women. and people over the age of 50. young adults kicked off parents insurance. more million. 607,000. 288,000 south carolina. 227,000 iowaens. and 4.2 million californiaens. the pain of losing these

protections would among the 9 million african-americans, latino, asian and native americans who gained coverage under the affordable care act. this isn't about statistics. this is about millions of real people. living real lives. who deserve the government and institutions to see them and heed the call. i know a republican member of this committee said earlier today that the people who lose healthcare are somehow irrelevant in the hearing. i disagree. helping these people is supposed to be why we are all here. why we all ran for office in the first place. and i'm here to fight for people like perez. and this is her. she is a writer, public speaker and former high schoolteacher from southern california. who teaches in nevada.

she has multiple conditions including arthritis and asthma. and a rare autoimmune disorder that cause a tumor that wrapped around her brain. it cost $460,000 a year. she's terrified. she knows that without the affordable care act she could not afford ongoing treatment. the treatment to stay alive. here's what she said. i will quote. my life is in the hands of people i don't know. and don't know me. who are essentially telling me i don't matter. that my life doesn't matter. that my health doesn't matter. that the quality of my life doesn't matter. and that is really hard. tragically her story is not unique. the fears are shared by millions

of americans. the affordable care act and the protections hinge on this supreme court and the out come of this hearing. before being elected, president trump promised that every justice he puts forward would quote will do the right thing unlike bushes appointee. john roberts. on obamacare. unquote. judge barrett, 18 months later, you criticize the chief justice for upholding the affordable care act. when you concluded quote chief justice roberts pushed the affordable care act beyond the plausible meaning to save the statute. how many months after you published that article did president trump nominate you to be a judge on the court of appeals? >> i apologize i don't remember the timing of the article.

i was nominated i believe to the court of appeals was announced in may. of 2017. >> correct. >> i don't remember the article came out. >> the article was published in january of 2017. five months later. justice ginsburg who seat you are filling provided the critical fifth vote in the decision that upheld the affordable care act. so let's lay this out for everyone watching. as i discussed previously, one, republicans spent a decade trying to destroy the affordable care act. two, donald trump promised to name a supreme court justice and justices who would tear down the affordable care act. three, president trump is the for the stream court right now

that it be struck in his entirety. four, the supreme court could be one vote away from over turning the affordable care act and protections. including preexisting conditions. in other words, the affordable care act and protections hinge on this seat. and the out come of the hearing. i believe it's very important the american people understand the issues. at stake. judge barrett, the day after president trump announced your nomination to the supreme court, he tweeted quote obamacare will be replaced with a much better and far cheaper alternative. if it's terminated in the supreme court. end quote. in reality there's no alternative that protects millions of americans who depend on the aca every day.

president trump and the republicans in congress are fighting to take healthcare away from the american people. in the middle o of a pandemic. president trump has said that he wants to protect the american people healthcare. the reality is right now he is asking the preem court to take it away. period. senator klobuchar asked you earlier today if prior to your nomination, were you aware of president trumps statement permitting to nominate judges who will strike down the affidavitable care act? i appreciate a yes or no answer. >> i want to be careful. i'm

>> let me finish. >> i'm sorry. >> did they inform you of the president statements this might be a question that was presented to you during the course of the hearing? >> when i had the call with senators, it came up. many of the democratic senators wanted to know about the affordable care act and satisfy themselves that i had not made precommitments to the president about it. >> you became aware of the president's statement is that correct. >> in the context of conversations i cannot remember whether senators framed the questions in the context of the

trumps statement. i have never made a commitment or asked to make a commitment and i hope the committee trusts in my integrity not to entertain such an idea. and i wouldn't violate oath if i were confirmed and heard the case. >> just so i'm clear. are you saying that you are now before i said it, aware or not aware that president trump made the comments about who he would nominate to the the supreme court? >> what i was saying, i thought you framed the question as whether i was aware before the nomination process began. >> the answer to the question. were you aware before the hearing began? >> you're asking me now whether i was aware before the hearing began? >> as a follow up question. i am. >> what i said was that when i had my calls with the democratic senators this question came up and i don't recall. it may well have been they referenced those comments in the

course of the calls. even if so, that wasn't something i heard or saw directorly by reading it myself. >> you were asked earlier today it bears repeating. is it important for the american people to believe supreme court justices are independent and fair and impartial. yes or no please. >> yes. >> a number of colleagues have asked you today whether you are recuse yourself from cases on the affordable care agent. you it not directly answer. you described a process by which that would work or happen. my question is, isn't it true that at the enof the process regardless of that process that it would be you who would make the decision about whether or not you would recuse yourself? >> that is true. i can't have you elicit a commitment about how to make the decision in advance. that would be wrong.

