stigmatizing of asians. that's it for me. let's head over to chris cuomo and prime time. >> thank you, coop. appreciate it. a provertebrae that is said to come from italy. but we all know it. here it is. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. we all had it cemented in our minds as right when a certain president reminded us by getting it wrong. >> fool me once, shame on you. fool me -- you can't get fooled again. >> look, now we all know the proverb. in fact, that former president, george w. bush, is one of the few republicans left who get the reality that his party is in a position of doubling down on a bad thing, a toxic tailspin.

and it is time for all of us, especially the democrats, to realize that they are about to get bitten by the minority party again, and they need to figure out what to do about it. i want you to remember 2010, then senate minority leader mitch mcconnell made it clear what his mission was as it pertained to president obama. >> our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny president obama a second term. >> and he meant it. people didn't believe it. they thought it was just talk. today, he said it again. what is his mission with respect to president biden? >> 100% of our focus is on stopping this new administration. >> this is why i say, don't pet

the snake. you know who knows all of this and yet seems like he is willing to pet the python again? the man who was obama's vice president for all of that, president biden. listen. >> he said that the last administration, barack, he was going to stop everything. and i was able to get a lot done with him. >> was he? i mean, the president may be right on some essentials, but on the big-ticket items that this president biden now wants, let's remind, mcconnell killed obama's jobs plan. never happened. obama's infrastructure plan, never happened. no to comprehensive immigration reform. universal background checks, never happened. even with aurora, sandy hook, charleston, the pulse nightclub tr

tragedy. he never held a hearing for merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court and refused to fill more than 100 other judgeships. he then flipped the rule when they had power back. we know what happened with the supreme court. and we know what's happened with the judgeships. biden should get this, because he gets what the impetus for all this object stinance is. the party is all in on opposing biden, as a way to show loyalty to trump. the president knows it. listen. >> they're in the midof significant sort of mini revolution. i don't ever remember any like this. we badly need a republican party. we need a two-party system. it's not healthy to have a one-party system. and i think the republicans are further away from trying to figure out who they are and what they stand there than i thought they would be at this point.

>> first, not only is he right that you need two parties, but i think it's time for a real conversation about whether you should have three, four or five legitimate parties and have more stake holders in our representative base of government. but that's not right now. right now we're in a crisis. biden is right, which is why he and the democrats need to figure out how to get things done and fast or they will be fooled again. instead of moving toward compromise, the gop, republicans, whatever you want to call them, they're becoming more intent. the politics of lie, defy and deny. you know what we're all watching right now. latest illustration. liz cheney, number three in the house, now getting ousted. why? refusing to advance the big lie about the election. that's all. that's all it's taking. the current number three, she just put out a response tonight in this effort to stop the party from purging her from

leadership. we're at a turning point. we need to remember our values. we need to remember our principles. it's going to fall on deaf ears. why? because this is all about being square with trump and what he wants. now on the outside, the same retrumplicans who are trying to silence chaeney are crying thei silence is by big tech they attack but then play the victim. they're crying about facebook, at the oversight board ruled to keep on banning trump over the big lie and inciting a violent insurrection. with the caveat that a permanent decision needs to be made within six months. we're going to get into it, and deeply tonight. why? is being online, in this platform, facebook or any of them, is it a right or a privilege? is it your rules or theirs? we'll take that on. and we have a key player. >> first thing first.

we have the main democrat to talk to, to discuss about the gop double down on blocking a democrat president. senator joe manchin, democrat from west virginia. good to see you, senator. they won't know it by your name, but should know you by your good looks and heritage. you have italian blood in you. you know this proverb. do you think your party is being set up to be fooled again by mitch mcconnell? >> i don't think so. i really don't. first of all, chris, it's always good to be with you. next of all, i don't. i'll give you a few examples. the hate crimes bill we just passed two weeks ago 94-1. i don't think there was a democrat in congress or a senator in congress, especially in the senate, that thought that would pass 94-1. we had an amendment process on the floor. i commend chuck schumer for allowing the amendments to be on the floor. republicans put their amendments up. they fell on those amendments. we voted on the bill in its entirety and it passed.

