week. matt gaetz is a republican congressman from florida as the headline alludes to and one of the most stanch and flamboyant defenders of former president donald trump. it was first reported last week in the "new york times" by york times" that matt gaetz is currently under federal criminal investigation for allegations of alleged sex trafficking of an underage girl. now, this is an investigation that started during the trump administration when bill barr was running the justice department. bill barr, as attorney general, was himself reportedly personally briefed on the matt gaetz investigation on multiple occasions. the federal investigation into congressman gaetz is reportedly examining, among other things, whether federal campaign funds may have been used to facilitate the child sex trafficking ring, whether drug use may have been involved.

congressman gaetz repeatedly denied the allegations. he said they're all made up. 'he did nothing wrong. this breaking news in the "times" tonight puts those denials in sort of a different light. ear here is the lead from "the new york times." michael schmidt is the lead on this article. along with maggie haberman and nicholas fandos. quote. "the times" reports it's unclear whether congressman gaetz or the white house knew at the time he was under federal criminal investigation for child sex trafficking when he asked for

this pardon, but "the times" does note that if he was aware at the time he did not tell the white house when he made the request. congressman gaetz didn't get any such pardon from trump, at least one that we know of. "the times" is reporting tonight that the white house thought that kind of preemptive blanket pardon in the absence of any charges is something that might set a precedent, not that's not the thing they cared about in other scandals. "the times" reports in recent days some trump associates speculated that mr. gaetz's request for a group pardon for him and other members of congress was an attempt to camouflage his own potential criminal exposure. the theory being that he knew he was in potentially federal criminal danger, so he asked for pardon for himself and lots of other guys, just in case! a pardon is not a trophy. it's not something you can put on a shelf in your house to show off to your friends to

prove how much mr. trump likes you. it's a tool to avoid penalty for criminal behavior. it's a weird thing to ask for if you haven't done anything wrong. congressman gaetz, through a spokesperson, denied he asked for a pardon but again, the "times," which broke this story in the first place now advancing it tonight in a way that does cast a different light on mr. gaetz's repeated denials that any of these allegations will stick. we'll stay on the story, we'll let you know more. in the way the gaetz story developed in the past, i'm not putting it out of the realm that this story will develop further in the next hour while we are on the air. okay, so we're watching that. here's something else. in the year 2000, the presidential election, you may recall, was closer than close. it took weeks to determine the

outcome, and a fairly scandalous united states supreme court ruling ultimately came down to a few hundred votes in florida and a bunch of votes there not being counted. it is almost impossible to overstate how close we were to president bill clinton being succeeded in the office, succeeded in the white house, by democrat al gore instead of republican george w. bush. but because of the contested and whacky outcome, president bush is who we got. there after president george w. bush's republican party did shockingly well in the elections of 2002, after the 9/11 terrorist attack and after we started a war in afghanistan and was gearing up for another in iraq in 2003. 2002, after 9/11 and after starting one war on the way to another, his party does well in the midterms.

2004 he gets re-elected as president when he ran against john kerry. but in 2006 it was time for another election, the second of the george w. bush era. the party almost always loses seats first contest after a presidential election. it didn't happen after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. the pendulum in political science common wisdom almost always swings back the other direction after you elect a president of one party or the other. that pendulum hadn't had the chance to do its normal swing back because of the 9/11 attacks and because of the politics around the wars. even though bush was re-elected in 2004, by the time the second midterm rolled around, not only were they overdue for the pendulum swinging back against them, the george w. bush

administration was absolutely swamped in scandal by that time. by the time the 2006 midterms were rolling around, they were dragging around the disastrous wars, the, torture scandals, the secret prisons js. they had a lot of corruption scandals. the disastrous, monstrous mishandling of katrina -- hurricane katrina, which swamped the city of new orleans, killed 2,000 americans while the government went from complaining about it to botching it further. by the time the 2006 midterms rolled around, the republicans knew they were in trouble. they knew the pendulum had been swinging their way for an artificially long time and that they were due for a massive whiplash swing in the other direction. they knew they had so many scandals and such bad perception from the public that things were going to go badly for them in 2006. they knew they were going to get