>> right. what i'm asking is is the not correct that the the process would be you. and you alone that make the decision about whether you would be recused. you have on the constitutionality of the affordable care act. that satisfies the president's promise to nominate judges who would tear down the affordable care agent. and senate republicans rushed this process so that you could rule on the this. the reasonable question about your impartiality will hang over this courts ultimate decision in the affordable care act case. if you refuse to recuse yourself. i strongly believe that. supreme court justices consider the consequences of decisions on peoples lives. earlier this year the supreme court ruled against president trump in his effort to repeal daca protection for dreamers.

children arriving in the united states before they could talk or walk. chief justice roberts wrote the opinion for 5-4 majority. the crucial vote of justice ruth bader ginsburg. court rejected the trump administration attempt to end protection for dreamers. chief justice roberts said the administration had not taken into consideration the fact many dreamers rely on the protections when they started their careers and businesses. and served in military. of the united states. when they bought homes and started families. asked you whether it is appropriate for a supreme court justice to consider real world impact. you're a sitting judge now. my question is in deciding whether to uphold government action, do you currently

consider the consequences of your ruling on people's lives? >> senator harris, that's part of the decision of every case. >> so you do? >> every case has consequences in peoples lives. of course i do in every case. it's part of the judicial decision making process. >> would you do that as if you are actually voted on the united states supreme court? >> senator, considering how the resolution of a dispute will affect parties and people is part of the judicial decision making process and i will continue to engage in that to be best of my ability. >> 100 million americans with pr existing conditions would pay more for insurance or be denied coverage entirely. 20 million americans could lose

health coverage. ip colluding 3 million black americans and 5 million latino americans. receive access to health insurance because of the affordable care act. in short, it will discriminate against 60% of african-americans and 40% of latinos with preexisting conditions. insurance will be able to deny coverage to more than one quarter of native americans. with diabetes, heart disease and cancer. all of this in the middle of a pandemic that is not going away any time soon. a pandemic that when age is taken into act has been three times as deadly for black, latino and pacific islander and native americans. a pandemic that has killed approximately one in 1,000 plaque americans. one in 1,200 native americans. and one in 1,500 latino americans.

would you consider the 135 million people who gained protection under the affordable care act when deciding the case that challenges that law? >> senator harris if i were to be confirmed and conclude that i was not -- i was able to sit on the case for pursuant to the recusal statute and heard the case and decided the case, i would consider all the protections that congress put in place. and as i said earlier, earlier during this hearing, the question would be figuring out whether congress assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now whether that consistent with your intent, this is congress's law. would permit the act to stand or whether the flawed portion could be excised out. that is a question not of what judges want it's not a question

of supreme court. it's a question of what congress want ld in the statute. that is the statute you enacted and extended this healthcare coverage to millions of americans. >> what weight would you give the fact that 135 million americans preexisting conditions are now depending on the protections of of the affordable care act. >> senator, as i mentioned star deisaiass takes reliance into account. as i said before it's about keeping stability in the law. the law takes into account reliance interest. i can't really say sitting here how they would play in the case. because that's part of the legal calculus of the case. i can't really give you the kind of commitment or precommitment you are asking for how to weigh factors or structure my decision making process. >> i would ask you to consider if you are confirmed on the

court. a benefit of the affordable care act and destruction of the protections will have a devastating impact on millions hundreds of millions. judge barrett, you testified yesterday justice ruth bader ginsburg opened the door for many women in law. and i certainly know that to be true as a personal. she was a trail blazer for equality. as a law student and a teacher and civil rights lawyer and woman. ever to sit on the stream court. ruth bader ginsburg broke many barriers for women across the country. i believe all fondly remember her as a person who had patience, the will. and the vision to make our country a more equal place. and a more just place.

