White House. But he did not believe he actually (INAUDIBLE).
And as for Sarah Matthews, the press aide, she would be able to speak to what was going on in the White House at the time. So, we could expect the committee to use them to try to piece together these remaining bits. What exactly was happening in the White House during the roughly three hours from beginning of the attack until Trump told the rioters to leave.
But moving into the bigger picture, being — what`s the committee is likely to do at this hearing is try to get into Trump`s mind at the time of the attack. Committee members stress how they really want to figure out what exactly was in Trump`s mind as he, for example, put out his tweet, attacking Mike Pence. What — when did the White House figure out that there was violence going on? When did the White House know the Capitol was breached? We can expect them to try to fill in a lot of these blanks tomorrow.
MOHYELDIN: Actually, we will find out, I apologize, I said tomorrow. And you think tomorrow. But it`s actually Thursday, on prime time.
I know the news — the news days are all lending in together these days, Nicholas. So, apologies on that.
Thank you so much, my friend. It`s good to see you. “Politico” congressional reporter, Nicholas Wu, thank you for your time tonight.
As the House Select Committee prepares for what could be the most important hearing on the January 6th attack today, federal prosecutors open their criminal case in the trial of Trump`s former chief of — chief strategist, excuse me, Steve vanished. Bannon, as you may recall, was indicted last year on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the January 6 committee.
DOJ lawyer Amanda Vaughn said during her opening statement that Bannon defied the order from Congress because he decided that he was above the law. The defendant prevented the government from getting the important information that needed about what happened on January 6th and how to make sure it didn`t happen again, she said.
That, ladies and gentlemen, ignoring a legal order, a subpoena from the United States government, from Congress, that is a crime. Bannon`s lawyer said that his client didn`t comply with the subpoenas because he understood the dates referred by the committee to be subject to negotiation, and quote, flexible. If convicted, Bannon could face up to one year in prison for each of the two counts he faces up to two years.
And also today, we learned that Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, who`s investigating Trump`s efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia is now officially informed all of the 16 Republicans who served this fake electors for Trump in that state, that they are now considered targets of her investigation, meaning they could actually face criminal charges for their actions.
[21:15:15]
Now, Willis`s determination was made clear in a court filing that she introduced, contesting a legal effort by the Republican state senator, Burt Jones, who was trying to disqualify her from leading this probe. Jones, a fake elector, we should note, who was currently running for lieutenant governor in Georgia is one of the targets.
And as if that wasn`t enough news for one day, today Deputy Attorney Lisa Monaco said at a cybersecurity conference in New York, the Justice Department`s investigation into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election won`t be deterred if the former president declares his intention to run again. This is important to emphasize here because this comes really in the wake of some significant and multiple reports suggesting Trump might soon declare his intention to run again in 2024, in an attempt to shield himself from prosecution.
Monaca`s remarks also came, of course, just hours after Rachel, here on the show last night presented a copy of a memorandum Attorney General Merrick Garland sent to all Justice Department employees back in May, saying specifically that in essence, no one was allowed to investigate anyone connected to a presidential candidate without his expressed permission.
Joining us now is former U.S. attorney for the northern district of Alabama, and co-host of “The Sisters in Law” podcast, Joyce Vance.
Joyce, it`s great to see you again. Thank you for being here tonight.
Let me start by getting your reaction to Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco saying today what I think a lot of people wanted to and hear and know, that the DOJ will continue to investigate Trump`s effort to overturn the 2020 election, whether the former president runs in 2024 or not. How reassuring is that statement?
JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: So, I find it to be very reassuring. I think that this is a reaffirmance of the speech the attorney general made on January 5, when he said that the Justice Department would follow the evidence and chase the facts no matter who is implicated, no matter how high up they were.
And I took that at the time as a clear statement that the department would not flinch if it turned out to be the case that the former president was implicated for criminal conduct. I hear the deputy attorney general statement today is being a reaffirmance of that, a commitment that no matter what the former presidents status becomes as a candidate, that DOJ will continue the work it has begun.
