good evening, rachel. >> thanks chris. thank you very much, much appreciated. thanks to you at home for joining us. the great city of oklahoma city notified the state of oklahoma that it has no more icu beds available as a crush of covid patients overwhelms hospital as a crush of covid patients overwhelms the capacity in oklahoma city. in jackson, mississippi, the state health director now reports that six major mississippi hospitals are also down to zero capacity, zero beds in their intensive care units. again because of a crush of covid patients in mississippi. in north dakota, we spoke with the health director in bismarck, north dakota, last night. today the state once again reports there's a grand total of one icu bed left in the whole bismarck region. and that is even as the number of cases in the state of north dakota hit another record high today for the sixth straight day

in a row. but again in bismarck, the state capitol where there's one icu bed left for the whole city they've also now got 52 covid cases in the bismarck public schools. and then that's just like a smattering of local headlines right now. but local headlines look like that all around the country right now. as dozens of states are hitting record numbers, new record numbers for covid cases and in some cases for hospitalizations. meanwhile a white house official has just admitted to reporters on background, meaning the person won't use his name -- that person has now admitted to reporters that the trump policy for the country right now and coronavirus is what's known colloquially as herd immunity, letting the virus run its course through the american population without doing much of anything to try to stop it, under some vague idea that somehow you will

simultaneously protect old people and otherwise vulnerable people, while you maximize the number of americans who are infected. this is i think the technical term is a whack job flat earth totally out there concept in public health. but the white house now admits this is national policy for the united states of america on covid. in an interview with "the washington post" today about the white house now admitting this is what they're trying to do the country nih director francis collins said this. quote, what i worry about this is it's being presented as if it's a major alternative view that is held by large numbers of experts in the scientific community. that is not true. this is fringed component of epidemiology. this is not main stream science. it is dangerous. it fits into the political views of certain parts of our confused political establishment. he said, quote, i'm sure it will be an idea that someone can wrap themselves in as a justification for skipping wearing masks or

social distancing and just doing whatever they damn well please. nih director frances collins. i mean, that appears to be exactly what it is. but apparently the trump administration is now willing to admit to reporters this is what the trump administration is pursuing as national policy. this is what they want for it country. and you can see it in action. you don't necessarily just have to take their word for it, and you never should. they're not only admitting it, they're also showing you what they mean. they're demonstrating this principle at the president's events. at his no masks, everybody packed together events like the one he did last night in sanford, florida. he's been holding another one of these very similar events look at this tonight in pennsylvania. there's another one scheduled that'll be just like this tomorrow in iowa. the president has started bragging at these no social distancing, no mask events, that

he's sure he's immune now from getting covid since he has had it. that's basically what they're promoting now for the country, everyone should get it. you should get it, it'll make you immune. this is what the white house is leading with now as their coronavirus message. well, we now have this new report in a peer reviewed medical journal that having covid once doesn't actually necessarily make you immune. covid-19 reinfection documented in nevada adds to question on virus immunity. they're medically documenting now people who got it once recovered, and then got it again worse. maybe getting infected with covid doesn't necessarily render you immune. also today, a new published report of a woman not only getting covid a second time, after surviving it the first time, but the second time she

got it, it killed her. now that the u.s. government is admitting, though, that this we'll all be immune, flat earth fringed theory what they're promoting for the country, the world health organization is trying to raise the alarm as well. the w.h.o. director yesterday convening a press conference to basically hammer it home, saying never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used to respond to an outbreak let alone a pandemic. letting covid-19 circulate unchecked means unnecessary infections, suffering and death. but that's the plan apparently, and the white house is now admitting it. right, good luck. 215,000 of us dead already in this country. but i mean here's the headlines tonight as i think the country is starting to wake up to how serious this is and what exactly this means. here's the head line in "the new york times" tonight "white house embraces herd immunity declaration."