one of the things she fought for was a woman's right to control her own body and make the decisions about her own body and healthcare and reproductive choices. the constitution of the united states protects a woman's right to choose. whether or when to become a parent. it protects a woman's right to choose abortion. women of color, immigrant women, low income and women in rural areas face significant barriers when attempting to access birth control, cancer screenings and reproductive healthcare. more over, antichoice activists and politicians have been working to pass laws and file lawsuits desib signed to over

turn row and the precedence that followed. the threat to choice is real. just last year the court heard a case that gave it an opportunity to revisit and over turn the abortion precedent. in a case called medical services. the supreme court struck down a medically unnecessary restriction that was would have closed all but one abortion clinic in louisiana. chief justice roberts agreed with the court for lib cal members. the court was bound by its precedent to strike down the louisiana law. because it was virtually identical to a texas law that the court ruled unconstitutional in 2016. as a result women in the state were able to receive the full range of reproductive care. chief justice roberts wrote a separate opinion in the case to make clear in the future he could not be to a woman's right tho choose. justice ginsburg provided the critical fifth vote to strike down the unconstitutional

abortion medical services. we must be honest about the impact of her passing. and the impact it will have on the courts decision in cases regarding women's access to reproductive healthcare. now my republican colleagues have said there's a minimal chance that the supreme court will over turn roe. back in january, 39 republican senators including ten members of this very committee, signed their names to a supreme court brief. that asked the court to quote take up the issue of whether row should be reconsidered. and if appropriate over ruled. let's not make any mistake about it. allowing president trump to determine who fills the seat of ruth bader ginsburg. a champion for women's rights and a critical vote in so many

decisions that sustained the right to choose, poses a threat to safe and legal abortion. in our country. after all, president trump said that over turning roe v wade will quote happen automatically in my opinion. i'm putting pro-life justices on the court. judge barrett, several times today you have quoted justice ginsburg testimony. about not making predictions in the future cases. however, she was far more forthcoming at her confirmation hearing ability the essential rights of women. in 1993, justice ginsburg confirmation hearing shows she testified that quote the decision whether or not to bare a child is central to a woman's life. for her well being and dig inty.

it is the decision she must make for herself. when government controls that decision, for her she is being treated as less than a fully adult human. responsible for her own choices. then judge ginsburg went onto say quote, it is essential to women's equality with man that she be the decision maker. that her choice be controlled. if you impose restrictions that impede her choice you are disadvantaging her because of her sex. unquote. now justice ginsburg didn't tell the committee how she would vote in any particular case. but she did freely discuss how she viewed a woman's right tho choose. judge barrett, your record clearly shows you hold a different view.

in 2006, you signed your name to an advertisement published. describing row v wade an exercise of raw judicial power. and putting an end to the barbaric legacy of row v wade. you signed a similar ad in 2013. that described roe as quote infamous and expressed opposition to abortion. also in 2013, you wrote an article about the supreme court precedent in which you a list of well settled cases that you said quote no justice would over rule even if she disagrees. suggesting of course that you believe row is susceptible to being over turned. on the 40th anniversary you delivered a speech in which you said the courts recognition of the right to choose was quote created through the judicial

rather than grounded in the constitution. and during your tenure on the seventh circuit of appeal you have been willing to reconsider abortion restrictions that other republican judges found unconstitutional. as the senate considers filling the seat of justice ruth bader ginsburg. who will straightforward enough in her hearing to say that the right to choose is quote essential to woman's equality. i would suggest we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose and make healthcare decisions. mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent the following documents enter the record. a letter vice president

shl nominee of a major party. kamala harris of california. questioning amy coney barrett. who is the republican choice. donald trump's nominee. and the republicans are eagerly trying to get her very quickly onto the supreme court. there's a lot at stake. we have heard amy coney barrett not answer questions. on everything from the affordable care act. to institutional racism. and refuting some of her own past views on some of the issues. let's get into what we have seen. joining me now. former senator claire mccaskill of missouri. and justice correspondent. live tweeting this all day. and host of the beat. i'm going to let you go first. give me an impression of what you saw in the questioning. by kamala harris. of amy coney barrett. you think this expert prosecutor was able to get anymore content out of her? she's good at dodging all day. >> great to be with you. you're right. there's been a lot of dodging and evasion. because she sees herself with something to potentially lose. if there were a gaffe and little to gain. she was an expert cross examiner. viewers know she's great at this. i do not think it was a high point.