she will -- shellacked by the democrats in 2006. they did. that's when we would get the first ever woman speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, and the at democrats to control the house. that same night, the democrats would take control of the senate. the pendulum really did just swing back in 2006, but everybody knew it was coming. before it happened it wasn't all that hard to see. we knew we were overdue for it. democrats knew it was coming. republicans knew it was coming. in the lead up to the 2006 election, republicans did try to lessen what they knew was going to be to blow there, and one of the most memorable ways they did that is that they tried to specifically to shine up their reputation as best they could with minority voters, particularly with black voters. after the hurricane katrina catastrophe especially, they knew they were facing something approaching like a 100-0 loss with black voters. they knew they were never going get a mantle of black voters,

but knew they had the do something to cut into the margin that going to be absolutely terrible for them. summer 2006, knowing what they were heading into, an election season of that year, they came up with a plan, a way to cut into the democrats' massive advantage with black voters. the republicans in congress and the george w. bush white house in summer of 2006, decided they would reauthorize the voting rights act of 1965, and they would do it early, even before provisions of the voting rights act were due to sunset. bush white house and republicans in congress would vote to extend the provisions of that historic civil rights era law. the real politic of it was they wanted to do it in plenty of time to get credit for it in the 2006 elections among black voters in particular. ultimately, they would get it passed.

president george w. bush would hold a big bipartisan signing for it in the rose garden. george w. bush even went to the naacp convention that year, which was a bizarre thing to see. i ehe had never been there before, that is for sure! but he wanted to brag about the fact that he was signing to voting rights extension. looking back on it now, the politics of it were painfully obvious, painfully craven, given everything else the republican party and bush administration had done at the time, everything they stood for. but it's clear why they were doing it, but they did have this thing, and it was a real thing that they wanted to do to try to help themselves at the worst end of their worst margins with the most lopsided demographic they had in terms of voting patterns heading into the 2006 election. the problem they had along the way is that quite a number of their own members of the house didn't want to do it. they didn't actually want to reauthorize the voting rights

act of 1965. there were actually dozens of republicans in the house in 2006, particularly southern white republicans in the house, who didn't like the voting rights act of 1965 and didn't want to extend and it didn't plan on voting for it, even if it was being championed by their own party's president and by the rest of the republicans in congress, and that was going to be embarrassing for the bush white house and for the republican party, given the voting rights act extension thing was supposed to change their image as republicans and make them look with black voters and make them look good on this voting rights issue. they hit a real roadblock. on the road to this photo op, they hit a roadblock with dozens of house republicans standing in the schoolhouse door saying, no, they didn't do it. they weren't going to did it. they didn't like it. they knew the politics around this maybe changed but they

couldn't make themselves support it. and it was becoming a real problem for the republican party in the summer of 2006. it was at that moment when some surprising cavalry rode in to the rescue to help shock the republicans into line in congress. it was such a surprising development at the time that reporters covering it didn't know if they had ever seen anything like it before. they had nothing to compare it to in modern history. here's how npr covered it at the time. >> the first corporation to call for a renewal of the voting rights act was walmart. lee cull pepper is the company's vice president for federal relations. >> walmart is the largest private employer of african-americans and hispanic americans but we also have a great number of our customers who are african-american and hispanic americans, so we have a great interest in the amount on both of our associates, our workers, and also our customers. >> walmart regularly battled

with liberal lawmakers over unionizing health care and other issues. its executives met with the congressional black caucus in early 2005. the result? >> in june of last year, the walmart ceo sent a letter to president push urging him to support an extension of the voting rights act. >> the crunch came this summer when conservative southern lawmakers pushed amendments to weaken the bill. they used the walmart bill and reach out to others. rooech -- reach out to other companies. at eli lily, in indianapolis, the spokesman says they wanted . at eli lily, in indianapolis, reach out to other companies. at eli lily, in indianapolis, the spokesman says they wanted to add a voice from the heartland. >> when we lobby we are lobbying for broader health-care issues or industry. we think it has contributed to monumental changes in american society.