in "the washington post," proposal to hasten herd immunity to coronavirus grabs white house attention but appalls top scientists. those headlines running right alongside the breaking news tonight. more than 20 states have set records for new covid infections in recent days. and antibody treatment trial paused for safety concerns. and -- second covid-19 vaccine trial paused over unexplained illness. i mean, you take all this stuff together and here's the big picture, right? we are 21 days out. we are three weeks from election day. more than 10 million americans have already voted. we're in the middle of the election basically. our country is rocketing fast into a third big wave of covid. dozens of states hitting records, hospitals filling up already in multiple states. there is no vaccine. there is no cure, despite the president pretending there is a cure and maybe it's him. there's troubling new evidence

that getting infected doesn't necessarily make you immune. but the most powerful country on earth is nevertheless now admitting we are pursuing a radical experimental fringe strategy of trying to get our whole population all infected anyway because maybe we'll be immune if we do that, could be. regardless they think just everybody purposely getting infected will be easier than wearing masks and the other things you need to do to stop people from spreading this thing. and besides nothing matters, who knows, let's just see what happens. i don't mean to be weird about it, but i have been trying to warn that they were falling in love with this quack theory on herd immunity. i've been trying to warn about it for the next few weeks because you could see this happening since they started sidelining the real doctors inside the upper levels of the decision making process on covid. they started bringing in these flat earth guys, these frankly epidemiological aqua quacks,

these guys that don't have any authority in the subject matter at all and said let's let everybody get it. i'm sure numerically they'll be fine. could see this coming, and now they're finally admitting that's what they're doing. this is big deal. what the white house is now admitting they are doing as national policy is a recipe for hundreds of thousands more americans dead if not millions of americans dead. and that's even if this theory works, which it won't. but the plan is infect as many of us as possible. and i'm not sure the political world has caught up to this revelation this is what trump's doing now. i mean, it's interesting. the election is turning to a significant degree i think on the president botching the response to covid. you can see that i think in most clearly in the new dnc ad that's out today you might have seen. it's good. i think the democratic party is telling a story about covid that is both sort of true and cogent, which means it's resonating. but even still, even with their current messaging on covid, which is good, i think they're going to have to ramp this up a few notches at some point to

account for the fact the trump administration is full on overtly embracing this experimental fringe herd immunity plan to infect as many as possible, i think the democrats are probably going to have to take this up a few levels to account for this new admission from the white house. in the meantime, though, as of today this is basically the core message of the campaign. this is the dnc ad on covid just out today. >> he was warned but ignored the evidence. holding rallies indoors, turning a white house into a super spreader and contracting the virus himself. >> now tested positive. >> now he claims he's learned about covid. >> i get it. >> but he hasn't learned a thing. putting us and those sworn to protect him at risk. >> don't be afraid of it. >> meanwhile america pays the price. 215,000 dead, no plan. and now another wave is coming. had enough? >> i'm joe biden, and i approve

this message. >> had enough? that's the current dnc ad on covid. i think even the starkness of that is probably going to have to be ramped up given what the white house is now admitting about wanting a maximum number of americans to get infected because they're embracing this herd immunity thing. in that ad the white house as super spreader footage that they showed quickly in that ad, that's from the event where the president announced the nomination of his new nominee to the supreme court, amy coney barrett. in this last minute shove to try to get her onto the supreme court today i actually think it was kind of a rough day for the nominee. republicans think they will confirm her no matter what happens in her confirmation. i think that's why they're not expending too much energy on how this is going, but this is going to have knock on effects regardless of whether or not she actually makes it onto the court. the election is under way, 10

million americans have already voted. millions more americans preparing to cast their ballots while these hearings have been going on. what's been happening at these hearings can't be good for the nominee, can't be good for the republicans in the senate pushes her through, and it also can't be good for the president who has all but explicitly suggested she needs to be on the court and fast, vote for him when he expects the court to intervene in the election to make sure he wins. i think republicans don't much think it matters what happens in the confirmation process for amy coney barrett. but this is not the look they want to be selling the country right now while we're all in the middle of voting. >> last week a contractor from outside of my state of minnesota started recruiting poll watchers with special forces experience to protect polling locations in my state. similar efforts are going on around the country as solicited by president trump's false claims of massive voter fraud. as a result of his claims people