she didn't draw as much out as she was able to do against bill barr. she did do i thought better than many of the senators we have heard today. and the two take aways were number one, she said that the statement there are people out there specific examples feel their life is in someone els hand. the hand of the judges and politicians. and senator harris put it, they do not want the american people do not want this long settled question legally of obamacare to be reopened and potentially change. then point number two, harris was most effective. was she made the argument and inference that donald trump wanted barrett under the precondition that she'll be against obamacare. she didn't make that a wide ranging allegation. she teased it out in what many viewers notice the most tense moment of the exchange.

when did you know at this or that. and your article or writings about obamacare criticism there of came right before ssh didn't that interesting. right before the promotion from the president originally. let's be clear and fair. that's not proof. you have donald trumps tweets for the proof. for what he wants out of judges. it doesn't impugn a really impassioned opening.

before she got into her questioning about what what's at stake in terms of the numbers of millions of people who need healthcare particularly in the pandemic. booker did the sail thing. they opened with saying this is what is at stake in making that point. kamala harris saying i want to say this to the american people before i start the question. give the democrats a grade on this. the questioning has been klobuchar in my opinion was strong. booker was strong. harris was strong. what do you think? >> think they have done a really good job. what the republicans want is a brawl. they wanted it to be about somehow attacking this woman for religion. democrats are smart enough not to do that. they haven't gone near that. it's important to realize what kamala harris just did. for the first time today i think somebody has really hurt judge barrett's credibility. let's think about this. what she pointed out she was

named to a list by dunlt trump during the election. she would be considered for the supreme court. and she wants you to believe she doesn't know what the president was saying about what he wanted on the supreme court? that is just flatly unbelievable. she trying to make us believe that after she's on the list for the supreme court and donald trump gets elected. she happens to write an article that happens to be published the same month he's inaugurated calling out john roberts for the wrong decision on the aca and she gets appointed to the judiciary five months later. this is what kamala did. if she had a closing argument which she may tomorrow. she will pull all the pieces together and say do you believe this witness? do you believe she didn't know this is what trump wanted? of course she knew. you don't get on the list and not pay attention to what the potential president is saying

about the supreme court. i thought that was the most effective thing to happen today. >> yeah. we should note that kamala harris point out that amy coney barrett wrote articles and signed onto add verts opposing the affordable care act in 2006 and 2013. she's on the record as where she stands on the affordable care act and abortion. she's object record. you have been following this all day. let me play bookers exchange. which was strong. he really got great answers. let's listen. >> you condemn white supremacy correct? >> yes. >> thank you. i'm glad to see you said that. i wish the president would say that so resolutely as well. we are at a time the americans are fearful because the president cannot do that in the

resolute manner in which you did. do you believe every president should make a commitment i don't know. i have a blank slate. they pretend to be a blank slate. your thoughts? >> it's not a political controversy about whether or not the president of the united states should leave office if he doesn't win election.

that's not controversial. that's a simple thing. the fact she couldn't give a simple answer is easily the dis to come out of today. i think in general kamala harris and booker just showed you how to do things downtown. just the existence of a yes or no question. opposed to asking open ended and screaming yes or no answer. is so nice to see as a lawyer. and they both did that expertly. booker being able to draw blood on this issue of whether or not a judge who wants to be on the supreme court thinks a peaceful transfer of power is a thing that should happen is mind blowing. and harris said something important as well. she finally was the one who pinned her down on the question of recusal. the entire day she's been dancing around whether or not she would recuse. and actually

and harris made it clear. that it is amy coney barrett who gets to decide if trump gets to pick his own judges in the upcoming election lawsuit. >> quickly one more. a bunch of the deflection. here this is from feinstein. to klobuchar.