MOHYELDIN: Let me switch gears to the other big news today. Steve Bannon`s lawyers arguing today that because they were in contact with the January 6th committee, Bannon understood the dates of his subpoena and his deposition to be, quote, flexible. Do you buy that as an argument? What should we make of that?
VANCE: So, I think the more important question is whether the jury will buy it. Prosecutors did a great job of setting this up in their opening statements today. They clarified for the jury what this case is about. It is about someone who set himself up above the law and decided he did not have to comply with the subpoena. Prosecutors will show the jury that subpoena. It will be for a date certain. It won`t have anything to do with ongoing negotiations after the date for testimony has passed. And hopefully prosecutors will convince the jury that that subpoena means precisely what it says, that Bannon, like any other witness in front of a grand jury or congressional proceeding, was required to show up when his testimony was called for.
MOHYELDIN: I feel like I ask you this question almost every time I speak to you. But you said today that you are hoping to see Trump face the same kind of Justice Bannon is facing here. How likely is it that we are going to see Attorney General Merrick Garland, during his tenure, file some kind of charge against Donald Trump for his role in the 2020 attempt to overturn our election?
VANCE: This is the question that we all struggle with. And you and I have talked about this a lot. The problem that we faces a country is the fact that the former president seems to have a real knack for alluding accountability. Committing acts of obstruction while he was the president, former business dealings — he seems to be very tough on when it seems to be being held accountable. It seems clear to — I think that`s why we are all frankly a little bit jaded, as we look at the investigation that it is increasingly clear that the Justice Department is conducting, the evidence that the January 6th committee is presenting on an ongoing, on a rolling basis, makes it more and more incumbent upon the justice department to act.
[21:20:04]
And although none of us knows where DOJ will land and what the future holds, it seems to me that we are watching them amp up their presence, amp up the information that they are gathering, and this evidence increasingly leads to only one conclusion. And that is that the former president engaged in criminal conduct around the big lie on January 6th. It`s DOJ`s job to hold him accountable. I have to believe that we still live in a country where that`s possible.
MOHYELDIN: Last night, I`m sure you heard Rachel show a copy of an election sensitivities member that Garland sent to DOJ, back in May, pretty much saying that no one is allowed to investigate anyone connected to a presidential candidate without his permission. I know you have thoughts on this.
What might they be?
VANCE: So I think it`s really understandable that seeing a Barr memo being carried over into this administration would raise alarm. But I don`t have that level of concern around this memo. Career prosecutors know that if you want to open any investigation of this nature, you`ve already got to go through something called the Public Integrity Unit, up in main justice in Washington, D.C., for prior permission and approval.
And that`s not just a check the box kind of approval. It`s important for prosecutors and the folks in main justice to have a back and forth, to talk about the evidence, to make sure that allegations are really providing a strong basis for opening the case.
So, what this memo does is, it`s actually more protective of candidates and campaigns. There is no political bias in this memo. It simply adds to those already existing requirements, the requirement that the attorney general be in the loop and that he or she as well have the ability to look over the evidence — and that`s at the point where a case is being opened, that they were involved in that decision-making process.
It seems to me that this is more restoration of rule of law and DOJ`s back to business as usual than anything else. I have heard folks say that, well, this sort of a memo could be used by a future attorney general who is not as scrupulous as Merrick Garland, in a really bad, malicious way. And while lather is true, if we have an attorney general in the future who is inclined to behave, whether this memo is in place or not, they will certainly do what they are intent upon doing.
For now, this signals to me, as someone who has been involved in over 25 years at DOJ, with this sort of ongoing election work, that the commitment remains in place that DOJ`s job is not to interfere with elections. DOJ conducts its investigations in a way that is respectful of American voters right to determine the outcome of elections.
