yamiche: a nation divided over abortion and the capitol attack. >> we have to codify roe v. wade in the law, and if the filibuster gets in the way, it should be we provide an exception. yamiche:emocrats grapple with the fallout of the supreme court decision to overturn legalized abortion. >> they are more focused on taxpayer-funded abortions than they are on lower costs for oil, for natural gas, for basic energy. yamiche: meanwhile, republicans celebrate the end of hourly -- of r.o.c. -- of roe and try to focus on inflation and higher prices. plus, a former white house aide

makes shocking allegations about what former president trump said and did on january 6. >> mark had responded something to the effect of, "you heard it. he thinks mike deserves it." >> this is "washington week." funding is provided by -- consumer cellular. additional funding is provided by the ewing foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities, robert and susan rosenbaum, the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your pbs

station from viewers like you. thank you. >> once again from washington, moderator yamiche alcindor. yamiche: good evening and welcome to "washington week." it has been a week since the supreme court handed down its historic decision striking down roe v. wade and ending the constitutional right to an abortion. activists for abortion rights are continuing to take to the streets in protest. they and democratic lawmakers argue the decision threatens the lives of women and will lead to other rights being taken away. republicans, though, are condemning the protests. here is what senator lindsey graham of south carolina had to say. >> when roe v. wade came out, we did not burn down the capitol as conservative justices. the radical left are constitutional anarchists. they are literally trying to change this country from top to bottom. yamiche: on wednesday, i

interviewed former secretary of state hillary clinton. she expressed her outrage over the court's ruling. >>isits the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find. it is so narrow and ace list. -- baseless. it was not only ignorant but almost dismissive to the point of contempt for women's lives and women's choices. yamiche: as all this plays out, on thursday, president biden called the ruling "destabilizing." >> the first and foremost thing we should do is make it clear how outrageous this decision was and how much it impacts not just on a woman's right to choose, which is critical, but on privacy generally. yamiche: the president also said he supports changing the senate filibuster rules to codify privacy and abortion rights into federal law, but democrats in congress do not have the votes to do it.

joining me tonight to discuss this and more, peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times," and joining me in studio, tia mitchell, and pete: --pete mitchell. we got to see a little bit about what a post-roe america might look like this wk. pete: what's happening in the states is we know the supreme urt says the federal constitution does not provide a right to abortion. now the question is -- do state constitutions provide a read that the federal does not? we are seeing the trigger laws that were put in place while roe was in effect that said once abortion is struck down, abortion is banned, and second the, laws that were on the books before roe was in the supreme

court that have just been sitting there idling now coming to life. there is no explicit right to privacy in the u.s. constitution -- in a sense, that is sort of what the controversy is about. many of these state country -- constitutions actually use the p word. they actually say laws guarantee a right to privacy. in florida, texas, utah, there's discussion about family rights, parental rights, personal autonomy, so we have 13 lawsuits in the state court that a sickly try to say either the trigger laws or these pre-roe bands are -- bans are legal under state law or federal law. yamiche: given these new legal battles, the other thing i've been thinking about and wanting to ask is about the reality on

the ground for medical providers. where do they stand as these legal battles are happening? pete: it is very confusing. the bare-bones are obvious. doctors cannot perform abortions. pharmacies cannot hand out medication for the so-called plan b or the abortion pills, but who knows exactly what circumstances in which a doctor can perform an abortion? in louisiana, that's one reason why the laws are on hold, because there are three separate visions, and a state judge agreed we got to work this out, so until we can, let's put it on hold. some states are going to try to block people from traveling to other states hour make it a crime to do that. the federal government says it at abouto sending t p abortion pills from states where it is legal to states where it is not legal? who knows? that will all be worked out.

yamiche: as pete lays out the confusing legal strategy and confusing legal battles, i want to come to you, tia, because i spoke to former secretary of state clinton who said democrats need to get mobilized and figure out how to push back on this, but she also says she is not certain when abortion rights, if at all, could be restored. what is your sense of the democratic strategy and republican strategy? tia: my sense is that democts do not really have a clear strategy for how to overcome what the supreme court has done because we know the filibuster is the barrier in congress. president biden has said congress should pass a law that protects the right to abortion access, but you need 10 senate republicans right now, and they don't seem to have the votes. yes, president biden has said carve out the filibuster so that democrats can do it alone, but democrats do not have the votes for that either, and it seems like on the republican side,

their strategy is sit back and let the stat decide, knowing there are so many states, as you just showed on that cap, that are ready to restrict or prohibit abortions all together, so it allows republicans to kind of claim these wins without having to do anything at the federal level. yamiche: what tia just broke down is about the fact that democrats really do not have the votes. that is in some ways the thesis of wt is going on with democrats in terms of their issues. what are you hearing about the white house strategy? peter: i think the president is in a bad position. he remembers the president who was presiding at the time that women's access to abortion was rescinded and will not satisfy progressives in his own party with an aggressive enough stance

