tv Meet the Press NBC October 11, 2021 2:00am-3:00am PDT
2:00 am
review". this sunday, democracy in crisis. >> it was very, very close to destroying our democracy. >> new details from senate democrats on how former president trump wanted to replace his attorney general so he could overturn the election results. >> he was really pushing the department of justice to bend to his political will. >> republicans are either staying silent or defending mr. trump's actions. >> the president did the right thing. if he had made another decision, you would have had a problem. >> i'll talk to one of the democrats on the senate judiciary committee, sheldon
2:01 am
whitehouse, of rhode island and former press secretary stephanie grisham on her time in the white house. plus facebook and. frances how long again tells congress the company won't make its company safer because profits come first. >> i'm here today because i believe facebook's products harm children, stoke division and week en our democracy. >> facebook pushes back. >> what you have here today is a former employee who didn't work on these issues, mischaracterizing documents she stole. >> i'll talk to facebook vice president nick clegg and crisis averted for now. >> i'm glad their brinksmanship didn't work. >> the senate agrees to raise the debt ceiling until december, but republicans rage against mitch mcconnell for letting it happen. >> we shot ourselves in the foot tonight. we'll revisit the issue. joining me for insight and
2:02 am
analysis, yamiche alcindor, moderator of "washington week," david french, the senior ed ter of the dispatch and former democratic congresswoman, donna edwards. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. from our nbc news bureau in los angeles. every day it seems we're learning how fraj i recall our democracy is. the senate judiciary committee released a report about how close we came to losing that democracy in the weeks after the election. the report provides new details on a january 3rd white house meeting where top justice department officials had to threaten resign en masse to stop president trump from taking further steps to overturn the election. we also learned that last week mr. trump told his former aides to not comply with subpoenas from congress regarding the
2:03 am
january 6th riot at the capitol, and a facebook whistle-blower told congress this week how the company returned to relaxed security measures right after the election, but before january 6th, even as mr. trump was lying about vote fraud, all because they wanted to keep up engagement and profits. so ask yourself this, is it alarmist to suggest our democracy is at risk, or are we really staring at the abyss? whatever side of the political divide you're on on that issue, getting beyond mr. trump's actions will give us clarity to how close we came to the sledding of our constitution and how close we could come again. >> i never conceded. >> donald trump in iowa last night doubling down on the lie' won the election after a week of playing down the januaryincited >> first of all, he didn't get re-elected. e we're not going to concede.
2:04 am
>> we're not going to take it anymore. i see a civil war coming. i do. >> on friday the white house blocked an attempt by trump attorneys to withhold documents. >> the president determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not warranted for the first set of documents from the trump white house. >> among the documents requested, trump's witter messages, his calendar, schedule, video, photos and call log. >> we want to know what was the president's involvement, what about people around him. >> former adviser steve bannon told the committee he won't comply with a request for records and testimony. former chief of staff mark meadows and cash patel are engaging and danika vino has finally received his company. >> the committee will probably to those who don't agree to come in voluntarily, we'll do criminal. >> this as a new senate report describes trump's extraordinary efforts in the days before the
2:05 am
insurrection to overturn the results of the election. >> we will win this. we already have. >> detailing at least nine times trump pressured justice department officials to overturn biden's legitimate victory including a meeting on january 3rd when trump threatened to replace active attorney general jeff rosen with a loyalist, jeffrey clark to carry out the scheme. >> we were a half step away from a full blown constitutional crisis. >> top leaders at the justice department warned they would resign en masse if he acted as dird white house counsel pat cipollone. a parade of former trump officials are recounting tum's obsession with overturning the election in anti attempted coup. >> he was heightened, and he was so about, this was stolen from us, this was stolen from us. >> we all watched it happening. because it didn't seem to be behind the scenes clandestined in any way, it became normalized. >> many republicans are still
2:06 am
defending him. >> the president did the right thing. if he had made another decision, you would have had a problem. >> around the can country trump allies are pushing laws that would allow republican legislators to easily overturn the vote if it doesn't go their way. >> i'm alarmed, most people are alarmed that we're still facing issues of election disinformation. >> this is about going after the integrity of the election system not only in idaho, but as a whole. >> this is without a doubt the biggest threat to our democracy in my lifetime. joining me is senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. he's a member of the senate judiciary committee which wrote this report on former president trump's efforts to overturn the election using the justice department as cover to do it. senator whitehouse, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks. good to be on with you. >> i want to start with -- i know you were limited in your investigation because you're the
2:07 am
judiciary committee and this was about the actions of the department of justice. so how complete of a picture do you think you have of what president trump did, and what more would you like to know? >> we have a very complete picture of the extent to which trump was personally involved in this. this is a question in which you can actually connect the president of the united states to the scheme. the second thing that we know is it focused very heavily on georgia. so that relates and feathers into the georgia prosecution that's under way -- i should say the investigation that's under way down in fulton county. those two things link up. what we don't know is who was really behind this. the text of the transcript and the body english of the witnesses suggests they had very little regard for this character jeffrey clark who was going to be the new attorney jen . they doubted his qualifications to even have that role.