are trying to get poll watchers, special forces people to go to the polls. judge barrett under federal law is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls? >> senator klobuchar, i can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation. and i can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts. i can only decide cases as they come to me litigated by parties on a full record after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion and so i can't answer questions like that. >> okay. well, i'll make it easier. 18 usc 594 outlaws anyone who intimidates, threatens, courses or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce, any other person for intent to interfere to vote. this has been a law on the books for decades. >> on july 31st, president trump

made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election. does the constitution give the president of the united states the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? does federal law? >> well, senator, if that question ever came before me, i would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process. >> no -- no, you wouldn't -- i mean i know those are the motions you go through in your job, but that was actually a very simple question. under the constitution and federal law,no provision for the president of the united states to unilaterally delay an election. that is not a thing in america regardless of what your clerks think. but judge amy coney barrett said the president wants to unilaterally delay an election, i'd like to hear more about that. i'd have to entertain that idea. judge barrett also apparently not cognizant of the fact voter

intimidation is federal crime, full stop. the question was not do you think things that are going on in the country right now are voter intimidation. the question was is voter intimidation a crime under federal law? she appeared to have no idea that the answer is plainly, yes. judge barrett, it's 21 days to the election with donald trump on the ballot. judge barrett also today refused to say if we should commit to a peaceful transition of power between presidents. she said she wouldn't weigh in on that. judge barrett also today refusing to say if roe vs. wade is so-called super precedent which is a term she used today. a super precedent that should be deferred to the court. she wouldn't say. judge barrett also had a very hard time explaining why she has avoided disclosing to the senate some of the publications from her years of activism trying to get abortion declared illegal in this country.

>> the st. joseph's county right to life sponsored the letter that you signed? >> i think the st. joseph county right to life organization was the one who presented the statement that i signed at the back of the church. >> i want to give you an opportunity to clarify -- you didn't disclose that letter when you were nominated to the seventh circuit in 2017, did you? >> i did not, senator blumenthal. >> the questionnaire asked for letters. have you disclosed it now? have you provided it officially? >> so, senator, as i said i've supplemented my questionnaire with other material that came to light that i do think was responsive. >> let me ask you about another letter, 2013 letter. you signed onto this letter regarding roe v. wade, sponsored by the university faculty for life at notre dame. you remember that organization, correct? >> i do.

>> and the letter described roe v. wade as -- it's behind me -- infamous. and it stated that the signatories, quote, renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law. correct? >> yes -- >> but you didn't disclose that letter? >> again, senator, i produced 1,800 pages of material. >> you disclosed in fact just about three days ago i believe. >> because that's when it was brought to my attention. >> the organization that led the effort believes that in vitro fertilization, ivf, is equivalent to manslaughter and should be prosecuted. do you agree with them that ivf is tantamount to manslaughter? >> senator, the statement that i signed as you said simply said we -- i signed it on the way out of church.

it was consistent with the views of my church. i've never expressed a view on it, and for the reasons that i've already stated i can't take policy positions or express my personal views before the committee. >> amy coney barrett today did not want to talk about her years of anti-abortion activism and her advocacy and membership in organizations that are not only against abortion, they're against the most popular forms of birth control in this country. and as senator leahy was getting at there, they want to outlaw ivf. it's one thing for senator -- excuse me, judge barrett to have been publicly an activist on those causes, a part of member someplace organizations through which she was a public advocate on policy issues on that matter. it's another thing for her to try to hide that material from the committee. but all of those things were laid out today in her hearing.