i'll take you back to 2013 or 2015, i think. no, no, i'm sorry, 2017. john mccain at that time. they were trying to get under president trump trying to do away with the affordable care act. they voted that down. didn't do it. i have confidence and faith it will come together. i have faith that democracy will survive. it can only survive as if there is a two-party system, at least a two-party system but also a senate that has minority input. i'll remind you again, every year since donald trump was president, every year he tried to pressure my republican colleagues to get rid of the filibuster so they could pass overreaching, overwhelming bills that would not be good for our country. i didn't think so. they pushed back on that. we're talking to a group of them right now. we're continuing to have good dialogue. whatever mitch mcconnell -- senator mcconnell, i'm sorry, from kentucky said, as i just heard -- i don't know what his reasoning is for that, but i can

assure you, there are republicans working with democrats to want to make something happen. >> but will they vote? just for some context that you laid out in the history, mccain was the one vote that stood between trump getting what he wanted and not. >> yeah. >> there was one soul of conscience. and i take your -- i don't see that as work ing together. but i do agree with you about process. i think it's the right thing to do to put it in the committee. have the amendments. see the markup. >> right. >> then you allow good faith of process. that is minority involvement, as envisioned by the founding fathers with respect to the senate. the filibuster was not. you know your history. that comes out of jim crow. and even though the great senator from your state was one of the authors of how to use it, it was not from the founding fathers, it is not in the document and arguably has not been used to make anything great happen in this country. >> i think my argument to you on this, for the sake of discussion, the senate was designed to be different, i

think you'll agree on that. >> yes. >> robert steve bird used to explain to me -- when i was governor, he was a great mentor, great friend. i said i don't know much about the senate. explain why the senate is so different. he said joe, the best way for me to explain it is why does every state -- can you imagine little state of rhode island, little state of delaware, having the same representation in the great body of the senate as california or new york, all these larger, much large r states, in land mas and population. there's a reason for that. how these rules have evolved, the intent why they would have done -- jim crow isn't acceptable. it wasn't acceptable then, is not acceptable now at all. i think we have to have a process but also you have to have a minority. if not what we have is basically chaos. what goes around comes around here. i've been a minority. it's not fun in the minority, i can assure you. on the other hand, we had some

opportunity to stop some things that basically we didn't think would be good for america. >> i hear you about that. and i do think you're right that, look, in all due respect to your party, i don't think you play power politics as well as the other side. i think if you were to get rid of the filibuster, mcconnell would use it against you guys when he gets back in power, and it's only a matter of time, in a way you never thought of using it. >> he can use it already. he can use it. >> senator, you have infrastructure, needs for families. you have a lot of gross did he have sits that you're dealing with. there's a chance that you get none of it passed. forget about background checks or anything like that. >> chris, look what we've done. $1.9 trillion. all in a bipartisan way. this year we didn't do it bipartisan way but we did it. >> right. >> it needed done with the pandemic we had. $1.9 trillion. >> you didn't do it bipartisan. >> no. we had a process of bipartisanship, to a certain

extent. >> there were no votes. >> i wish there would have been more. there wasn't. well, we never -- we didn't try. we had some votes as far as -- >> but they went through the reconciliation process, senator, as you know. you went through reconciliation, because they weren't going to work with you on it. mcconnell had it locked down. >> but then basically we did the hate crimes bill and went through a process and had amendments on the floor. let the bills go through. let's look at this infrastructure bill, truly on traditional infrastructure, and one on human infrastructure. and basically look at the pay fors. >> none of the republicans will vote at the end of it. would you reconsider how to get it done? >> they'll vote. well, then you basically have to look at what package we put forth that was reasonable, that basically everybody had input and even if we made adjustments with amendments, and at the end of the day they don't vote for it, then we'll have another discussion then. >> you're open to another discussion if they show bad faith after you give them due process? >> you're talking about reconciliation.