>> do you agree can justice scalia view that roe was wrongly decided? >> i complete le understand why you are asking the question. again, i can't precommit or say yes i'm going in with some agenda. i'm not. >> is it faithful to the democratic principles to fill a supreme court vacancy this sloes close to an election when people are still voting? >> senator klobuchar, i think that is a question for the political branchs. i'm not here on a mission to destroy the affordable care act. i'm here to apply the law and adhere@rule of law. >> if there were a snl skit. one of the senators would say what time is it? she would say i'm not here to commit answering that question. about time. i know time exists but -- you

know what i mean? she went blank. when ever someone asked a fact chul question about the law. >> that's on the money. if it were a text thread it would be when you ask someone something and they right back i don't know over and over again. which is annoying if you think they know. if true, you're light you don't know. if you doe know and on row which is so important. viewers are important. many people know this. the last two seats that donald trump filled were of previous republican appointments. this is a swing one. from what ginsburg believed on row and vote rights and civil rights and women rights. and all the big issues. swinging. so there's a huge potential shift here. and as you point out and drew viewers attention to, we have ducking and deflecting and dodging on the core question of

the roe v wade. she went out in the rest of her life to use free speech and public activism to show she personally opposes roe. she's in the position of saying the president or the federal society or other conservative groups they get to know she's personally against it. but the senate and others don't get to know anything else. that understandably raises higher suspicious when she would be, could be, maybe, the vote to oe turn that. no other expert today say look trump looks like a one termer. if he gets three judges in he'll be. this changes the court for a generation. because of the seat initially stolen from the prior president obama. >> to the point that he made of it's only annoying if you know they know. let's play another one.

this is this lady is a sitting judge. right now. she knows the law. klobuchar who was effective questioning today asked a simple question. is voter intimidation illegal? here's what happened. >> so, as a result of his claims people are trying to get poll watchers. especially forces people to go to the poll. under federal law is it illegal to intimidate voters at the poll? >> senator klobuchar, i can't characterize the facts and the hypothetical situation. and i can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts. >> i'll make it easier. out laws anyone who intimidates, threatens, coerces or attempts to intimidate threaten or cohearse any other person for the to vote. this is a law that has been on

the books for decades. do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the presence of armed civilian fwrups at the poll? >> that is eliciting. just an upon as a citizen. but it's not something really that is appropriate for me to comment on. >> would a reasonable person be intimidated by armed gunmen standing at the poll? it's only annoying if you think they know the answer. >> it's almost like trump is telling her stand back and standby. we have to understand what this woman is being set to do. we have to understand why it is so important for donald trump to get this justice on the court before this election. again, we don't have to look far. trump already told us had wants

the supreme court to look at the ballot. it would be the easiest thing in the world for her to say i'm not going to do that. i really want this job. i think i worked my whole life to get to this point. there's no way that i'm going to rule on election for the president that just nominated me during the election. it would be the easiest thing in the world to do. the fact she won't do it tells you all you need know about her character and what she intends to do if she's confirmed before the election. >> all right. one moment. at the is senator ask amy coney

barrett about her former statements saying that she shouldn't be in the position. this far into ran election you shouldn't replace somebody and make a non-lateral move on the court. >> would you say that replacing justice ginsburg by yourself is not a lateral move? like when you supported the blocking of president obama's nominee judge garland.

>> i want to be very clear. i think that not quite what i said. in the interview. this was a decision that was political branchs to make. i didn't say which way they should go. i said it was the senates call. i didn't add have cvocate for p support the blocking of the nomination. >> actually, she did. >> here's her not doing it. >> we're talking about scalia. the staunchest conservative on the court. and talking about him being replaced by someone who could dramatically flip the balance of power. it's not a lateral move. >> that was after a long wind up. where she said well, when justice kennedy was confirmed in an election year, that was he

had been nominated in the november. and that was a resigned in june. this is very different because now with garland the primaries have started. and there's people have voted in the primary. the hypocrisy is crazy. that was before this. and then she did exactly this. saying also kennedy replaced a panel who was a moderate conservative. but scalia just died. he's a real conservative. and whoever obama nominates will be it will tilt the court. and change the balance of the court. of course, roberts cast the deciding vote in every 5-4 decision that went the liberals

way. in this last term. so, obviously. this whole thing is so hypocritical it's amazing. >> does this surprise you. >> no. >> people believe the only reason we have the affordable care act is that you had to fight for your senate seat in court all the way through the summer of 2009. people forget democrats didn't come in with 60 vote. that had to claw their way to 60 votes through your seat. which finally gave them a break. and senator kennedy died. there was a lot of personnel change that made it possible to make the affordable care act to cause it to be passed. republicans have fought every day since then. and want to get rid of it. does it surprise you they are willing to do this to steal a supreme court seat in order get rid of it? >> no. they are huge hypocrites.