on ivf, though, what senator leahy is talking about there was in vitro fertilization. she was a member of an organization. she was signed on to a document produced by an organization that did believe that in vitro fertilization is manslaughter and should be prosecuted as such. they want that outlawed as much. they want you to go to jail for having fertility treatment. those kind of associations for judge barrett led today to this unprecedented anti-endorsement from fertility doctors who actually tend to be a fairly conservative bunch. the journal fertility and sterility for the first time ever put out a statement today on a supreme court nominee saying judge barrett holds, quote, fringe anti-science views and that, quote, the seating of amy coney barrett to the supreme court threatens those who seek to build a family through in vitro fertilization. quote, should barrett be seated

to the supreme court with her publicly stated positions that would severely hamper fertility treatments, we fear that reproductive health care would be set back many decades. endangering the families for which we care. in the 70 years of fertility and sterility, which is the name of the journal for fertility doctors, quote, we have never felt the need to opine on the seating of a supreme court for any party. for the reproductive health of all americans, though, we do so today. when the fertility doctors are mad at you -- when the fertility doctors are making a political statements saying, oh, my god, don't let this judge on the court, given the number of american families who have used fertility treatments, that's attention getting. lots of democratic senators pressed the nominee on these matters today. she wouldn't say anything substantive about any of them. but democrats are at least using their time in this confirmation process to let you know what we're about to get from this last minute nominee rushed through by the republicans in the last few days before this

election that they think they are going to lose. but, you know, this isn't just an abstract political fight. big political fights are almost never just abstract. this isn't even an abstract fight specifically for the senators who are going to be voting on this nomination. one democratic senator who says he will vote no on the barrett nomination is senator gary peters of michigan. senator peters is a low-key sort of low profile middle of the road democratic senator from michigan. he's in his first term. he's currently running for a second term. his republican opponent in this election is a man named john james. he's trying for a second time to win a senate seat in michigan. more than anything else, john james is associated with two political movements on the right. number one is unwavering almost worshipful support for donald trump, and number two, the anti-abortion movement which has supported him hammer and tongs because james not only wants roe vs. wade overturned but even says women who have been

forcibly impregnated by a rapist should then be forced by the government to bear the rapist's child. that's what he describes as a 100% pro-life position. senator gary peters on the other hand the incumbent democratic senator is pro-choice. and senator peters has just done something no other senator male or female has ever done before. senator peters of michigan has just gone public with his family's personal story about abortion. explaining that with this nomination of amy coney barrett to the supreme court and what that's going to mean for women's rights in this country, now is the time for people to speak up on this issue. particularly people in power. particularly if they have personal experience with this. this is an absolutely unprecedented thing that michigan senator michigan senator gary peters has just done. no sitting senator has ever done anything publicly like this before. and the story itself is remarkable. it will move you.

we've got that story and senator gary peters here live. next. t. still a father. but now a friend. still an electric car. just more electrifying. still a night out. but everything fits in. still hard work. just a little easier. still a legend. just more legendary. chevrolet. making life's journey, just better. makbeautiful. butrney, when i started cobra kai, the lack of control over my business made me a little intense. but now i practice a different philosophy. quickbooks helps me get paid, manage cash flow, and run payroll. and now i'm back on top... with koala kai. hey! more mercy. save over 30 hours a month with intuit quickbooks.

the easy way to a happier business. they have businesses to grow customers to care for lives to get home to they use stamps.com print discounted postage for any letter any package any time right from your computer all the amazing services of the post office only cheaper get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/now and never go to the post office again!

in business you have to be then do it all over again. comcast business gives you fast, reliable internet on the nation's largest gig-speed network. and now for a limited time, you can also get fast shipping- with amazon business prime essentials. so no matter what comes next, you'll always be ready to bounce forward. get started with powerful internet and voice for $64.90 a month, and ask how you can get one free year of amazon busines prime essentials on us.

call or go online today. comcast business.