2:08 am
so it's a possibility, i suppose, that he saw this moment and grabbed it. but it's an equally real possibility that he was a cog in a larger machine and we've got a lot of work to do to figure out how that machine ran through this period, who was behind it, where the money came from and what's been going on. >> do you think it's somebody other than donald trump? when i hear that, you're essentially saying you believe there's somebody else involved, somebody else was pulling the strings. who could that be besides donald trump? >> we don't know yet. but this guy jumped to a dark money enterprise, so he's been taken care of, jeffrey clark. there was a lot of activity around this with members of congress. there's just a lot left to be learned, and particularly as the old saw goes, follow the money. who was paying for this stuff, and how did it all work? >> the fact that these are former trump appointees that
2:09 am
have divulged what clearly, at least mr. rosen and some others, clearly divulging this because they are alarmed at the pressure campaign they were under. you have seen these folks behind closed doors. shouldn't the public see this? we have a credibility problem thanks to the former president. shouldn't the public see these folks under oath telling this story to the american public? >> yes, absolutely. it's really telling stuff, and when you consider that these were trump appointees, people willing to go right to the chalk line, and in my view even over it, when those folks saw this as outlandish and illegal and something that they'd call quit before they'd participate in, that shows how berserk this had gotten. and with that question, we then go on to the further question of, okay, how was this organized? was this really one little guy in the department of justice with a wild idea? i doubt it.
2:10 am
>> how about bill barr. he resigned. that resignation to me looks more and more compelling all the time, meaning what did he know, why did he resign when he did? are you going to get him under oath to tell his story? >> well, i'm not going to try to predict what the investigation is going to continue to do, but this was an interim report. we will continue looking at these questions. >> i was also looking at this, and i was thinking back to the impeachment proceedings, the second impeachment, and this goes to the decision in the moment to hurry up with the -- on one hand, there was a move to get the impeachment done before he left office. but when it was clear the trial wasn't going to take place until after, this would have been highly compelling testimony at the impeachment trial, senator. maybe it doesn't find 12 more convictions or not, but considering that the public and the senate didn't hear all of this stuff, in hindsight was
2:11 am
impeachment rushed? >> it's hard to say. obviously the longer you take the more evidence develops, but at the same time you want to react to an insult to the body politic such as we saw. so i don't want to second-guess what the house did, although i bet you jamie raskin would have loved to have had footage of what we saw in the senate judiciary committee. the january 6th commission out there still looking at this question. there's going to be i think a good public airing of it. >> in the report you talk about some potential fixes. it does seem as if some of these fixes, it's really limited. you know the law, know the constitution very well. separation of powers. do you really think congress can pass a law that would prevent this kind of communication between the justice department and the white house? >> you know, we're working on that. i've been working this issue for
2:12 am
a long time and the white house and the department of justice have for a long time had a rule between the two of them of who is allowed to talk to whom about various issues. it appears they broke those rules this time. it appears, frankly, that they break those rules in every republican administration, and then we have to patch it back together again. that's always been done by rule, memorandum between the white house counsel and the department of justice. there's nothing that would prevent congress from stepping in and putting reporting requirements on that so the public knows when those rules are being broken. it's hard for the department of justice to say, you can't enforce this rule, it's our rule, when all we want is disclose your. >> by the way, considering how much the idea that the justice department is biased gets weaponized in politics, tlarly on the right, do you think we should move to a system that appoints our attorneys general more like how we deal with the
2:13 am
fbi, the federal reserve, where it's five-year terms and you try to reate some sort of more distance between the justice department and political leaders? >> i think we'd have to watch out for unintended consequence there. i would say what we really need is to make sure that the senate is only confirming attorneys general who will be honest, who will stand up to the president when he tries to get them to cheat and who will do the job and follow the law properly. unfortunately, what barr sold himself as to us and how he behaved were two very, very different things. >> at the end of the report, there's some talk of criminal referrals. what would be criminal in this case? >> i don't want to get into criminal referrals. we're still at the interim level. i would point to the geographic fact of just so much of what took place at the department of justice being focused on
2:14 am