you know, the federal -- they're asking the questions. it's really a kbuk dance. a puppet show. because there's no surprises here. claire mccaskill just said, she was on the short list from the federal society. said about gorsuch and there's no surprises. meaning there's not a suitor. there's not a justice suitor who surprises us. the federalist society -- she says i didn't talk to the president about this. you don't think she talked to the federalist society about this? of course she did. they vet everyone.

and he said i will only appoint people who are on the federalist society short list. you think she might have talked to the federalist society people who may then have talked to the president? my goodness. this is just shameful. of course -- if the president had asked her would you over turn row v wade. mr. president that's inappropriate. might i point out who sent me? >> exactly. let's play this is another clip. this is feinstein questioning amy coney barrett. this was about whether or not -- this should have been a lay up. this was an easy one. about whether the president of the united states can unilaterally delay the election. i'm not lawyer. i know he can't. let's see if she knows that. >> does the constitution give the president of the united states the authority to unilaterally delay a election

under any circumstances? >> if that question ever came before me i would need to hear arguments. and read briefs. and consult with law clerks and colleagues and go through the opinion writing process. we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and open mind. >> your witness. >> if the president declared marshall law, on november 2. i can't answer that. this is ridiculous. also. she said it would be improper for her to recuse herself. from the dtdsing the election. deciding the election. no it wouldn't. it wouldn't be improper at all. she says i have to consult with everybody. it's the justices decision. wouldn't it be -- wouldn't you feel better if she said yeah i

recuse myself obviously. she's in the going to do it. >> not going to happen. quick -- >> yeah go ahead. >> go ahead. i was going to say that what i hope is there's a political price if they -- they're going to do this. what i hope is that the voters in north carolina and south carolina and texas and iowa, they know what's happening. it's very obvious what's happened. and i hope that all of them pay a real price. >> at election. >> losing. >> i want to give the last word to claire. this is now an election issue. not an issue of whether or not republicans will steal the seat. this is whether voters will punish republicans for stealing this seat. >> that's correct. it's also frankly about what's going to happen if we don't all turn out and vote and flip the

senate. besides winning the white house. i'm so glad he brought up she woulden. everybody go take the tutorial. 30 minutes long. it's astounding what they have done with the jus it is system. astounding how they have dirtied up the supreme court with the dark money and all the people that federalist society and the judicial crisis net work. he was brilliant today. and i think people breezed by it. because he didn't engage with the judge. please please, please. listen to that 30 minutes. and get busy. >> he said it was a puppet show. and then said pulling the strings and pushing the stick. which was being complete about

how puppet shows are done. >> strings and sticks. >> claire mccaskill, al franken, thank you. appreciate you hanging out. all right. a desperate donald trump. now just totally off the ralts on covid-19. and spreads the

the trump campaign,

otherwise known as the covid misinformation tour, marches right along with trump stumping at a superspreader rally right now in johnstown, pennsylvania. fresh off a covid diagnosis. trump is using his own illness, by the way, to further wage his war against coronavirus health restrictions, sending his flunkies out to escalate his lies. we have trump's tv attorney telling rudy giuliani a packed room in philadelphia that people don't die of coronavirus anymore. senator mike lee of utah spreading respiratory droplets at the confirmation hearing for amy coney barrett, as he spoke unmasked ten days after testing positive for covid-19. and then florida governor ron desantis, who will stop at nothing to move up the trumpian food chain, and that includes infecting others and even himself with covid. giving high fives at a trump rally. ew. and then rubbing his nose. so gross. it all goes to show that trump's party is not living in the real world. they're living in a gross other world. this is the real world where

people are voting, participating in democracy, and perhaps even saving our democracy right now. we are listening to the medical experts. that's what we're doing. because the -- because the fall covid-19 surge has already arrived with multiple states recording new highs in cases. and there's this other world that's not even earth 2 but in its own separate galaxy where trump and his foot soldiers are pretending there is no covid putting you, your family and community at risk. joining me now is dr. vin gupta and michael steele, former rnc chair and senior adviser for the lincoln project. thank you all for being here. i don't know if we have it, but i'll ask my producers if they can try and find it, donald trump dancing around on stage like it's just great, you know, there's music and it's fine. but i'm going to go to you first, michael steele, because i can't think of anything more gross than what the governor of florida did, you know, slobbing his nose and in between shaking hands and high-fiving and