senator gary peters of michigan, democrat up for re-election this year has just become the first sitting u.s. senator in history to go public with his own family's story about abortion. saying he felt compelled to do so given the threat posed to women's rights by the nomination of antibody antibody to the u.s. supreme court. senator peters told the story that his family experienced to reporter laura basset for "elle" magazine. in the late 1980s in detroit gary peters and his then wife heidi were pregnant with their second child, a baby they very much wanted. heidi was 4 months along with when her water broke leaving the fetus without amniotic fluid, a condition it could not possibly

survive. the doctor told the peters to go home and wait for a miscarriage to happen naturally, but it didn't happen. they went back to the hospital the next day and the doctor detected a faint heartbeat. he recommended an abortion because the fetus still had no chance of survival, but it wasn't an option due to a hospital policy banning the procedure. so the doctor sent the couple again home to wait for a miscarriage. peters says, quote, the mental anguish someone goes through is intense. trying to have a miscarriage for a child that was wanted. as they waited heidi's health deteriorated. when she returned to the hospital on the third day after another night without a natural miscarriage the doctor told her the situation was dire. she could lose her uterus in a matter of hours if she wasn't able to have an abortion. and if she became septic from the uterine infection, she could die. the doctor appealed to the hospital's board for an exception to their anti-abortion policy. he was denied. peter says, quote, i still vividly remember he left a message on the answering machine saying they refused to give me permission. not based on good medical

practice, simply based on politics. i recommend you immediately find another physician who can do this procedure quickly. the peters were able to get into another hospital right away because they were friends with its chief administrator. heidi was rushed into an emergency abortion that saved her uterus and possibly her life. the whole experience was painful and traumatic heidi shared in a statement. if it weren't for urgent and critical medical care i could have lost my life. reflecting on the experience now senator gary peters says it enacted an incredible -- excuse me, it exacted an incredible emotional toll. so why go public with it? he says, quote, it's important for people to understand these things happen to folks every day. i've always considered myself pro choice. i believe women should be able to make these decisions themselves, when you live it in real life you realize the significant impact it can have on a family. it's important for families willing to these stories to tell

them. especially now, peters says. the new supreme court could make a decision to have major ramifications for women's health for decades to come. this is pivotal moment for reproductive freedom. no sitting senator has ever before gone public with a personal story like this, but gary peters just has. joining us now is senator gary peters from the great state of michigan. senator, i know it's a busy time right now both in the senate and in the middle of your reelection campaign. thanks for attacking the time to talk with us tonight. >> good to be with you, rachel. >> so i know being a public servant and being a public figure necessarily go hand in hand, but i have to imagine it still must have been a hard decision for you and your family to tell the world about this experience, to put this out to the world. >> well, it is tough. it's not easy. and even though it occurred many years ago when you relive the experience it still brings great

pain. and the mental anguish that heidi went through, that i went through lives on. and i think it's just so important that folks understand that people can be put in these situations that are so difficult. and people go through these today and on a regular basis. often, these voices are not heard in the abortion debate and you'll hear other stories. but these are the stories folks go through every day. these are babies that are wanted. this is something that a family looks forward to, and then a pregnancy goes bad and medical treatment isn't provided because someone is making a decision not based on medicine, not best medical practice, but politics. and that's simply unacceptable. and right now when we're in the midst of a debate for a new supreme court justice they may overrule roe vs. wade, this is going to become a bigger issue for families for a long time. it's important for these stories

to be told. and i know women, what they go through in losing a child and the anguish they go through. i experienced it first-hand with my wife, and it's the whole family. it's husbands, it's other loved ones. these are decisions that need to be made by a woman. they are incredibly difficult, hard, hard decisions. they need to be made with the advice of a physician and the medical advice. and folks that the woman may want to bring into that decision. but to have it second guessed by a hospital board who is bound by some sort of politics or whatever it may be, as you mentioned i will never forget that recording. to get that news, that horrible news on our recording machine and understand that we needed to find someone right away. we were fortunate. we knew someone who could get her into -- heidi into -- actually the department head for

ob/gyn who could look at her, and he said immediately we have to do this action, this is very, very serious. there are a lot of families who don't have that option, and puts folks in serious medical harm. we've got to understand these are stories people go through. and the anguish you experience, it doesn't go away for a long, long time. and people don't want to tell these stories. they're painful stories. they're stories that they live with and feel alone and feel that they're suffering in ways they can't share. that's not right. we have to understand that these are -- these are medical procedures that are necessary for a woman's health and many times her life. >> senator, i know you have said that part of the reason that you needed to speak out now is because of what's going to likely happen on the supreme court if judge barrett is confirmed. she's signed onto an anti-abortion advertisement that