georgia, sending letters to the georgia legislature saying they could open up in special session and redo the election and send a separate slate. to the extent that interconnects with the da's investigations into trump's personal efforts to threaten officials in georgia on the same question i think is a very ripe area for georgia's investigation and we'll see what the department of justice wants to do with it. >> sheldon whitehouse, appreciate you coming on and sharing your intel and perspective. white house press secretary is one of the most high profile jobs in washington. you'd be forgiven if you had no idea what stephanie grisham looks like. that's because she's the former press secretary who never actually held a press conference. she has, however, written a book "i'll take your questions now," what i saw at the trump white house. it's a chatty account of her
2:15 am
time with team trump where she was also chief of staff to mel len yeah trump who responded this way. ms. grisham is a deceitful and troubled individual who doesn't deserve anyone's trust. with that, stephanie grisham joins me now. welcome to "meet the press." >> thank you for having me. appreciate it. >> i want to start with you explaining why viewers tonight, today, should trust what you say in response to my questions. you lay out in the book, you admit that you were -- many times in trump world you're asked to miss inform or perhaps lie on behalf of the boss. so you're doing a tell-all now. why should we believe you? >> i think that is a very, very fair question. i will let anybody who chooses to read the book decide for themselves. in short, i don't have anybody to answer for anymore. i had a lot of time to reflect. i moved far, far away from the
2:16 am
bubble of d.c. and had time to deprogram myself and i wanted to write it down. i thought if i'm going to write a book, i want to write something that is just honest and brutal and i don't spare myself in there either, and i hope that people will just take that for what it's worth. >> i'll start with some of the things. do you regret not resigning sooner? you waited until january 6th, after seeing everything you saw for four years. you wait until january 6th, some might argue the day everybody was wanting to run for the hills from team trump. why did you wait so long? >> right, right. again, fair question. i did for about the last six months i tried to resign a couple times, and mrs. trump talked me out of it. in fact, i had a resignation letter written out with very specific points in it that i was ready to hand over at any moment. january 6th, of course, was my breaking point, and i was really
2:17 am
proud that i was -- well, the first in the administration to resign. absolutely, to answer your question, i do regret it, and i did try for a while before. >> when do you believe -- do you believe president trump thinks he actually lost the election or not? >> i do think he believes it. that's been part of what has been scaring me as i've been watching from afar. at first i really thought he wouldn't run again. i honestly thought this was a lot of his bluster which he's good at doing. he's doubling down, will never admit to losing. i thought he was going to raise summon any to pay off legal bills, et cetera. but i think now because his base is reacting to him the way that it is and polls are showing that he is still very much the leader of the republican party and very, very few republicans are refusing to speak up about his role in january 6th, but also this current attack on democracy with regard to election
2:18 am
integrity, i think he is going to run again. that's why i'm speaking out the way i am. i don't want him to run again. i think people aren't remembering that, if he does run again in 2024, he'll have no guard rails, because he will never have to worry about re-election. so he will do whatever he wants, he eel hire whomever he wants. i think that includes people of the january 6th mind. i think earlier your guest was talking about the doj and be it weaponizing. imagine who he could put in the doj in 2024 knowing he's got no consequences there. >> you heard senator whitehouse saying -- do you have an idea of who was helping sort of fund and back these crazy claims of the president and his former chief of staff, mark meadows? >> well, certainly i know, as does the public, that there was rudy giuliani and sidney powell and some of those characters. i do know that there were a lot of private meetings in the residence taking place that were
2:19 am
perhaps not taking place in the white house where there would be public documents about that. so hopefully the january 6th -- somebody who look into that, whoever the appropriate entity i don't think it was one person. i think there were probably a few. >> so, walk me through election night and the day after. there seems to be some evidence that he was accepting what was happening with the results and then something changed. can you pinpoint it? >> i can't. i was with mrs. trump most of the night, to be honest with you. when i walked past to go to her room, he was surrounded at that point by a lot of people from the campaign and by his family, et cetera. and he was just angry and wanting somebody to call fox about calling arizona. when they went down to take the stage, i remember specifically there was still kind of a debate on what he should say when he took the stage. it was kind of decided he should say we'll see what happens,
2:20 am
which obviously he did not say that when he took the stage. i think he just refused to give up. it's donald trump, right? he will never admit to being wrong or to losing anything. now he's doubling and tripling down because he's got so many people supporting that theory. i think one thing he's gotten really good at or he did get really good at as president is taking advantage of the base and this group of people who are so desperate for a voice, which i understand and support, but i think they're being taken advantage of now. i think he knows they'll do whatever he says. >> did you get taken advantage of by him? it was interesting to me that you sort of admit that you got into that white house, perhaps you wouldn't have gotten there with another campaign. did he take advantage of you? >> i think -- i don't want to pin that on him. i definitely got very excited to be around this glamorous world of the trumps.