. that is because joe biden is not going to go as far as the left wants him to go. some of them would like him to pack the court, at more justices, for instance, do things in terms of ruling that the fda can supersede state abortion laws. things that they have not, so far at least, been willing to do. he did say he thought it was ok and even necessary to get rid of the filibuster. you heard in that clip you played him saying it is not just about abortion, it is about privacy. the argument democrats will make come midterm elections is that it is not just about abortion but a broader spectrum of rights and extremism. they will make the case that the other side is so extreme that they will not only take away rights to abortion but you're right to access to

contraception, might try to resend same-sex marriage, all these things. that's why he said the word privacy. even though justice alito tried to make clear in his authority opinion that that is not where the court is headed, justice thomas given him enough ammunition in his concurring opinion. yamiche: i want you to give us a quick history lesson about when democrats did have the votes, possibly, when they were controlling the presidency and house and senate in the 1990's, early 2000's -- why did they not or why could they not quantify roe v. wade and abortion rights then? there have been a lot of questions about that that i have been hearing from voters. peter: it is a great question because we would not be relying on the supreme court if there was a national law. you would not have to wait for the court to reinterpret the constitution if a law signed by the president said there had

been a national right to abortion, but you are right, democrats had opportunities and moments when they had enough control of the presidency to do it and they did not. in the 1990's, i think the issue was partly that democrats themselves were more diverse on the issue of abortion. there were more antiabortion democrats back and -- back then who would have found a road like that very uncomfortable, would have voted against it, in fact, in districts that were rural or conservative. today, democrats and publicans are much more homogenous. republicans are almost entirely antiabortion and democrats are almost entirely pro-abortion rights. last year -- last term, -- last time, the first year of obama's term, they did have the votes, but they were focused on other issues and did not perceive the threat to be that real at the time.

yamiche: pete, i want to come back to you. how might this ruling impact other rights like same-sex marriage, voting rights? pete: it depends on which part of the supreme court you read. the logic of the supreme court's ruling was there's no constitutional right to abortion because it is not enumerated are spelled out in the constitution, and in order to find unenerated rights, you have to look at if something is deeply rooted in history, tradition, and essential to the order of liberty. same-sex marriage florence -- flunks that test. however, alito says abortion is different because it involves life. justice thomas does not think it is different enough from same-sex marriage. is there a political push?

will states try now to ban that? that is how it would get to the supreme court, if states try to ban same-sex marriage or access to contraceptives. yamiche: i saw senator cornyn tweet, now do plessy versus ferguson, brown b board of education. those are seminal decisions that dealt with integration of schools. i thought it was a fake tweet. pete: i have no idea what he's talking about. yamiche: i want to bring up the latest poll. more than half o americans oppose the decision to overturn roe v. wade. 88% of democrats, 20% of republicans, 15% of independents . what might those numbers mean

for democrats and midterms as they are trying to focus voters attention on abortion when there are so many other issues like inflation and other things, but polls are showing that in some ways, public opinion might be on our side? tia: that is what i found interesting about what pete just said, that the supreme court knew that abortion is not even something the public is clamoring for. it is coming from the right but not necessarily the majority of all americans, and that did not preclude -- that did not preclude them from makin this ruling, so there's other things that other things might come along that might be politically unpopular. what democrats are hoping is that it's unpopular enough and has their base fired up enough that it might help them in the midterms. we know that history is not on the side of democrats as far as keeping control of the house, and they are hoping that this issue is enough to motivate people, especially those independence, who we know can swing and a lot of votes in a lot of states, to perhaps keep more democrats, help them pick

up some seats and perhaps keep that majority. it is still a long shot for them, but they are hoping this is an issue knowing that the economy is bringing them down, president biden's approval ratings are bringin them down. they hope abortion might the a winning issue. yamiche: we can talk a lot more about this topic, but thisas one of those weeks where there was just news and news and more news. what also happened this week was a surprise january 6 committee hearing. it had some of the most explosive testimony yet. former white house aide cassidy hutchinson testified that former president trump demand armed protesters be allowed into his january 6 rally and that trump insisted on joining the crowd at the capitol she also said former president trump grabbed the steering wheel of a secret service agent driving his vehicle when it was -- when he was told it was too dangerous to go to the capitol, but many republicans have dismissed her words as hearsay.

former chief of staff mark meadows may have -- may have opened up a whole new lane in the investigation. >> i remember pat saying to him something to the effect of, the rioters got into the capital, we need to see the president now, and mark looked up and said, he doesn't want to do anything. yamiche: the january six committee has now subpoenaed pat cipollone to testify. joining us, jacqueline alemany, the congressional investigations reporter for "the washington post." i want to ask what stuck out to you and what was different about this hearing. jacqueline: it was certainly one of the most explosive congressional testimonies we have seen in history. for all the comparisons to john dean, cassidy hutchinson might have actually surpassed expectations, but with these

revelations and with the committee achieving what they wanted to do, which was breakthrough to the broader american public, has also come in tense scrutiny and criticism from trump and his allies specifically, trying to poke holes in cassidy hutchinson's credibility and open the committee up to criticism that they did not thoroughly vet some of her claims in the lead up to the scramble to get her on the dais. that said, the majority of her testimony has not been contested. there was only one small anecdote, that anonymous secret service agents have come out against, but the rest of it has so far stood the test time, and there are other committees hoping to subpoena republicans like pat cipollone to corroborate the testimony, such as that the president actually encouraged armed rioters to go