you're talking about starting out with reconciliation. >> no, i'm not. >> where there's very little input. >> i've argued your point consistently. i think you're making a mistake by forcing the process and allowing them to claim high ground, they won't let us look at these bills and have no input. i think you should have the amendment. >> we have -- we agree on that. joe biden has got more done in 100 days. >> not with them. >> than any president in my time i can remember. >> not with them. >> basically he has got more done. he put a plan out there and got it done. >> not with them. >> he got more done. >> in and out with them. not with them. >> but you heard joe biden, he wants it to work. it will work. >> they don't want it to work. >> have some faith. >> he just told you i'm stopping the administration. >> you don't know. >> he just said it. >> that was one person. >> he's the head. >> that's one person. >> he's the leader. >> he doesn't -- he's not controlling all of that, i can assure you. we would not be having discussions. there wouldn't be an offer on the table of 5 or $600 billion

of infrastructure at a starting point, which i think is a good starting point. let's look at what we've done. we have to hold ours accountable and responsible. let's look that the numbers we're putting out there -- >> i have no problem with you being fiscally responsible about it. i've heard you talk to me about senator byrd, how the senate was set up to have a minority be part of the power play. and i understand that. however, i don't know that they envisioned where you are in the senate today, where you guys are 50/50, but 50 on the right are representing about 20% of the country. it's so skewed. and that 20% has such extreme views that that's why you have this party in disarray the way it is. you have 70% of the republican party saying trump won. that biden didn't win. you really think that that's the kind of setup they'll work with you? >> well, that's a horrible situation. and basically the extremes on both sides. there's people on both sides

saying we have 20% on each side or 30% on each side that's extreme. that being said, you have to find the middle. the middle has been eroded. we're trying to bring it back to where there's compromise, you can set and talk, give and take and come up with a piece of legislation. joe bidennds the senate better than anybodiment i've got confidence and faith that he understands it, and he'll help us make it work. he has given us some openings now. try to make it work. have some votes. if you don't like it, vote it down. at least give it the process. >> i have no problem with the process. there's going to be bad faith. i don't think it should be a force of reconciliation. i never suggested that. i look forward to seeing the process play out and get your views as it moves. appreciate you, senator. >> chris, we're always going to be -- >> bless and be well. >> thank you, my friend. joy being with you. >> always. my pleasure.

>> another way to look at why we have the tension within the right that we have right now. this big lie thing is toxic. it is a poison. and it stems from this president's pattern of perfectity. that perfect call with ukraine's president, that's what got him impeached the first time. that's what birthed, remember, the rigged election stuff. remember, that's what it was about, there's fraud and it's coming through, and rudy's running around. now we're going to get closer to the truth. rudy giuliani made a key call before the perfect call that trump made to the president of ukraine. and it left a top adviser to president zelensky in, quote, a state of shock. why? that ukrainian adviser is here tonight to tell us what rudy was ask

asking for and, more importantly, what, if anything, he was offering in exchange. i'm sure the fbi is listening. so should you, next. when traders tell us how to make thinkorswim even better, we listen. like jack. he wanted a streamlined version he could access anywhere, no download necessary. and kim. she wanted to execute a pre-set trade strategy in seconds. so we gave 'em thinkorswim web. because platforms this innovative,

aren't just made for traders—they're made by them. thinkorswim trading. from td ameritrade. priceline works with top hotels, to save you up to 60%. these are all great. and when you get a big deal... you feel like a big deal. ♪ priceline. every trip is a big deal.

in the romo household we take things to the max oh yeah! honey, you still in bed? yep! bye! that's why we love skechers max cushioning footwear. they've maxed out the cushion for extreme comfort. it's like walking on clouds! big, comfy ones! oh yeah! hooh. that spin class was brutal. well you can try using the buick's massaging seat. oohh yeah, that's nice. can i use apple carplay to put some music on? sure, it's wireless. pick something we all like. ok. hold on. what's your buick's wi-fi password? “buickenvision2021.” oh, you should pick something stronger. that's really predictable. that's a really tight spot. don't worry. i used to hate parallel parking. [all together] me too.