we believe in the legislation, we think it has contributed to monumental and dramatic changes in american society. >> there was also a letter from the pfizer ceo, writing as chairman of the business round table. that's a group of ceo of some 160 major companies. tom lehner is the group's public policy director. >> our main purpose is to promote economic growth, but one of the fundamental tenets is equal participation in both the economy and the political process. >> letters came from coca-cola. john lewis of georgia a civil rights veteran says he's never seen anything like this before. >> the word tends to spread fast in minority communities. to see in those ethnic

publication that several major american corporations supported the reauthorization of the voting rights act, that gives them a leg up. >> if there's any blowback from the critic of corporation, the corporations say they have yet to see it. >> that was 2006. it's so nice to hear congressman john lewis' voice there again. but that kind of odd backwards politics episode, 15 years ago, 2006 -- the republican party unsuccessfully trying to head off a shellacking at the polls, trying to repair their image with black voters, making a big show out of moving early to reauthorize the voting rights act of 1965, they ran into problems with their own members in congress who didn't support the voting rights act, and we saw this very unusual thing at the time, the biggest corporations in the country stepped up. walmart first, but at&t and pharmaceutical companies. coca-cola and the walt disney

company. all all the biggest corporations stepped up and stepped into the ring, and helped them get the vote right and helped them get the reauthorization of the voting rights act done. for voter rights, it was a short-lived victory. they did reauthorize the voting rights act in 1965. and got their big photo op out of and it tried to help themselves out to no avail. but for voting rights themselves, it would only be a few years later in 2013 when a supreme court conservative majority led by george w. bush would rip the guts out of the voting rights act and eliminate its protections. it was eviscerated by conservatives in the supreme court in 2013. now this year, in 2021, republicans and state legislatures all over the country are racing to enact the most aggressive wide range restrictive since the voting rights blocked the worst of it.

now there's no voting rights act to speak up to protect voters in all these states, but republicans are now moving to strip their voting rights as fast and as far as they can. and so now, once again, 15 years down the line, some of the biggest corporations in the country, once again, some of the same ones that spoke out 15 years ago are speaking up on this issue now. and most of them are very tentative about it at first. now we're starting to see more momentum. but big corporations are saying while they usually only weigh in on things that affect specifically their industries, on this, on voting right, just like they said in 2006, they are once again saying it is such a fundamental thing that they want to be recognized as standing against voting rights rollback and they want to stand against the restrictions republicans are putting in the place in the states and increasingly large corporations in increasingly large numbers are willing to stick their necks out a bit to say so.

it's not the first time it happened. it happened in 2006 in different circumstances. it's not a monolithic response. companies are doing this to different degrees. patgonia, for example, today, the company that makes outdoor gear went beyond criticizing the restriction put in place by georgia republicans. they now said they're going to fund provoting rights advocacy groups in georgia, including the new georgia project and the black voters matter fund. in texas, meanwhile, corporations like at&t that stood in front of the voting rights extension in 2006, this year, at&t made mild pro-voting statement bus haven't take anne stand against states now. at&t and others are facing pressure toe take a more pointed stance to be put their money in their institutional heft where their mouth is. activists are saying they ought

not get credit for saying mild things in favor of voting rights, they should weigh in and tray to stop voting rights restrictions. in dallas, at&t plaza this week is going to see a rally and a protest to press at&t to do more, along with companies like frito-lay and whole foods and the list goes on. companies taking a stand -- big business in our country taking a stand in favor of voting rights is not actually a new thing here. republicans had to deal with this in 2006 as well when the politics of the circumstances were a little different. a president of their own party wanted the republican party to at least appear to get over on the voting rights side of things. at the time in 2006, corporate pressure helped republicans to get in line to do that. this year, they're not even the idea that republicans support voting rights. this year, republicans are

uniformly pushing against voting rights, so this year, they're not handling it well. that big business interest once again are on the voting rights side of things. >> my warning, if you will, to corporate america, is to stay out of the politics. it's not what you're designed for. you get my drift. this is an issue that the big corporations in america -- major league baseball being one of the biggest -- should stay out of. if i were running a major corporation, i would stay out of politics. >> republican senate leader mitch mcconnell pounding his little shell and telling corporate america to stay out of politics. warning them! my warning is to stay out of politics, at least on this. at least stay out of being in favor of voting rights. there is literally no one in american politics who has done

more as an individual to ensure that companies stay in politics, to ensure massive unrestricted corporate involvement in u.s. politics. there's literally nobody who has done more for that cause than mitch mcconnell. it's the one thing he's been devoted to more than anything else in his own career -- his own power and making sure that corporations can flood as much money into politics as they want for absolutely no accountability for it! the last campaign finance reform we had as a country, remember that? mccain finegold, when that went to court, what was that called before the supreme court? it was called mcconnell versus federal election commission, as in mitch mcconnell suing to make sure corporations can stay in politics as much as they want. that is what he has built his career on. but now that corporations are saying they're in favor of voting rights, now today -- >> my warning if you will, to corporate america is to stay out