to the capitol. yamiche: pat cipollone was just subpoenaed to testify. how problematic might it be for the committee if he does not show up? >> the committee right now, it is a fairly mixed bag on feelings on if you will ultimately show up. the latest reporting we have is that his lawyers are in close negotiations and that is it's quite possible that he is prepared to provide at least written testimony, but what the committee would obviously like would be for that to be videotaped so they could ultimately take the videotaped depositions and present it to the american public. it could be key to, i think, breaking through some of these criticisms from those in the conservative media ecosystem, who are putting unsubstantiated attacks on hutchinson and her testimony, but at the end of the day, pat cipollone, if he cooperates or not, might not be

key. the committee after all has been doing this for over a year now, amassing this mountain of evidence, and they are still prepared to reveal some other bombshells in their finale hearing, which is now scheduled for not next week but the week after. yamiche: thinking about the focus of these hearings, 13 million people supposedly watch -- 13 million people reportedly watched hutchinson's hearings. there were so many other things that were talked about. we covered former president trump together. what is your take on the impact this hearing might have given the grip the former president trump had but also the sort of window we had into the white house? pete: i think it was important in a number of instances. the most important thing was the mindset of the president we heard from someone who is in the room, present in the white house, who was part of the team

there about how he knew this. what he worried about was the size of the crowd. he did not care that they seemed to have weapons. he said they are not here to hurt me. he wanted to go to the capitol and lead this crowd that he knew was armed in some cases with weapons in order to try to disrupt the transfer of power. what the secret service has confirmed, even as jackie confirms they are anonymously denying that aspect, is that he did get angry on them -- angry at them for refusing to take him to the capitol. this mindset sort of undermines the defense that his state of mind was not such that you could say he knew that he was going to unleash a violent crowd. she has provided testimony that

suggests the opposite, that he knew he had encouraged a violent crowd. to use the words that a former ken starr prosecutor said, that was the smoking gun. yamiche: former trumps her was out attacking casket that's cassidy hutchinson in real time on social media. tia, you were trapped with a group of lawmakers during the capitol riot. what is your take on the impact of these hearings any significance of it? tia: i think the impact of the hearings are to lay out not just what happened, but they are trying to connect the dots, that the violence on january 6 was fed into by trump and his allies in that they knew that what happened, that deadly riot, was

a possibility based on their rhetoric. the committee has laid that out and talked about the pressure campaign on officials and talked about the people who were at home feeding into the misinformation and disinformation felt compelled by the former president to come to washington on january 6, and again, the committee is only kind of fact-finding, and they are presenting a case, but what they are hoping is that the result is charges by entities that do have the power to bring charges against former president trump or his allies, and that is what remains to be seen. yamiche: including in georgia. tia yes, in georgia, we have teams that have convene a special grand jury. yamiche: the committee has talked about trying to get new

witnesses but also about witness tampering going on. what do you know about that? jacqueline: that decision by liz cheney was very deliberate by the committee. they put up those sieges that were communicated to cassidy hutchinson from those of trump's allies to try to intimidate her from ultimately cooperating with the committee and being truthful and disclosing the details that she provided, and in doing that, i think what we are actually seeing is that intimidation campaign continue and also signify that others who do come forward should know that the committee sort of almost in a way has their back and is prepared to potentially prosecute those who continue to try to discourage those from coming forward. i think what is really interesting, actually, is that this is all representative of a

pattern we have seen really over the 4 years of the trump white house and that has continued, and it has ultimately allowed the former president to kee this tight grip over his supporters and prevent a lot of them from coming forward to the committee and helping with the investigation. yamiche: it is remarkable that while that was going on, he was making an appeal to other witnesses saying if you suddenly remember something or if you want to come forward or if you have discovered some courage you had hidden away somewhere, you should come forward. thank you to the panel for sharing your reporting, and tomorrow, the obstacles faced by president biden as he searches for more ways to federally protect abortion. meanwhile, we will continue our conversation on the "washington week" extra. pete williams will stay with me

to talk about the historic supreme court decision of the last week. finally, i want to announce that pete williams is retiring at the end of this month. he is a legendary journalist, a washington institution, and a dear friend of this program. he will be very much missed, even though i know he is a little embarrassed right now, i have to give him a tribute. thank you for joining us all from home and thank you, pete. >> corporate funding for "washington week" is provided by -- >> consumer cellular has been providing plans designed to help people do more of what they like . our u.s.-customer service team can help on a plan that. to learn more, visit consumercellular.tv. >> additional funding is provided by the u.n. foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities, central and carl dilley magnuson, rose partial and andy

shrev's, robert and susan rosenbaum, the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.]

announcer: major funding for "tell me more with kelly corrigan" is provided by the john templeton foundation-- inspiring awe and wonder-- and by the gordon and llura gund foundation. ♪ ♪ kelly: welcome to the season finale of "tell me more" and our first-ever live taping at st. joe's university here in my hometown of philadelphia. ♪ kelly: every show, we take a moment to recognize what we call a plus one, a person who is indispensable