- hey. - you really outdid yourself. yes, we did. the all-new buick envision. an suv built around you... ♪ limu emu & doug ♪ hey limu! [ squawks ]t around you... how great is it that we get to tell everybody how liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need? i mean it... oh, sorry... [ laughter ] woops! [ laughter ] good evening! meow! nope. oh... what? i'm an emu! ah ha ha. no, buddy! buddy, it's a filter! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

will rudy giuliani and maybe, by extension, former president bush face legal consequences for their political actions? what did i say? former president trump, not bush. i have him on my mind for the proverb. i shouldn't be fooled twice either. rudy giuliani's friends are pushing donald trump to pay the former mayor for his work on the big lie. why? well, one, giuliani is looking at a growing pile of legal bills, and it is really true that trump is not necessarily great when it comes to paying bills, but also this all started with what giuliani told you himself he was doing on this

show. listen. >> i was investigating, going back to last year, complaints that the ukrainian people, several people in ukraine, they were trying to get to us, but they were being blocked by the ambassador, who was an obama-appointee in ukraine, who was holding back this information. >> now, he's talking about yovanovich. there's two things for you to remember. one, there was never any shame in the rudy/trump game. they were always open. trump lied about it a little bit in the beginning, but eventually owned that rudy was there for him. and rudy always said -- rudy giuliani, i was there to get them to do things, to find out what they had on biden. remember that. now the only reason that the fbi gets permission to search giuliani's apartment is to see who he was working with in

ukraine. my next guest is uniquely situated to help answer those questions, because he was on the phone when giuliani tried to push his conspiracies to and on the ukrainians. igor novikov is now former adviser to ukraine president zelensky and joins us now. igor, thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me, chris. hi. >> so, is it accurate that rudy giuliani was initiating the requests and feeding ukraine's president and others in authority in ukraine what he wanted to be true about then former vp biden and his son? >> well, first of all, the transcript is out there. so, i mean, we can actually assess rudy jegiuliani's intentions in his own words. that's issue number one. issue number two, yeah, we obviously got the sense that he

was pressing hard to get not only those investigations started, but to make a public statement. i kind of -- to me it felt more about public statements than investigations. i felt like he had something already, whether it was russian disinformation or whatever, and he wanted ukrainian officials to va validate that. plus he threatened national security in many other peculiar ways. i think "time" magazine will be running a story next week about his involvement. >> right. >> with a major defense contractor and alccquisition of it, and it was actually lobbied on behalf of some american investors, who has been designated as a russian asset. >> by u.s. intelligence, something that rudy giuliani knew. >> yeah. >> let's do this step by step. >> sure. >> one, rudy comes to you and says i would like it if ukraine's president or the government puts out certain statements about biden. that's what you just said. you also said that he made

certain threats about your national security. was there a quid and a quo here? was he asking for something? and was he offering something? >> well, if we're talking about the conversation that happened on july 22nd, i would say that was an attempted quid pro quo. basically he was asking for investigations and public statements, and many other things, and in return towards the end of the conversation, he mentions that that would make it possible for him to go and speak with president trump to solve the problem that he admits to kind of putting in president trump's head. so, i mean, that very much was the gist of the conversation. and to kind of assess the level to which he threatened the national security, let me remind you, we're a country fighting an active war with russia, for many years. so, anything to do with swapping, you know, favors

within our bilateral relationship in exchange for trying to get us involved in u.s. domestic politics is just wrong on many levels, morally, ethically and probably even legally. that is what happened. >> so as far as you know, ukraine's president and none of the people in power in the government went to rudy and said, we have truth about the bid bidens that needs to come out? >> definitely no one from the zelensky administration. at least initially. i mean, we had some people -- obviously, rudy was tempting a lot of people. i am familiar with a few cases where people got tempted and tried to flirt with him. but i would say initial ly, no, nobody from zelensky's administration approached him with that information. >> now the big political play for rudy, vis-a-vis ukraine, involved ambassador yovanovich. as he said to me on national, world television, he didn't like she was in the way and she was