2:21 am
certainly when i got into the white house, you do get heady with power. i don't know that he took advantage of me in that regard. i think that was my own weakness there. i wish i would have been a bit stronger. >> i've heard from several former trump staffer, some of whom share your concerns about him, but say every decision you made was always in the best interest of yourself, whether it was to stick in order to get a good job in the white house or now to do a tell-all when you need to make money. what do you say to that criticism? >> well, two things. if there are people who are sharing my same concerns, i wish they would speak up, because right now looking back i don't think is what's as important in terms of personalities and who did what, why. i would disagree with that wholeheartedly. when i was in the white house, i lost a lot of friends and a lot of family and i think i lost a little bit of my own moral to
2:22 am
write a book, but you cannot put a price tag on what is happening to me now. the right is mad at me. the left is mad at me. my family is getting threats. i'm being smeared. i'm being sued. i knew all that would happen. when i wrote this book, i knew this was going to be a very, very tough battle. so, yes, i got paid, but there is no price tag for what's going on. i just find it to be very, very important for the country looking forward. >> you said one of the reasons you're speaking out is you hope he doesn't run in 2024. if he does, do you plan to actively work against him? >> if i'm asked to. if there's anybody who wants me to speak out or talk, yes, i will. i had a very unique perspective in that i worked for the former president, i worked for mrs. trump and i worked for both of them at the same time. i know the way they think. i know the way they try to distract f. there's any way i can be helpful to try to decipher some of those movements and what's going on, i would do
2:23 am
that, yes. >> do you think if he's elected again, he'll destroy the democracy? >> i think it will be a very terrifying time. he's on a revenge tour now, right, with the people who voted to impeach him. it will be nothing but revenge, retribution and how he can benefit himself. there will be pardons happening, i think there will be very draconian policies that go way too far. i believe if he's re-elected again, it will be a really really scary time. >> stephanie grisham, the one-time press secretary for former president donald trump and former chief of staff for the former first lady, thank you for coming on and sharing your perspective. >> thank you for having me. when we come back,
2:24 am
- oh, sister of mine. - mmm... - i got you this. - the new iphone 13 pro? - it's on verizon 5g - i can't believe you got me this! - yes, verizon is giving one to everyone when they trade in their old or damaged phone. - oh! so like every sister can get this? - yeah. - every aluminum siding installer? - why not? - every doula? - they would have to! every customer, new and old, can get iphone 13 pro on us. because everyone deserves better. - everyone! - horse trainers! - manicurists! - you get the new iphone! - we're alone. - i know. - what're we doing? - i don't know. [sfx: radio being tuned] welcome to allstate. ♪ [band plays] ♪ a place where everyone lives life well-protected. ♪♪
2:25 am
and even when things go a bit wrong, we've got your back. here, things work the way you wish they would. and better protection costs a whole lot less. you're in good hands with allstate. click or call for a lower auto rate today. ♪ say it's all right ♪ you're in good hands with allstate. ♪ say it's all right, it's all right ♪ ♪ have a good time 'cause it's all right ♪ ♪ now listen to the beat ♪ ♪ kinda pat your feet ♪ ♪ it's all right ♪ ♪ have a good time 'cause it's all right ♪ ♪ oh, it's all right ♪
2:26 am
welcome back. on tuesday, facebook whistle-blower fras frances haugen said facebook eased safety after january 6th. >> facebook changed those safety defaults in the run-up to the election because they knew they were dangerous and because they wanted that growth back, they wanted the acceleration of the platform back after the election, they returned to their original defaults. joining me now is facebook's vice president for global affairs, nick clegg. mr. clegg, welcome to "meet the press," sir. >> morning. >> thank you. i want to get you to respond to that specific quote from ms. haugen. i also want to put something up that you wrote after her initial "60 minutes" appearance. she said this is also why the suggestion that is sometime made that the violent insurrection on january 6 would not have
2:27 am
occurred if it weren't for social media is misleading. mature deck only sees hold elections all the time. germany election last week, without the disfiguring presence of violence. i understand why you wrote that sentence, mr. clegg, but why put in the safeguards before the election if you guys at facebook didn't think you had a role in potentially inciting folks? >> just to follow this very closely, what we did in the run-up to the election was pe put in -- obviously, it was an exceptional election happening at a time of a pandemic, obviously very stark polarization in this country, put in a number of exceptional measures. it's simply not true to say we lifted those measures immediately. we, in fact, kept the vast majority of them right through to the inauguration and we kept some in place permanently. we permanently right now don't
2:28 am
recommend civic and political groups to people. it's worth remembering what those exceptional measures are like. it's like closing all the highways and roads in a time because of a temporary one-off problem in one neighborhood. you don't do that on a permanent basis. some of the temporary measures were took, for instance, bearing down on the vir rality of videos meant we were stopping the distribution of perfectly innocent videos that had nothing to do with tea lex at all. it was a mixture of permanent measures -- we did keep them up right to the inauguration. it's not true to say we immediately lifted them all. now we're going further. one thing we heard from users both in the u.s. and around the world since the election is people want to see, if you like more friends, less politics. we've been looking and testing ways in which we can reduce the presence of politics on people's facebook experiences. i hope that's useful context for what we did and didn't do and what we're doing going forward.