of politics! >> yeah, stay out of politics if you're going to be on the side of voting rights. we were willing to have you help us with that in 2006, but right now, we are on the other side and you better shut up! we're warning you. it does actually matter when corporations with a lot of money and power come out and support like voting rights. it matters when they shocked everyone, including john lewis when they did it in 2006. it matters now. republicans are infuriated by corporations taking a stand in about republicans just did to voting rights in georgia. texas appears to be the next big battleground. beto o'rourke joins us live from texas, next. xas, next.

age before beauty? why not both? visibly diminish wrinkled skin in...

crepe corrector lotion... only from gold bond. 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. this is a republican party power grab. the republican party in texas is trying to bring back jim crow-style voter suppression to this state. they're trying the achieve in texas what they tried to achieve

in georgia. and companies have a choice the make. >> let's make sure that while we still have time, at&t, toyota, frito lay, pepsi, southwest airlines -- others can add their favorite companies in texas as well. you still have time to do the right thing. as charlie reminded us, when you step up, when we call step up and do the right things we can -- we did it in the bathroom bill in 2017. we did it with other suppression measures. we can do it now. we still have time. i want these companies to know, if you fail to act, if you fail to step up, please know that the very hottest places in texas will be reserved for those companies who maintain their neutrality in a moment of moral crisis like this one. so we're watching you. but we're inviting you in. there's still time to act. please do. >> the very hottest places in texas will be reserved for those

companies who maintain their neutrality in a moment of crisis like this one. joining us now, beto o'rourke, former democratic congressman from the great state of texas. the founder of power by people, a grassroots organization working to motivate voters in texas. thanks for making time tonight. >> thanks for having me on. i really enjoyed listening to the start of your show. i didn't know that history about 2006. but it should give us even greater encouragement about the work we're doing in 2021. we still have time to stop this stuff and 2006 is a lesson in that. >> 2006, i was thinking about in particular because we're seeing some of the same corporate names pop up, and i thought about it with at&t, still having come out and said that they're generically in favor of voting rights but not having taken a role in trying to stop what the republicans are doing in voting rights in texas or anywhere else. at&t was pretty important as a

big company 15 years ago in 2006 for that national push on voting rights, and again, the politics then were different and everyone's motivations were different, but to the extent this company identified with the issue, shouldn't be new for them to take a strong stand. i feel like some of this is reminding companies who they are, not asking them to become something they're not. >> that's right, and we should also acknowledge that whatever mitch mcconnell says, at&t and other american corporations are very involved in our politics. in fact, since 2018, at&t has given more than $574,000 in contributions to texas governor greg abbott, lieutenant governor dan patrick and the authors of these voter suppression bills, so it's not as if they are neutral. they are a party to this effort. that is until they withdraw contributions, take a public

stand -- and maybe -- i learned this from watching your show as well -- follow the lead of somebody like patgonia and fund the effort to expand access to the franchise and make sure that all eligible voters, be they republicans, democrats and independents in the state of texas can vote and have some say in who will represent them in the course and direction this state and country will take. i don't think that's asking too much from at&t or any of these other companies that we named earlier in the program. >> is it possible that things are too far long in texas to stop it already? texas republicans, as far as i can tell, as far as i've read today, they're considering more than 100 bills in the state to restrict voting. there's a republican governor, republican controlled senate and house. one of the voting restrictions bills has already passed the senate. it's on the way to the house. it appears there's no way to expect it won't pass there. the governor is a vocal supporter of it.