an obama-appointee, et cetera, et cetera. what was your experience with ambassador yovanovich, and was she somebody that ukraine wanted removed? >> i didn't have the pleasure of meeting her. i joined the team after she left, unfortunately. but what i heard from people who worked with her and knew her, it was a definite loss for ukraine and for bilateral relationship. and there's more to this story, because i've had a couple of conversations with people from the president's inner circle. and there was a lot of negativity toward ambassador yovanovich. when we dug deeper, turned out there was no basis for that negativity. so it was a question of who was feeding that. there are many mysteries left unsolved in this story. >> who do you think was feeding giuliani information other than

derosh, who u.s. intelligence authorities believe say russian agent? >> initially lev parnas and igor fruman. to my factual knowledge, they approached numerous people of zelensky's inner circle, aide to president zelensky and chief of staff in madrid, the infamous meeting. unfortunately, i was supposed to go to that meeting but as it happens, i didn't. initially, we had this game plan that when it comes to rudy giuliani, there will always be two people present so we had a witness. madrid it turned out just the other way. once parnas and fruman got indicted, we had substitutes join the playing field. we had andre derkosh and obviously a deputy called mr.

dubinski as well. he wasn't playing as much of an active role, to my knowledge. >> you mentioned earlier mr. jugiuliani's potential involvemt in a defense contracting firm. "time" magazine, a lot of people are reporting on it. in terms of what you know, have heard or believe is credible as a suggestion, the idea that giuliani may have been engaged in undisclosed, foreign lobbying, either for officials in ukraine or business interests in ukraine at the same time that he was seeking the ouster of the u.s. ambassador, yovanovich, do you believe those are questions worth pursuing? do you have any reason to believe that? >> well, i definitely think they're worth pursuing. i wouldn't go as far as to evaluate them. i don't have, you know, enough legal background for the legal profession to assess it. but definitely that episode needs to be pursued further. as are a couple of other

episodes. so the defense contract acquisition needs to be looked at. the infamous derosh tapes need to be looked at. that was a definite attempt to get ukraine once again, another attempt to get us involved in u.s. domestic politics. and thank god we contain ed tha threat as well. >> are you open to working with the united states department of justice? >> i said it publicly. as long as i can do it within my legal limits as a ukrainian citizen and as long as it's nonpartisan, nonpolitical. it's a criminal investigation of something that i believe threatened our national security, threatened, you know, the security of our relationship, and i think to a degree, security in europe in general, given russia's aggressive moves towards ukraine and towards other countries, i would say yes, i definitely would. >> igor, one last question

quickly. why now? why are you speaking out now? >> well, i mean, people ask me that question many times. let me give you this answer. i'm a former adviser, so i can speak truthfully, honestly and without, you know, any correction for my political views. i'll tell you this. put yourself in our shoes. what happened to us on that phone call, on the perfect phone call after that, with all the pressure that we experienced, i mean, we did nothing to displease, you know, mr. giuliani. and that still happened to us. could you imagine what would have happened to my country if we pushed back? >> understood. >> before the election was over? >> understood. i don't like it, but i understand it. from your perspective, i understand it. mr. novikov, thank you so much coming on the show tonight and good luck going forward. now that is a big reason why the federal government is investigating rudy giuliani.

that perspective what he was doing there does not square with what he wanted us to believe and what former president trump wanted us to believe. what will they be able to prove? we'll see. now, on another level of controversy, trump is no longer on facebook for at least another six months. that's what their board decided. is that the right choice? let's bring in a congressman who is in the sent of this controversy, congressman rho khanna, his district located in the heart of silicon valley. was this the right move and what's the next move? next. is is how you become the best! ♪“you're the best” by joe esposito♪ ♪ [triumphantly yells] [ding] don't get mad. get e*trade.