called the roe v. wade does prevents states from outlawing abortion, she calls it barbaric. that was statement from a group that said fertility treatment ought to be criminalize, people ought to go to jail if they have fertility treatment. democratic senators today tried to pin her down both on her views but on her not disclosing those things to the committee. i wonder given your personal experience, given what i know has been a very intense response to your disclosing this personal story from your family, how central do you think this should be to her evaluation as a nominee to the court? obviously her impact to the court is going to be wide and going to be a lot of different issues. how central should this set of issues be? >> i think it has to be central, and this puts a real face on what is involved when you are approving a supreme court nominee. this is someone who's going to sit on the bench and will likely be on the bench for perhaps

decades to come. and the decisions that are made have substantial consequences in peoples lives. and what i went through i know others go through every day. the outpouring of e-mails that i have received from folks around the country and women who have experienced similar types of situation feel that they're not heard, they're not seen, and to think you're going to put someone on a supreme court that's going to make this nightmare for many people very real, i think has to be part of any decision made as to who we put on that bench and the decisions they're going to make have major ramifications for peoples lives for a long period of time. folks need to tell these stories. people need to know what actually happens every day for folks all across this country. >> senator gary peters of the great state of michigan in his first term currently returning for a second term.

sir, i know this is -- as you said this is hard thing to decide to do, but it's a public service of a really unique kind. thanks for helping us understand tonight. thanks for being here. >> thank you, rachel. thank you very much. all right. much more ahead here tonight. stay with us. so you're a small business,

or a big one. you were thriving, but then... oh. ah. okay. plan, pivot. how do you bounce back? you don't, you bounce forward, with serious and reliable internet. powered by the largest gig speed network in america. but is it secure? sure it's secure. and even if the power goes down, your connection doesn't. so how do i do this? you don't do this. we do this, together. bounce forward, with comcast business. my hands are everything to me. but i was diagnosed with dupuytren's contracture. and it got to the point where things i took for granted got tougher to do. thought surgery was my only option.

turns out i was wrong. so when a hand specialist told me about nonsurgical treatments, it was a total game changer. like you, my hands have a lot more to do. learn more at factsonhand.com today. supreme court nominees refusing to answer senators questions is standard practice, but there were some questions today that would seem to have very clear answers, even for, like, people who had never been to law school, let alone already been appellate court judges. especially with those answers are explicitly spelled out in the constitution and federal law. nevertheless, these moments came and went today and it was a little weird. >> does the constitution give the president of the united states the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? does federal law? >> well, senator, if that

question ever came before me, i would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process. so, if i give off-the-cuff answers, i would be basically a legal pundit. >> judge barrett, under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls? >> senator klobuchar, i can't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and i can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts like that. >> okay, i'll make it easier. 18usc 594 outlaws anyone who intimidates, threatens, coerces or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce any other person interfering with the right of such other person to vote. >> i'll make it easier for you, joining us, she hosts the

excellent "slate" podcast. it's really nice to see you. thanks for joining us. >> thanks rachel. >> refusing to answer senators' questions is standard practice. some of what happened today struck me as actually strange, though. shouldn't judge barrett have just said, yeah, of course there's a federal law against voter intimidation? i mean, were some of these things that happened today just mistakes by judge barrett? >> you know, it's funny, rachel. i wrote in my notebook as she was refusing to engage on these questions. i wrote down the words the banality of neutrality. there's something about, you know, the president is now on the record saying the election is going to be stolen, that every mail-in ballot is fraudulent, that he's relying on his justice department and the court to help him. the whole impetus is to pollute confidence in the vote, to pollute confidence in federal