in some ways, it feels they've got so much momentum and moving quickly it looks like it's hard for them to stop it. >> i was in the state capital last week. i saw folks who had driven in from dallas and el paso, 18 hours away and points from in between. and folks waited to get their two minutes. it happened more recently, and folks waited until 3:00, 4:00 in the morning to testify. it's that kind of people power, that kind of grassroots activism that can put a stop to this, as it did to the bathroom bill in 2016 when, in concert with big companies, major employers, and who saw their customers in the line of fire and their civil rights being challenged stepped up, stood up, spoke up, and forced the state legislature, along with the people of texas, to do the right

thing and effectively withdraw that bill. we can do this now, but you're right, it's what's happening in texas. it's what happened in georgia. it's what's pending in 41 other state legislatures. this is the most concerted attack against voting invites, against democrats, since the voting rights act was signed into law by lyndon banes johnson in 1965. but if i could. i want to make sure beyond the issue of justice and the right that everyone should have to be able to vote and participate in our democracy, it comes down to the very lives that our fellow texans lead. what happens when you can't vote in the school board election to your kid's school? how are they going to be represented? if you can't vote on the municipal issue, on the bond issue, is your part of the town going to get taken care of? when it comes to state issues and the distribution of vaccines, if you can't vote, will you be heard? in a state where the minimum

wage is $7.25 an hour and you're a shift worker making that minimum wage at two or three jobs to make that meet, do you have any hope if you can't effectively participate in deciding who your representative is going to be' what they focus on and whether or not they hear you? this is people's lives. it's the schools their kids go to, the wages they earn. in fact, the texas civil rights project has commissioned a study from a texas economist and they find that up through 2025, this will cost the state nearly $15 billion in losses. it will cost tens of thousands of jobs. so lest anyone think this is an abstract fight about democracy, it's about our rights to participate in this democracy, but it's also about what happens to our lives when we can't participate in this democracy. so yes, there's still time to fight this and do so successfully, and we've got to take the inspiration from john

lewis and all who proceeded us to force lbj to do the right thing, it's not going to be easy, but we can do it. >> beto o'rourke, former congressman from the state of texas, former presidential candidate, thanks for joining us. i have a feeling the spotlight is going to be on texas over the next few days in particular. thanks for helping us understand. >> thank you. much more to get to tonight. stay with us. ore to get to toni. stay with us

♪♪ for deb, living with constipation with belly pain was the same old story for years. trying this. doing that. spending countless days right here. still came the belly pain, discomfort, and bloating. awful feelings she kept sugar-coating. finally, with the help of her doctor, it came to be. that her symptoms were all signs of ibs-c. and that's why she said yes to adding linzess. linzess is not a laxative. it helps you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. and is proven to help relieve overall abdominal symptoms-belly pain, discomfort, and bloating. do not give linzess to children less than six

and it should not be given to children six to less than 18, it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach area pain, and swelling. could your story also be... about ibs-c? talk to your doctor and say yes to linzess. ♪♪ shopping spree on really nice suits. there was the $200,000 spent on private jet vacations. there was a stay on a 108-foot yacht that came with a private chef, and a jet boat and a couple of jet skis. actually, a couple of nice long stays on that yacht. tens of thousands of dollars

spent on hair and makeup for the ceo's wife. all things that were paid for by the unwitting members of a nonprofit organization, members who apparently had no idea that that's the kind of stuff their membership dues were being spent on. last year, the attorney general in the state of new york, letitia james sued the national rifle association because the nra is technically a nonprofit, chartered to operate within her jurisdiction in the state of new york. these kinds of spending details, the jets and hair and makeup and vacations, those were the basis of her lawsuit. james charges in her suit the people in charge of the nra used the money it collected from its members as a private piggy bank for pay for personal travel and personal favors for their family members. it's one thing to live like that on your own dime to pay for private jets and safaris and stuff, but if you're spending

the money of a nonprofit organization on that stuff, it may well be fraudulent and illegal. so the attorney general of new york sued to dissolve the entire organization. she sued to dissolve the nra for its leaders' alleged financial misconduct. the nra denies any allegations of the lawsuit. they called the lawsuit baseless, but they also reacted to it in some unexpected ways. given the nature of the allegations in the lawsuit, right? the lavish spending allegations, it was weird that in the immediate wake of this lawsuit brought di attorney general letitia james, the nra, earlier this year, filed for bankruptcy. that's a weird thing to do when you have apparently $49,000 to spend on suits for your company's executives. on the same day they filed for bankruptcy, it got even weirder. they told them their bankruptcy was coming at a time when the nra is in its strongest