2:29 am
>> why did you lift any of them, any of those procedures considering what former president trump was doing and saying and acting at the time. he was a fire hose of misinformation. so why role back any of those security provisions? you clearly rolled back some. you want to dispute you didn't roll them all back. that's fine with me. why did you roll back any of them? >> as i said, some of them were very, very blunt tools, scooping up legal, enjoyable, playful content. it's a bit like throwing a blanket of the whole platform. we just let perfectly normal content circulate less on our platform. that's something we did because of the exceptional circumstances. i think it shows how sort of precautionary and responsible we were trying to be at the time. as you will also remember, we stopped running any new political ads for a week in the run-up to the election. we labeled huge amounts of
2:30 am
content, including content from donald trump -- subsequently we said donald trump is not able to use our platform for at least two years. i don't think anyone can claim we haven't taken a lot of exceptional measures to meet those very exceptional circumstances. >> i want to get to the issue of labeling misinformation. you still allow the miss informers to get their information up. shouldn't there be just a flat policy? if you're a known miss informer, whether on covid or the election, whether it's one strike, two strikes, three strikes, maybe you can decide how many times you intentionally miss inform, throw them off? you seem to want to find a way to keep these folks on. how does the warning label help? it keeps the misinformation out there. >> sure. the first thing to say is, of course, if someone keeps saying things which leads to real world harm, we kick them off. we do that on a very, very significant scale, i think far more significant scale than any other part of the industry.
2:31 am
you're quite right. if someone is doing something which is going to lead to real world hamm, that's not permitted on our platform. we bear down aggressively on hate speech. because of the 40,000 people we employ to do this work, 40,000 people is more than twice the number of staffers who work on capitol hill. we've invested $13 billion in this integrity work to bear down on misinformation and hate speech. again, for context, that's more than the total revenues of twitter over the last four years. that's actually been successful. hate speech, the prevalence of hate speech, the presence of hate speech on facebook now stands at 0.05%. that means for every 10,000 bitsz of content you'll see on facebook, only five will be hate speech. i wish we could bring it down to zero. we're not going to do with that. with a third of the world's population on our platforms, you'll see the good, bad and ugly of human nature on our platforms. our job is to mitigate and
2:32 am
reduce the bad and amplify the good. i think those investments, the technology and the evidence of how little hate speech there is now compared to a few years ago shows we're moving in the right direction. >> i want to go to the issue of how to regulate facebook. the founder and ceo wrote this, mark zuckerberg. similar to balancing other especially issues, i don't believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own. that's why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now. we're committed to doing the best work we can. at some level the right body to address tradeoffs is our democratically elected congress. it sounds like facebook is going to do much until -- >> we're not advocating regulation to divest ourselves of our own responsibilities. of course with the success of a
2:33 am
big global platform like facebook, comes accountability, scrutiny,rable investments that said. that's why we are being evermore transparent in how our systems operate so people can hold us to account. we're the first company, for instance, every 12 weeks to publish data on all the content we act on and remove. that's subject to independent audit. there are certain things that no priet vat company can do. only lawmakers can pass federal privacy legislation. we don't have nationwide privacy legislation in this country which we clearly need. you do have it in other jurisdictions in europe, but not here. only lawmakers can pass legislation to strike the right balance so if people move data from one platform to the other, which is good for competition, you strike the right balance with the privacy safeguards which should be in place at the same time. that has to be enshrined in law. only lawmakers can create a digital regulator
2:34 am
believe would be a good thing. absolutely, you're right. we're not saying this is somehow a substitution for our own responsibilities, but there are a whole bunch of things that only regulators and lawmakers can do. at the end of the day, i don't think anyone wants a private company to adjudicate on these really difficult tradeoffs between free expression on the one hand and moderating or removing content on the other, about which, as you know, there's fundamental political disagreement. the right thinks we take down too much content, we sensor too much content. the left thinks we don't take down now. we're caught in the middle in this political debate. in the end, lawmakers have to resolve that themselves. >> nick clegg, vice president of facebook. appreciate you coming on and sharing facebook's perspective here. >> thank you. when we come back, the growing instability in politics. how much is too much?