And you will remember, Ayman, that one of the real problems at the end of the Trump administration was Trump trying to corrupt DOJ. And go into the acting attorney general, Rosen, who told him persistently, there is no fraud here, and Trump said, just say that there is corruption and I will take it from there. Don`t worried if there is really evidence. You just say and I will keep going.
This is the kind of memo that keeps the president from corrupting DOJ in that sense. It keeps a president from going to some sort of rogue actors. This is, I think, ultimately good. But DOJ has a lot of work to do when it comes to helping the public regain confidence in their operations and explaining the processes that they go through so that we can have that confidence.
MOHYELDIN: Former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and co-hosts of “The Sisters in Law” podcast, Joyce Vance, with that clear-eyed assessment.
Joyce, always thank you so much. Democrats in Congress today went on the offensive enforce Republicans to go on the record with her stance opposing the majority of Americans views on key issues. Oh, and in a related story, more than a dozen members of Congress were arrested today.
We`ll tell you about that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:28:58]
MOHYELDIN: Earlier today, more than a dozen members of Congress you saw there marched from the U.S. Capitol building to the Supreme Court. Joining a crowd of demonstrators protesting against the abortion ban states are enforcing since the Supreme Court overturned Roe last month. After officers warned the protesters, as you heard in that video, including members of Congress to cease and desist, those lawmakers sat down, in the middle of the street, chanting, we won`t go back.
And at that, point police began to make arrests. They arrested a toll of 35 protesters, including 17 members of Congress. Democrats like Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Carolyn Maloney, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and it doesn`t others were escorted out one by one.
This comes just days after the house passed two bills that aimed at protecting women`s autonomy and their right to abortion. One bill codified Roe into law, and the other protected the right to interstate travel to seek an abortion. And the bills, though, are not expected to pass the evenly split Senate.
[21:30:03]
But despite all of the legislative roadblocks, Democrats are trying, and the key word here is trying, to find ways to do something to protect the fundamental rights that are under threat. And also put Republicans on record opposing them.
In response to the concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote last month calling into question the right to same sex marriage. Congress voted today to codify the right to same sex marriage, and interracial marriage with the respect for marriage at. The bill passed with bipartisan support, 47 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting yes.
And despite that broad support and the very clear language in Justice Thomas`s concurring opinion, some Republicans, like Congressman Mike Johnston, and Jim Jordan, they actually called the bill unnecessary, and superfluous.
This is how Congressman David Cicilline, one of the co-sponsors of the marriage bill, responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): And to Mr. Jordan`s suggestion that this is not necessary, tell that to the millions of LGBTQ families that are worried about the Supreme Court`s intention to rip away more freedoms. They`ve taken away the freedom to reproductive care, they`ve hinted at takeaway contraceptive. Justice Thomas urgings look at marriage equality. This is real for families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: And there is more coming tomorrow. The House judiciary committee will mark off a bill that will ban assault weapons, for the first time since the federal assault weapons ban expired back in 2004. If that bill passes committee, it can go to the house floor.
So in this moment, with many items on the Democratic agenda, stymied in Congress, there are plenty of questions about what Dems can do and should do with the limited power they have to get things fast. And this week, we are seeing Democrats in Congress pushing to do something.
One of the leading Democrats involved in putting these bills on the floor and putting Republicans on the record, on these key issues, joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:36:42]
MOHYELDIN: So, tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will consider the first assault weapons ban put before Congress in decades. This bill would ban the sale, transfer, import and manufacturer — manufacture several models of several semiautomatic weapons.
And it has a real chance of actually making its way to the House floor.
Joining us now is the congressman who cosponsored that bill, Congressman David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island, who actually sits on the Judiciary Committee. He also chairs the congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus.
Congressman Cicilline, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
You are taking a step towards giving an assault weapons ban passed in the house for the first time in decades, that should be commended. Democrats in the House had been very busy passing other legislation to protect the rights of things like marriage, and abortion.