law. and i think there's something really amazing. cory booker has said this over and over again. this isn't normal. the right answer is, is the president trying to steal the election? no, he can't. that would be the right answer. and i think there's some sort of thinking here where she feels as though she's untethering herself from his untetheredness, but what she's in fact doing is helping to contribute to this narrative that maybe it's all up for grabs, maybe she could go either way. and that's just chilling in a moment where you feel as though you would really like somebody to say unequivocally, no, the president doesn't get to delay the election, and by the way you don't get to send thugs out to do poll voter intimidation. so i don't know if it was a mistake, but i know that for a lot of people who really need to hear there's an answer to those questions the idea there are good people on both sides of those questions was not super,

super helpful today. >> and i also feel like it would have been -- i'm not sure it would have earned a white house explosion for judge barrett to say, oh, yeah, voter intimidation is illegal under federal law unless she didn't know that but everybody knows that. but the peaceful transfer of power she did sort of wax eloquent and say it's a nice thing about our country that we have that, but she wouldn't say we're going to have that, and there is going to be a peaceful transfer of power. there's also a point she refused to engage in the question whether or not the president can pardon himself, and all these things no longer seem like law school exercises. i guess the same version of the first question is should we have expected even those gimme things to now be essentially fuzzed up

by her and nonseen as -- not seen as something that all of us as americans agree on? >> yeah, i guess i'm going to give you the same essential answer which in a perfect world these are yes, no binary questions, and it would, i think, assuage a lot of fear to have a person who is kind of bolting towards the seat in which she will decide these questions simply say, as a matter of law, of course, no, of course, no. and i don't understand the cost of saying of course no, but i do think this kind of weird moral relativism, legal relativism, you know, everything is a coin toss, it does serve the president's ultimate purpose. it does serve the purpose of muddying the waters, photoing doubt, really raising questions

about how confident you can be about not just your vote but the court's and the justice department. and i don't understand the cost of simply saying i'm going to be the place where the doubt stops. she's made that choice. it's interesting to me, that's the choice she's made. >> tomorrow should be interesting to see if she sticks with it. i think that -- i can imagine the sort of training that might have gone into these prep sessions to get her ready to do something like this. i think the way it's landing is all cost and no benefit to her even politically. but we'll see if it changes tomorrow. dollia lithwick who suffers the courts for slate, hosts the podcast thank you as always for your wisdom. >> thanks, rachel. all right, coming up here next tonight one of the largest cities in the country set a sort of remarkable record on its first day of early voting. this is a crazy story. a guest right in the middle of it joining us next. stay with us.

today was day one of early voting in the great state of texas, and just like georgia's first day yesterday, polling places across the state of texas had big long lines starting very early this morning. in dallas, for example, this was a long line down the block at the oak lawn branch polling site. the san antonio spurs basketball team shared this video of the line outside their home arena. at&t being used as an early voting site in the great city of san antonio. voters lined up this morning in downtown tyler texas as well. in odessa, texas, they lined up at the hardware store to vote. in the capital of texas, austin. check this out. this a time lapse video of the reporter showing a line at the shady hollow shopping center. one poll worker estimating nearly a three-hour line wait at the voting booth there. one of the reasons in austin this year there are a ton of registered voters in around and

austin. this year, just about every single person who is eligible to vote in travis county is registered to vote. travis county announced today of the over 850,000 eligible voters in that county, 97% of them are registered to vote. 97% registration of eligible voters. so that's austin, texas. the largest city, houston, harris county had absolutely turn out and four years ago in 2016 harris county had 40 early voting sites. this year it's got over 100 including ten drive-thru voting sites where you can vote from your car. harris county has also doubled its number of paid election voters. they've got 11,000 paid election workers and it was a good thing they had all of those sites and poll workers today. because in 2016 just under 68,000 people voted in the first day of early voting.