we've got 'em on the ropes. the billionaires buying elections. the corporate special interests poisoning campaigns with dark money, frantic to preserve big-money politics as usual. because the for the people act is on the verge of becoming law. reining in corporate lobbyists, finally banning dark money, and protecting our freedom to vote. billionaires and special interests, your day is nearly done. because it's time for the people to win.

rely on the experts at 1800petmeds for the same medications as the vet, but for less with fast free shipping. visit petmeds.com today. you know the headline by now. former president trump is still banned from facebook for at least six more months. so, trump and co, many on the right are calling big tech tyranny, free speech, free speech. first, look at the most popular sites and posts on facebook, okay? when it comes to politics, most of the top ones that get the most wattage are all from the right. i don't know what they're complaining about. also i don't know what they're complaining about legally. the first amendment doesn't say nobody can tell you what to say ever anywhere. it's about the government, right? you've read it. the government may make no law restricting your speech.

but this is a business. so is this okay? is it okay even with an official, let alone a president? or is facebook and the other social media platforms different than other businesses? this is a long conversation, but let's stick to the specific instance right now. democratic congressman ro khanna, whose district is right in the heart of silicon valley, you believe this was the right call for facebook. let talk about why. do you believe they're just like any other business and they are entitled to judge service as a privilege and as long as it's not a protected class that they're excluding, they can say no shirts, no shoes, no service? >> chris, yes. as long as they're being consistent about it and, as you pointed out, the top sites of facebook are all conservative sites, ben shapiro, sean hannity, fox news. they're make ing a judgment tha they don't want speech that's going to incite violence that led to the death of a police

officer. i think that's perfectly appropriate. >> people will say they're a publisher. i don't get it. i don't see it legally. cnn, "time" magazine, these are publishers in terms of how the law sees them, because they control the content. this place, they just basically own the building, facebook, right, metaphorically. they don't know who is saying what. they won't be able to check it in real time. what do you think is the right fix to balance people's interests and what they're exposed to and the interest to run a business? >> you need more competition. you should have not just facebook where you have zuckerberg and one board making a decision. you should have multiple media sites. the merger of whatsapp and instagram, i thought, was unfortunate. you tell someone ro khanna is a horrible guest, and i don't want him on the show again, i don't have any first amendment right. ultimately, it's your decision and it's ultimately facebook's decision. we just don't want them to be a

monopoly. >> because you want people to have alternatives. as it stands without legislation, it is a privilege to be on there, it's not a right, even if you're a president? even if you're a congressman, that they can prescribe what you're saying? are you okay with that? >> actually, if you're a president or congressman, you have a lot of other venues and avenues. the bigger risk is if you're an ordinary citizen. i think that's why they said we have to be very careful before permanent deplatforming and i thought that was judicious, because you don't want a situation where many people are deplatformed for life. they have the right to make these determinations as long as they're being consistent. >> what do you think happens next? do you think any chance there will be a move to legislation what can and can't be done there? >> i do. we have to be very careful in reforming section 230. here is what i think we can do. if a court finds there is speech that is inciting violence, that's actually going to lead to a threat that's actionable, then i think the court should be able to order these social media

sites to take it down. that's not the current law. >> ro khanna, thank you very much. there's more conversation to be had. you're always welcome here to make the case. and thank you. >> thank you, chris. >> be well. many on the right are arguing something else when it comes to what's real and what isn't. there is no systemic racism in america. there are far too many who don't understand what racism is, and one of them, i think, is a lawmaker from tennessee. our job is to expose and oppose injustice. that will happen here next.