My question to you tonight sir, is which you say to people who might claim the legislative work for the Democrats are doing in the House is symbolically important, but is not enough considering the inability to actually pass the legislation in the Senate.
REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): Well, thank you for having me on tonight. Look, the house is going to continue to do its work. We have been very focused on a whole range of issues, by driving down the cost for working families, addressing the climate issues, addressing the surge of gun violence, making sure people have rights to marry, and to contraception. So, we have a lot of legislation which is pending in the Senate. And we are always challenged by the rules of the Senate that require ten Republican to join us in this work.
But the House Democrats will continue to do what we do, and that`s deliver for the American people, bring the priorities to the American people before the Congress, vote and pass excellent bills and get them to the Senate. We are responsible for our work. They are responsible for theirs.
And if the Senate were only going to pass things we know the Senate will pass, many of us feel like we should go home because we have so many great pieces of legislation that are languishing in the Senate. But we`re going to continue to respond to the urgent priorities of the American people, get our work done, pass the appropriations bills, but good infrastructure bills, gun safety bill, and we will expect the Senate to do the work as well.
MOHYELDIN: Yeah. No, that`s fair enough. I think that`s a very valid point, the division of labor between the House and Senate. But even if the Senate does not have the votes to pass the bills, that the House is passing, is it important? Do you think it is important to proceed and put the votes on the record?
CICILLINE: Oh, absolutely. Look, these votes matter because we are fighting to protect our constituents from gun violence. We are fighting to protect our constituents` ability to marry the people they love, to have access to full reproductive health care, including abortion services, access to contraceptives.
So, these are really important issues. And we are going to continue to focus on the important priorities of the American people, like to help build the economy, recovering from the devastation of the pandemic, defeat, ultimately the pandemic so people can resume their ordinary lives. We are doing a lot of things simultaneously.
All of them are important. And I think in some of the situation, it`s important for the American people to see who is fighting to protect their freedoms, who is fighting to take away those freedoms, who was fighting to preserve reproductive health care, who is against it. So, that in November, people will have a clear choice, and they`ll know where people stand.
[21:40:03]
We hope the Senate will take up all these bills, and passed them. It would make a real difference in the lives of American people. We don`t have control over that. So we`re going to keep doing the important work in the House, send it — gets to Senate, and give the American people an understanding that we`re fighting for them.
MOHYELDIN: Let me ask you if I can for a moment about the actual assault weapons ban. There have been — there has been, excuse me, some question about whether Democrats actually have enough votes in the full house to pass the assault weapons ban.
What is your understanding this evening? Do Democrats in fact have the votes in the full House?
CICILLINE: Well, look, we`re going to mark up the bill tomorrow, first time in almost 30 years we`ve taken up this assault weapons banned. These are weapons of war designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, to use in military combat. They don`t belong in the neighborhoods of our cities. The last four mass shootings included the legal purchase of assault rifle.
So, we know we had the assault wipe and then in effect, it was a 25 percent decline in gun massacres, a 40 percent decline in fatalities. We know the assault weapon ban works. And so, I am confident that after it passes at the Judiciary Committee, when it comes to the house, we will have the votes to pass it, and then we`ll send it to the Senate.
It`s going to make a real difference in the lives of the American people. We have a gun violence epidemic. This is the gun of choice for mass shooters. It`s particularly lethal because their military style weapons. And we have got to do something to stop the use of these weapons that are massacre and kids in schools, and people in grocery stores, and people at theaters, and places where people congregate.
MOHYELDIN: Rhode Island Democratic Congressman David Cicilline — sir, thank you so much for your time. I greatly appreciate it.
CICILLINE: My pleasure.
MOHYELDIN: Britain had its hottest day ever today. That story and what it means for us here in the U.S. is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:46:35]
MOHYELDIN: You see the light gray rectangle here that those construction guys are filling in? That is the spot on the tarmac at Luton airport in London that literally melted, and had to be repaired yesterday because of how hot it was. Today was actually even hotter.