2:35 am
thi people everywhere living with type 2 diabetes are waking up to what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ you are my sunshine ♪ ♪ my only sunshine... ♪ rybelsus® works differently than any other diabetes pill to lower blood sugar in all 3 of these ways... increases insulin when you need it... decreases sugar... and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. people taking rybelsus® lost up to 8 pounds. rybelsus® isn't for peopl with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrin neoplasia syndrome type 2 or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis.
2:36 am
tell your provider about vision problems or changes taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. wake up to what's possibl with rybelsus®. ♪ please don't take my sunshine away ♪ you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. thanks for coming. now when it comes to a financial plan this broker is your man. let's open your binders to page 188... uh carl, are there different planning options in here? options? plans we can build on our own, or with help from a financial consultant? like schwab does. uhhh... could we adjust our plan... ...yeah, like if we buy a new house? mmmm... and our son just started working. oh! do you offer a complimentary retirement plan for him? as in free? just like schwab. schwab! look forward to planning with schwab.
2:37 am
welcome back. the panel is joining us. yamiche alcindor moderator of "washington week." david french, senior editor of the dispatch, and former democratic member of congress donna edwards from the great state of maryland. the engagement of american politics and the electorate is getting closer and closer and at times a bit uncomfortable. here is a quick selection of just the last week. >> if you don't pass this, we're going to lose the midterm. >> we need a build back better plan right now. >> we need solutions the build back better plan has the solutions we need.
2:38 am
>> no to vaccines. no to masks. >> yamiche, to sum up, that was joe manchin with protesters at his houseboat, kyrsten sinema being followed into a bathroom stall and a school board member in sarasota being harassed at her own home. we know we're polarized. we're getting more combative it feels by the hour. >> i think that's a wise observation, and i think when you look at those videos, what you see is really a country increasingly at war with itself and increasingly at war with the truth. there are deepening policy differences when you look at social policy programs, when you look at the way people are looking at taxing the wealthy. that's sort of at the heart of kyrsten sinema and joe manchin. but there's also this added layer of the fact that we're living in a pandemic and living through a time when americans are really debating over who can have access to the american dream and who can have access to
2:39 am
the benefits of the wealth of this country. take senator manchin in particular, when i talk to my democratic sources, yes, they're fraught streeted with the fact that he's wondering whether he wants to spend trillions of dollars on social policy programs that most in the democratic party do think are necessary, but they're also very bothered and simply disturbed by his use of the word entitlement. that is a word that so many people see as stereotyping african-americans, as calling some sections of americans lazy. i think you're seeing both a passion in people having real policy differences, but also this real feeling that there are americans who feel as though they're being again criminalized and stereotyped as being locked out of the american dream. >> david french, i want you to react to something matthew cot nettie wrote, it's something you could have written and touched on earlier this week. just when politics is most in need of a cooling-off period, interested parties upped the stakes of politics to national,
2:40 am
civilizational and for global survival. when survival is your primary end, you're attempted to use any means to achieve it, even extrajudicial ones. david? >> yeah. he's exactly right about that. what's happening is we're in this cycle of malice and misinformation. so what we have extreme partisan animosity, republicans hate democrats, democrats hate republicans. when you're in that atmosphere of hatred, you're ready to receive misinformation about your political opponents. people are sometimes believing the wildest things about their opponents. this was part of the stop the steal, some of the wildest conspiracy theories wormed deep into some republicans' hearts. they were primed to believe that democrats were so evil that that's exactly what they would do. we're in that position. and it is very dangerous. this up-close and personal encounters of people, especially
2:41 am
people living now under an atmosphere of death threats, it is very danger get hurt. >> donna edwards, i'll admit i have my own debate with myself about how concerned we should be, how alarmed we should be about the democracy. i sense there is this debate inside the elected democratic party in particular. joe manchin desperately wants to believe there's a normal routine to politics again, and i think others sit here and say whoa, with donald trump out there, there is no return to normal. we have some polling that seems to agree on this. half of trump voters think that maybe the red and blue states ought to secede from each other. over 40% of biden voters think this, donna. where are we headed? >> i think it's a very dangerous time. people take their cues from
2:42 am
leaders. the kind of cues they're getting now are divisive, are combative. i think that contributes to the environment that we find ourselves in. so it isn't just that there is a narrow margin in the house and the senate, but that that margin has actually been exacerbated because of the cues that ordinary americans are getting from their leaders. so i'm very concerned about our democracy. i'm concerned that people think the only way they can achieve something in our body politic is by violence, by secession. we haven't heard that kind of language in a couple hundred years. so it is really a dangerous time. but i think we have to have leaders who are going to step up, republicans and democrats, to just cool the jets a little bit and i worry that even things like -- i disagree with senator cinema, but i don't think we should be chasing her into a
2:43 am