is your family ready for an emergency? you can prepare by mapping out two ways to escape your home, creating a supply kit, and including your whole family in practice drills. for help creating an emergency plan, visit safetyactioncenter.pge.com a little preparation will make you and your family safer in an emergency. a week's worth of food and water, radio, flashlight, batteries and first aid kit are a good start

to learn more, visit safetyactioncenter.pge.com i hope you get why i harp on the big lie as much as we do on the show here. i know it's easy to show that it is a big lie. many different waysment but it's because the big lie is an and, it's not an end in itself. this isn't just about warping reality with the election. it's about warping reality, period. they get you on that, then it's easier to get you on the next thing, rewriting history. why do i say this? such an ugly suggestion. it's happening. tennessee state representative justin laugherty, he suggested

the infamous, and it is infamous, not famous, three-fifths compromise was actually a good thing. >> three-fifths compromise was a direct effort to ensure that southern states never got the population necessary to continue the practice of slavery everywhere else in the country. by limiting the number of population in the count, they specifically limited the number of representatives that would be available in the slave-holding states and they did it for the purpose of ending slavery. >> that would be true if three-fifths applied to all men. then it would have been a move to put in a formula to reduce participation and value of the same and then he would be right. but that's not what they did. they only did it for black men.

the worst part, he walked off the house floor unchallenged and to applause. now this is not the first time we've heard this from the right. glenn beck, 2010, to another lawmaker just two weeks ago in colorado. >> the three-fifths compromise, of course, was an effort by nonslave states to try to reduce the amount of representation that the slave states had. it was not impugning anybody's humanity. >> what does it do to tell somebody they are three-fifths of a person? and not every person, only black persons. come on. article one, section two of the constitution said enslaved people were three-fifths of all other persons. do you know why? because it was about keeping them unequal. just think about how high that

is in the constitution, article one, section two. it was in the second part, above your rights, above the amendments, free speech, freedom of religion. those are all add-ons. it wasn't about ending slavery. historians say it did the opposite. it sanctioned, it sanctioned it at a new level, a national level. what this comes down to is power, and they wanted black people to have less. the south only wanted enslaved blacks to count, to boost the number at a time only white land-owning men could vote. why? more representation in congress, more power. northern states didn't want the south to be too powerful and so they compromised. the result? america's original sin was put into its most sacred document, the constitution. why is it being brought up now? half a dozen are taking up measures that would ban or limit the teaching of systemic racism

in their curriculums. it is a literal attempt to whitewash history for the purposes of power. this is why you have in the vernacular history or his story, meaning the story of the white man that wants to whitewash what was done. on the back of an election that they lost because a lot of people came out who don't usually come out and a lot of them weren't white, and in the middle of a reckoning with race, this is their front, culture war. you're being lied to as white people. you're being made to feel shame that you shouldn't. lafferty's office didn't respond to cnn's calls for comment i would have him on tonight if they had. he said he was rolling off of memory here. let's take it to the better minds. how do you change minds in america?

how do you deal with this? what is the context? what is the move? good people, good minds, next. ♪ ♪ ♪ hey google, turn up the heat. ♪ ♪ ♪

i have an idea for a trade. oh yeah, you going to place it? not until i'm sure. why don't you call td ameritrade for a strategy gut check? what's that? you run it by an expert, you talk about the risk and potential profit and loss. could've used that before i hired my interior decorator. voila! maybe a couple throw pillows would help.

get a strategy gut check from our trade desk. ♪ limu emu... and doug. so then i said to him, you oughta customize your car insurance with liberty mutual, so you only pay for what you need.

oh um, doug can we talk about something other than work, it's the weekend. yeah, yeah. [ squawk ] hot dog or... chicken? [ squawk ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

the three fifths compromise is coming out of conservative faces again and there's a good thing why. let's bring in van jones and ashley allison in now to discuss. ashley allison, let me start with you about this. why now is what does it mean? >> it's unbelievable, disrespectful and unacceptable. you know, the three fifths compromise was one of the first times america said black lives didn't matter. it was an example that black lives did not have the same value, and the people who had power at that time as their white counter parts. and so it is connected. you know, laugherty who made these comments and other representatives who made these comments, they are connected to the big lie. it's a lie that the three fifths clause is what laugherty said it was. it's a lie it was an effort to end slavery. we know the three fifths clause actually gave southern slave