This is footage of what the mayor of London called a huge surge in fires today as the U.K. had its hottest day ever recorded. This was the view out of the window of a passenger train traveling northwest from Madrid, Spain, yesterday. You can see the fire caused by Europe`s intense heat wave. It is on both sides of the trucks as the train passed through.
Much of Western Europe has been literally scorched for a week now with record breaking temperatures. And tens of thousands have been forced to evacuate their homes.
And terrifyingly, this is part of a larger global extreme heat phenomenon, baking essentially the entire globe in a way that might no longer be corrected or described as a wave. It is more like the new normal for summers.
And perhaps the most devastating part is the impact it is having on our health, our human health. The U.K. meteorological office, for the first time ever, issued what is known as a red alert for exceptional heat this week, and that means even otherwise healthy people could be susceptible to illness and death from this heat. In Spain and Portugal alone, health officials have linked more than 1,700 deaths to the overwhelming heat, which makes it all the more notable that a country like France, which suffered the same heat wave, zero heat wave deaths have been reported.
After suffering thousands of deaths back in 2003, France has got really serious and protective about combating heat, parks and open 24/7, misting fountains to cool down the public, the government productively checks in on the elderly and the vulnerable. They have public air conditioning, or cooling rooms, and an app that shows you where you could find one. Free access to swimming pools, which are open every day until 10:00 p.m.
Now, obviously, none of those solutions, alone, are a silver bullet to our climate crisis. Cities in the U.S. do a lot of those things here on their own. But, clearly, being proactive and using the power of the government helps to save lives, which is why this is so infuriating. During President Biden`s first week in office, he signed an executive order directing the establishment of an office of climate change and health equity, basically an office within health and human services to look at how climate change impacts human health, and to suggest ideas for mitigating that impact daily.
And the whole office was slated to cost the federal government a grand total of, wait for it, $3 million to run, which compared to the federal government overall spending, is basically like a normal person spending a penny, quite honestly. Yet, a year and a half after Biden`s executive order, Congress still, still to the state, despite everything that is happening, has not funded that office at all. Zero funding and zero permanent staff.
Today, we`ve got some conflicting reports about whether or not Biden may declare a national emergency on climate change. Maybe Biden will do that, maybe he won`t.
But here, in the U.S., today, more than 68 million people live in areas where there were dangerous levels of heat. With the climate crisis here, and Congress refusing to act, what can, what should President Biden do?
[21:50:08]
Joining us now is Leah Stokes, professor of political science and environmental science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an adviser to the climate activist groups Evergreen Action and Rewiring America. She`s also the host of the climate podcast, “A Matter of Degrees”.
Leah, thank you for joining us tonight. I will start looking ahead to tomorrow. President Biden is reportedly going to announce some sort of executive action on climate change. We don`t necessarily know what that will look like. If you are in his shoes, if you could advise him, what would you announce? What should he be doing?
LEAH STOKES, CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA- SANTA BARBARA: Well, look, when we say that Congress won`t act, that`s not exactly true. It`s Senator Manchin, one Democrat, as well as 50 other senators from the Republican Party who are refusing to act on climate change. That`s what we are talking about.
We have hundreds of representatives from the Democratic Party in the house willing to act, and 49 senators from Democratic Party in the Senate willing to act. So, that is the situation we find ourselves in. President Biden needs to use the full force of his executive authority. There is one thing I think he really should do, which as he should block a permanent permit for a pipeline that runs through West Virginia, that Senator Manchin really wants to be approved. If he won`t do the right thing for the planet, and for his own grandchildren, he should not get that permit for that pipeline.
MOHYELDIN: No, fair enough, and that`s a very good way to look at it. I mean, you bring up Senator Joe Manchin. He has yet gotten Democratic efforts to pass meaningful climate legislation in Congress. This is, maybe, I think, the fourth or fifth time he has pulled the Lucy from Charlie Brown and the pull the football back just before Democrats could kick it.