touching people. i mean, it is other worldly to watch this earth 3, i guess we're calling it, unfold, as if covid isn't really. politically, though, you're my politics guy on this. how is that -- how can they make that good politics? how? >> well, it's good politics for people who believe in what they're seeing and what's being said. i mean, so that's -- that's the case. i mean, you know, you and i know -- just to give a shout-out to the good dr. gupta here, you know, in a regular season like we're about to enter into with the flu, he would tell you not to wipe your nose with your hands after shaking hands with people, let alone in a covid environment. joy, i've been on this show how many times now? you can't help stupid. i don't know why we try to analyze it. it's just beyond the -- you showed the video. go to the videotape. you can play the video and say nothing. and just go, don't worry, we'll wait. >> the show should be a mime.

i should just be like, look at this person blowing snot at people. look at them. >> right. >> okay. you're absolutely right. let me show -- let's do another one. dr. fauci is now accusing the trump campaign of literally bullying him and saying -- using his words against his will when he said he did not -- oh, is this the dance video? that was he not attempting to endorse donald trump. is now harassment. he said. they're harassing me. this campaign's ads are about getting votes. their harassment of me might have the opposite effect of turning voters off. so what did donald trump do? went back to harassing him, tweeting about his inability to throw a baseball. dr. gupta, these rallies. i guess while we're doing it, why don't we go play the montage that has the dance video in it. not that we don't want to see the wonderful dr. gupta. what they're doing right now, to me, if they were -- if they were trying to do herd immunity against the will of the majority

of the american people and trying to implement it just over our objections, what would they be doing differently than they're doing now? >> joy, good to see you. and michael, good to be with you here. you know, joy, this is not my opinion, but this is every expert -- well, most experts, i should say, knows that if we do at scale what they're doing at these focal rallies across the country, if we open up schools, if we open up universities, what we know is going to happen is by february 1st we're going to have a death toll that's going to exceed 500,000 individuals. that is what the institute for health metrics, my home institution, is projecting. that's what other major models are projecting and, you know, they've been right. that's the scary part is each time there's been critiques of these models, but, actually, when you look back, they've ultimately been correct because we know that congregating without masks and social distancing, hand hygiene, joy. let me interject and say we know that covid-19 virus particles

exist on the hand for nine hours if you're not sanitizing. who knows what governor desantis just did to those poor individuals in the audience. but the science is true. the science always bears itself out. we have eight months of data. we're not just speaking into an echo chamber, hopefully we're speaking the truth there. 500,000 individuals dead by february 1st if they continue to do what they're doing now and are given that power to continue to do it after january 1st. i will say there is not enough room in the air to talk about, for example, why is the white house still continuing to use the abbot i.d. now technology? joy and michael, just -- just to clarify, for the entire viewership for this panel, that technology is deemed to be -- have positive agreement with gold standard lab-based tests 48% of the time, based on a study published three weeks prior to the white house outbreak. >> are you talking about the

test they're saying he took? yeah, you're saying the negative test he took, you're saying, is the abbot test? okay. >> so the abbot i.d. now test. the initial test they were using before they went on -- right before the test they were using to screen hope hicks and others, that test is a poor performing test. they, the white house, can afford the best tests. why are they setting such a poor example for the rest of the country by utilizing a test we know not to be good anymore. much less obviously, joy, not quarantining for 20 days with a diagnosis of covid-19 pneumonia, and really disappointing to see dr. conley using his medical credentials to justify an approach that you can't test your way out of. it doesn't make any sense. you can't test your way out of 20 days, which is the cdc guideline if you have severe covid-19 pneumonia. a bad example to propagate and it's very dangerous. >> very quickly, michael steele, shouldn't democrats be looking for someone to run against ron desantis already now, given that

he's now sneezy -- sneezy mcdesantis? >> they should, but, you know, and they will. look, one -- one coronavirus-infected campaign at a time. >> dr. vin gupta, thank you. dr. michael steele -- michael steele, thank you very much. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> i think this will end up in the supreme court. and i think it's very important that we have nine justices. >> he's trying to rush this nomination ahead so you might cast a decision, a vote in his favor in the event of a disputed election. >> one last heist by a party on the verge of losing power. tonight, senator chuck schumer on today's supreme court charade and the desperate republican attempt to force an unpopular agenda down america's throat. then, another covid outbreak