bathroom. so we have to figure out ways in which we can engage that are worthy of our democracy. >> yamiche, i'm starting to think one of the reasons democrats are struggling to come together on the biden agenda is that there is a disagreement on the urgency of this moment. i think joe manchin believes we should return to a normal routine, hence his hands in his face to the chuck schumer speech. and i think there are others who think, no, no, this time is different. do you think that's what's making it hardest to reach manchin and sinema? >> a sense of urgency is absolutely at the heart of some of the disagreement in the democratic party. when you talk to young democrats, base voters, some of the people who feel passionately enough to show up at senator sinema's class in arizona or joe manchin's vote, they feel like they're fighting for their survival in the middle of a covid economy where women are
2:44 am
locked out at higher rates, people of color locked out at higher rates. they feel these are the times where they need the federal government to step in and say here is the lifeline that you have and here is the sort ofre. then you have senator manchin and others who are sort of saying, okay, we need to sort of change this, but we don't want to change too fast and we don't want to have a wholesale retelling of the social poll see. remember where president biden is essentially saying what he wants to do is overturn in a large and big way -- one of the largest ways in history, our social policies in this country. he's wanting to redo how we look at child care. that's a completely different outlook than what senator manchin wants to do, change people's lives bit by bit but in another way. >> kyrsten sinema is running the boston marathon tomorrow. some protesters have promised to be there. let's see how that goes. i'll pause here. when we come back, how the
2:45 am
when we come back, how the voting b ♪♪ thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed disease progression versus letrozole. ibrance may cause low white blood cell counts that may lead to serious infections. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs. both of these can lead to death. tell your doctor if you have new or worsening chest pain, cough, or trouble breathing. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are or plan to become pregnant, or are breastfeeding. for more information about side effects talk to your doctor. ♪♪ be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance.
2:46 am
♪♪ we believe everyone deserves to live better. and just being sustainable isn't enough. our future depends on regeneration. that's why we're working to not only protect our planet, but restore, renew, and replenish it. so we can all live better tomorrow. ♪♪ ♪♪ this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward. and helping you plan for future generations. this is the planning effect from fidelity.
2:47 am
welcome back. data download time. for decades now, hispanic voters have been seen as a key voting bloc of the future. what the hispanic vote means is a harder thing to nail down. when you look closely, it looks less like a consistent voting bloc of one party and more where geography has an impact. so for overall, the hispanic is 13%. it broke two to one for joe biden. when you start to look inside the numbers and the breakdowns by states and where you live, you start to see the differences in the hispanic votes. in the big blue states, joe biden won hispanic votes three to one margins. but in texas and florida that donald trump carried, he got
2:48 am
more than 40% of the hispanic vote. that is not a coincidence. here is another thing you're starting to see about the hispanic vote, like the white vote, in rural america hispanics are more conservative and, therefore, a bit more republican than in urban and suburban. check out this final step that shows how much more of a melting pot swing vote hispanics are becoming. 20 states have at least one county where 30% of the population is hispanic. look how donald trump did with those counties in 2020? he lost ground in 21, but gained ground in 194. like ethnic groups and immigrant groups that have come to this country, for decades when you hit the third and fourth generation, you start to see those ethnic groups blend into the melting pot and break down like the rest of the american electorate. when we come back, meet the new boss, apparently the same as (judith) in this market, you'll find fisher investments is different than other money managers. (other money manager) different how? don't you just ride the wave? (judith) no - we actively manage client portfolios based on
2:49 am
our forward-looking views of the market. (other money manager) but you still sell investments that generate high commissions, right? (judith) no, we don't sell commission products. we're a fiduciary, obligated to act in our client's best interest. (other money manager) so when do you make more money? only when your clients make more money? (judith) yep, we do better when our clients do better. at fisher investments we're clearly different. - oh, sister of mine. - mmm... - i got you this. - the new iphone 13 pro? - it's on verizon 5g - i can't believe you got me this! - yes, verizon is giving one to everyone when they trade in their old or damaged phone. - oh! so like every sister can get this? - yeah. - every aluminum siding installer? - why not? - every doula? - they would have to! every customer, new and old, can get iphone 13 pro on us. because everyone deserves better. - everyone! - horse trainers! - manicurists! - you get the new iphone! - we're alone. - i know. - what're we doing? - i don't know. today, your customers want it all. you have to deal with higher expectations
2:50 am
and you have to lower wait times. with ibm, you can do both. your business can unify apps and data across your clouds. so you can address supply chain issues in real time, before they impact your bottom line. predicting and managing operational issues that's why so many businesses work with ibm. ♪ say it's all right ♪ ♪ say it's all right, it's all right ♪ ♪ have a good time 'cause it's all right ♪ ♪ now listen to the beat ♪ ♪ kinda pat your feet ♪ ♪ it's all right ♪ ♪ have a good time 'cause it's all right ♪ ♪ oh, it's all right ♪
2:52 am
(male prisoner) no! turn it off! turn it off! after all this time, (male prisoner) let me out, please! just let me out of here! there are still those who haven't learned their lesson. (female prisoner scream) never. go. alone. universal studio's halloween horror nights. back with a vengeance. brace yourself for netflix's the haunting of hill house, the excorcist, and more.