Can you help us understand why prolonging this negotiation is a problem in and of itself?
STOKES: Absolutely. You know, Senator Manchin has not been negotiating in good faith. He keeps saying he wants to do something on climate change, yet it never materializes. What Senator Schumer did, the majority leader, is that he gave, him last week, every single thing that Senator Manchin wanted. And, yet, Manchin still walked away.
So, finally, Senator Schumer called his bluff, saying you`re not serious about doing this on climate change. That is why President Biden has been so delayed in terms of moving forward on the executive actions that we desperately need for him to be doing on climate change. We have a president who cares a lot about this issue, and I think we are going to see him acting in the coming days and weeks.
MOHYELDIN: You ended an op-ed bid in “The New York Times” this week by saying the climate crisis is getting worse and Congress is one vote short of saving us. We`re going to have to save ourselves.
What do you mean by that? What do you mean by we have to save ourselves?
STOKES: Well, I think it is two things. First of all, in our daily lives, we should all be looking at the things we own that run on fossil fuels — our cars, our stoves, our furnaces, and asking ourselves how can we get off fossil fuels? Can we get an electric vehicle, or an electric bike? Can we get an inductions stove, or a heat pump?
There are things each of us can be doing to try to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Thanks a lot of sense because it`s a lot cheaper when you`re not dealing with all the inflation, that is happening around fossil fuels.
The second thing is we also need to be working as a community to keep ourselves cool. There is 100 million Americans today who are under extreme heat, and there are 60 million Americans who are under an extreme drought, the worst in a millennium. So, all of us need to be pushing our politicians at the state level, local level, and still keeping on when it comes to President Biden and Congress, that, you know what? We must act on climate change.
MOHYELDIN: Leah Stokes, professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an adviser to the climate activist group, Evergreen Action — thank you so much for your time, and your warnings tonight. I really appreciate your insights.
STOKES: Thanks for having me.
MOHYELDIN: One of concerted media`s biggest stories last week turned out to be blatantly provably wrong, if not outright false. And now, it is looking like at least one conservative who is pushing that big story could face consequences. We`ll tell you about that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:58:21]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD ROKITA (R), INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report. So, we are gathering the information. We`re gathering the evidence as we speak. We are going to fight this to the end, including looking at her licensure, if she failed to report in Indiana, it`s a crime for — to not report, intentionally not report.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: That was Indiana`s Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita, threatening to criminally charge the Indianapolis doctor performed an abortion on a ten year old girl who traveled across state lines to end a pregnancy that was the result of a rape. Now, for the record, abortion is currently illegal in Indiana. Let`s be clear about. It is one of the few red states where a person who is up to 22 weeks pregnant can seek an abortion.
The abortion performed by Dr. Caitlin Bernard for that little girl was totally legal. The crime here, Attorney General Rokita alleges, that Dr. Bernard may have failed to fire all the necessary paperwork. News outlets obtained records showing Dr. Bernard did indeed report the abortion to the necessary agencies, and despite this, rookie does upside still has a statement pushing his baseless claims.
So, today, Dr. Bernard took the first step towards potentially suing the Indiana attorney general for defamation. A notice filed by Dr. Bernard`s lawyer claimed that Mr. Rokita knew the statements were either false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth, or falsity of the statements.
Dr. Bernard`s lawyer adds: Given the current political atmosphere in the United States, Mr. Rokita`s comments were intended to heighten the public condemnation of Dr. Bernard who legally provided legitimate medical care.
Today, Rokita now has 90 days to investigator or settle claims made against Dr. Bernard. If he fails to do so, he could face a defamation lawsuit and potentially have to pay Dr. Bernard for security costs, legal fees, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Ninety days. Tick-tock, tick- tock.
That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow.
Now, it`s time for “THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL”.
Hey, Lawrence. Good evening.