states more power and more representation exploiting black bodies but also connect today the voter suppression attacks we see in this country, the discrediting of the election trump is continuing to push. so i'm not surprised it's coming up now because it's all connected in an effort to whitewash history and continue to perpetuate the big lie. >> i make no joke, dan, about laugherty and laughable because this isn't funny. it's dangerous and it's being echoed. why do you think they want to get at it? >> first of all, let me just echo my colleague. it's literally ludicrous. and he said this was an attempt to end slavery. well, it took 90 years afterwards. so if that's what they were trying to do they were really bad at their job. worse than that, you know how bad the three fifths compromise was? go to the jefferson memorial and read in marble and stone his words. jefferson says i tremble for my

country when i reflect that god is just. and his reflection on the failure of this country as a slave owner to abolish slavery is that profound. he says he trembles for america. he thought, now, why should we feel better about the constitution than jefferson did when he was there to help write it? why is this party so interested in trying to polish this up? it's because they don't want to deal with the present. they don't want to deal with the fact that you have an african-american community that is mobilizing, that is voting, that is exercising our full humanity. and i'm a ninth generation american, by the way, and wants our family's history to be areflected in the history of the country. and that makes them uncomfortable in the present, so they go back and come up with ludicrous stuff. the founders themselves called it a compromise. they didn't say it was this great thing. when you're saying it was a compromise, that probably means it's not that awesome. that's where we are.

>> true. last word to you, ashley, in the context of this. it was a compromise for white people. >> exactly. >> it's easy to compromise when it's not you going to get sliced as a fraction of your own humanity. so what is the move now? how is this to be responded to? >> well, i think one of the most important things we have to do is call out lies and call out a whitewashing of history when we see it. you know, people sometimes criticize progressive or activists or protesters who want to demand justice and not wait and not let it linger but to address it head on. we have to do in our education system. i'm a former teacher, and when i was teaching my students even when conversations were challenging we have to be courageous and bold. the people who are pushing this are elected officials. they're supposed to be our leaders. and they're failing the children they're supposed to be leading this country for, failing their constituents and failing our country. so we have to address it head on.

we cannot turn a blind eye when we hear things like this being pushed. and i think one of the conversations being raised right now is addressing it through a critical race theory lens and being comfortable with saying racism was a part of this country's origin story and it still exists -- >> continues today. that's why we're here. thank you for exposing and opposing. ashley allison, good to have you. van jones, always a pleasure, brother. thank you. we'll be right back. this is our. our place. our people. watch the curb. not having a ride to get the vaccine. can't be the reason you don't get it. you wanna help? donate a ride today.

immigrants have done so much for america during this pandemic and throughout our history. we've delivered food to table, cared for the sick, and been on the front lines. america is our home. it's time to keep america's promise. congress needs to pass legislation this year to finally secure protection for dreamers, immigrants who are here on temporary protective status, as well as a pathway to citizen for farm workers that put food on our tables. congress should act now! i don't like veggies... what?! ♪ whatever you have at home, knorr sides can turn nutritious veggies into mouthwatering meals. ♪ veggies taste amazing with knorr.

first up is this french onion dip. i'm going to start the bidding at $5. thank you, sir. $6 over there! going once. going twice. sold! don't get mad get e*trade and get more than just trading investing. banking. guidance. ♪ ♪ look, if your wireless carrier was a guy you'd leave him tomorrow. not very flexible.

not great at saving. you deserve better... xfinity mobile. now they have unlimited for just $30 a month... $30. and they're number one in customer satisfaction. his number... delete it. i'm deleting it. so, break free from the big three. xfinity internet customers, take the savings challenge at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings. or visit and xfinity store to learn how our switch squad makes it easy to switch and save hundreds.

rely on the experts at 1800petmeds for the same medications as the vet, but for less with fast free shipping. visit petmeds.com today. time for the big show. "cnn tonight" and the big star, d. lemon. 41% of people polled believe that -- >> they don't like your hair? >> that the civil war happened for a reason other than slavery. >> oh, yeah. >> 41%. >> states rights. >> people believe what ended slavery was the emancipation proclamation not the 13th amendment. and in this cesspool of ignorance you hear lawmakers starting to say three fifth compromise, was a good