today four years later at least 128,000 people voted on the first day of early voting, almost double. it not only beats, it almost doubles the first day of early voting in 2016. it also beats harris county's record for any day of early voting ever. the harris county clerk who was the official overseeing this record early voting turnout is a young man, just 34 years old. he's the youngest clerk in the county's history. he's only held this job since this summer, and it looks like a sure thing he's about to have the busiest three weeks of his short and exciting life. joining us now is chris hallens, he's the harris county clerk. he's at harris county election headquarters right now. mr. hallens, thank you for making time for us tonight. you are going to have a really wicked busy three-week run but today seems like it was already a little nuts. >> good evening, rachel. thank you for having me. and, yes, voters want to be heard, and they turned out in massive numbers today in houston

and harris county. we're excited at the harris county clerks office we've given them opportunities to vote. we've tripled the number of voting centers and making sure they can vote safely and early and with peace of mind their votes are going to be counted. >> i like to see huge turnout and huge numbers of people casting their ballot especially on day one. we are seeing a lot of lines not just in harris county but around the state of texas. do you worry about people feeling still the integrity of their vote is going to be challenged. it's going to be too much work to ask them to get the vote in? that they're going to be waiting in lines that are too long to wait in? how are you trying to factor in all of those concerns in terms of voter motivation? >> yeah, well we see a lot of misinformation out there, and we just try to provide as much education and information to the voter as possible. on our website you can type in your address and find all the voting centers near you as long as with their approximate wait times. you can vote at a place most convenient for you and your

family. as you mentioned a moment ago we're offering drive-thru voting for the first time in the history of texas. we're giving voters more access than they've ever had, and today we were pleased to see the results. >> am i correct that the texas republican party is now suing to try to stop the drive-thru voting? >> among many other things, yes. they've come down on the side of voter suppression quite a bit this season, and we're disappointed by that. but despite all these efforts by our governor, our attorney general, even the texas supreme court we're making sure this election is the safest and most accessible in the history of texas bar none. >> mr. hollins, i hope you don't mind me seeing but you are 34 years old. you are in the youngest clerk in the history of harris county as far as i can tell. you see seem like you're doing a very good job at your work thus far. can i ask you how you ended up becoming the clerk of harris

county, why you wanted this job, and if this is what you expected getting into it. >> well, i was appointed after the resignation of my predecessor for health reasons during the time of covid-19. but i'm serving through this election, doing our best to protect the right to vote for all the residents of harris county, and i have a huge team, hundreds of committed public servants working with us and now thousands and thousands of election works that have volunteered and we're thankful for them. >> chris hollins, harris county, texas clerk. and harris county had its first day of in person voting today. by all accounts a considerable success and a huge undertaking. good luck. you're one of the biggest counties in the country. you have got a huge amount of pressure in terms of the fight between state and local officials, and the country has its eyes upon you in terms of texas. good luck to you, sir. keep us apprised. >> thank you so much. have a good one. >> we'll be right back. stay with us.

the ups and downs of frequent mood swings can take you to deep, depressive lows. or, give you unusually high energy, even when depressed. overwhelmed by bipolar i? ask about vraylar. some medicines only treat the lows or highs. vraylar effectively treats depression, acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar i in adults. full-spectrum relief for all bipolar i symptoms, with just one pill, once a day. elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis have an increased risk of death or stroke.

call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. high cholesterol and weight gain, high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, may occur. movement dysfunction, sleepiness, and stomach issues are common side effects. when bipolar i overwhelms, vraylar helps smooth the ups and downs. senator kamala harris is back in d.c. this week for the confirmation hearings for judge amy coney barrett. senator harris had her turn with the nominee tonight pressing her on the affordable care act and reproductive rights, among other things. but tomorrow, right after day three of the supreme court hearing, senator harris will be here live right here at 9:00

p.m. eastern. this will be my first chance to interview senator harris since she became the vice presidential nominee of the democratic party. tonight is 21 days from the election. tomorrow is 20 days tune in, senator kamala harris live here 9:00 p.m. eastern. "way too early with kasie hunt" is up next. there's a lot of people here tonight. a lot of people. i wish the fake news would show it. they never turn the cameras. a defiant president trump holds another packed campaign rally, despite concerns that we could be in the middle of a second wave of covid. the question is, whether the president is now all in on a controversial strategy that could mean some 2 million u.s. deaths. plus, supreme court nominee