2:53 am
welcome back. well, there's one politician that probably best embodies donald trump's hold on the republican party right this week. it's chuck grassley. the senior senator from iowa and ranking member of the judiciary committee. here is what he said in february of 2021. he belittle and harassed elected officials across the country to get his way during the electoral college count. there's no doubt in my mind president trump's language was extreme, aggressive and irresponsible. that was his statement voting to acquit the president at the impeachment trial. earlier this week he said, he'd let him off the hook in the judiciary committee report saying he listened to his advisers. here is chuck grassley saturday night with donald trump. >> i was born at night, but not
2:54 am
last night. so if i didn't accept the endorsement of a person that's got 91% of the republican voters in iowa, i wouldn't be too smart. i'm smart enough to accept that endorsement. >> david french, the chuck grassley legacy is going to be a survivor, i guess, is probably one way to look at it. is there any better explanation of trump's hold than chuck grassley these days? >> i think here is the explanation. i live in a red bubble, chuck. i live in a neighborhood that's about 85% republican. there's basically two broad categories of people. there are the people who are ready to move on from donald trump, they do not want him in 2024, and there are the people who are like the third bass boat in the boat parade. the trump supporters are very much more vocal. many of them, not all of them, are extremely vicious. this is the voice that republican elected officials are
2:55 am
hearing constantly, all day, every day. the people who are ready to move on, a lot of them are exhausted. they're pulling away. they're not engaging. so only one voice is being heard, and it is the trump voice. but that is not the only voice in the gop electorate more broadly. >> it may be true, but donna edwards, i think that's part of the problem. one of the points of this show today that i wanted to make is this senate judiciary committee report was written based on trump appointees telling what really happened. stephanie grisham, no matter what you think of her, is trying to warn the country about a return of donald trump to the white house. why don't the former trump officials have any sway, in your opinion, with the republican electorate at large? >> well, i think it goes right to president trump. i think the former president, what he does is he dismisses those people. he harasses them in his public
2:56 am
remarks, and i think it makes many -- you look at somebody like chuck grassley, and part of the reason that trump continues to have sway in the republican party is because there's no moral center and no moral clarity from senators like chuck grassley. >> yamiche, the other thing is, there seems to be no power in numbers. everybody is afraid, if they all join hands, they could rid the party of trump, but they're not doing it. >> they're not. really at the heart of this is fear, and at the heart of this is the idea that the threat continues. watching the trump rally yesterday -- i would only do it because i was coming on "meet the press" with you, chuck. i watched it from beginning to end. what i saw yesterday was a president who is continuing to not only lie but up the ante. he was telling people last night we're not going to have a country in three years, we need to take the country back. what you see is a republican
2:57 am
party that cannot divorce itself from the reality that the former president is living in. in talking the democrats, they're so worried the energy is on the gop side. >> david french, is she jose canseco, meaning you may not believe her on a lot of stuff, but you believe her on this. >> if you're writing a book and say that trump lies a lot, this is not exactly news. this is something that was seen all over the united states of america for year after year after year. the problem is his loyal friends always turn on his appointees. trump who was supposed to hire the best people is always being betrayed. he still never has made a mistake. so what we're dealing with here is it's not news. it is not news. at this point, if you don't know that already, where have you been. >> that's a fair point. that's all we have for today. thank you all for watching. thank you panel for being with us.
3:00 am
breaking weather overnight tornadic activity leaves tens of thousands without power as a significant weather threat persists the latest on the minnesota bar shooting that left 14 injured and one dead good news on the covid front. with cases on the decline, but a possible warning sign of things to come as the weather gets colder a great story about an incredible coincidence that brought two service members together the biggest and best moments from nfl week five straight ahead on this national holiday.
70 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
KNTV (NBC) Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on