financial condition in years. again, that's a weird thing to say on the same day you've officially declared bankruptcy in a court of law. why are you telling a court that you're totally out of money, while at the same time, you're telling your supporters, we have never been richer? but the nra asked the court to please allow them to declare bankruptcy. they said their intention was to reincorporate the nra as a new entity, not in the state of new york but in texas, far away from attorney general tish james in new york. all that -- the bankruptcy application was not about the organization going bankrupt at all, but instead may have been devised as a way to dodge that lawsuit, to dodge accountability if the new york attorney general who was trying, after all, to dissolve their entire organization. one neat trick when you file for bankruptcy is it puts a pause on

any other ongoing litigation that may be pending against you. that may have been what the nra was banking on here. "the wall street journal" pointed out at a time that at a minimum it would delay tish james' lawsuit against them. they snoted noted that organizations often file for bankruptcy to slow walk litigation.noted that organizat often file for bankruptcy to slow walk litigation. we don't know for sure that's what the nra was doing, but if that is what the nra was doing, and if a they get caught for trying to do that here, that could get them in even more trouble. the judge in this case that is deciding whether or not the nra will be allowed to declare bankruptcy, they have the option of appointing a trustee, putting in an overseer, an outsider to investigate the financial fraud allegations laid out by tish james and make all financial decisions going forward for the nra. the judge also has the option of just saying no -- dismissing the bankruptcy application by the

nra and that, of course, would clear the way for tish james to continue her litigation, which, again, seeks to dissolve the organization. the nra's bankruptcy trial started this week in federal bankruptcy court in texas. the entire trial is expected to last about a week. several top nra officials are expected to testify about the alleged spending abuses for the first time ever, including the ceo, wayne la pierre, the guy who allegedly spent that money on suits and makeup for his wife and got the free stays on the 108-foot yacht. he was asked about the stays on the yacht today. he asked why he needed to stay on that yacht as part of official nra business, why he accepted that stay on a yacht from a yacht owner who was getting multimillion dollar contracts from the nra at the same time. wayne la pierre said he went

and stayed on the yacht after the sandy hook shooting in 2012. he said he thought his own life was in danger as the head of the nra, so he fled to the yacht for safety. he said the yacht was, quote, the one place that i hoped i could feel safe. i remember getting there going, thank god, i'm safe! nobody can get me here! joining us now is sandy watts. after the sandy hook shooting, miss watts founding moms demand action to try to prevent more after the sandy hook shooting. she's been following the nra bankruptcy trial closely. thanks for being with us tonight. >> good to see you, too. >> i think i am surprised that the nra's bankruptcy trial -- i realize bankruptcy court is a kind of arcane thing, but i'm -- it isn't more of a big political story. the dissolution, the bankruptcy,

and whether it itself is a fraud seems to be such a tawdry and consequential thing for this hugely influential special interest group to be tied up in, and something that has high stakes for the future of gun reform and the future of that organization. >> hugely high stakes. as you said, i think the nra thought it was a get out of jail free card that they could avoid any kind of accountability from the new york attorney general's office, and ultimately they're finding that this trial is more trouble than they thought it was worth. we're getting everyday details about the nra's history of extravagant spending and financial mismanagement. wayne la pierre is a man who has spent years and millions of dollars saying the only protection from a bad guy and a gun is a good guy with a gun, and basically he's saying now the only protection is a good

friend with a hundred-foot yacht, right? this is all coming out into the public. tish james, i think, has been masterful in laying out how executives have used to nra as a slush fund. they spent 11 million dollars on travel. the lawyer said we should expect more cringe worthy revelation. the nra's best argument seems to be, yes, we set a terrific fire but how hard we are trying to put it out. >> from an advocacy and a perspective, obviously you and moms demand action have been putting pressure on this issue relentlessly, trying to make gun reform achievable in individual states at a federal level.

how does the solvency of the nra affect the work you are doing right now? the gun reform space and gun policy space has been so defined by the nra's belligerence and dominance. if they fall apart, if they're literally dissolved or if they are revealed to the public eye as a fraud on their own members here, how does that change the space in which you and your colleagues have been working so hard to try to get gun safety and gun reform done? >> let's be clear. the nra used to be a power broker and new they're just broken. based on this trial, it's clear they don't care about public safety, they don't care about public policy. they certainly don't care about their members. they care about power. when they're busy in bankruptcy court, our 6 million supporters are demanding action, demands more than thoughts and prayers. in fact, we have this road trip

for background check. our volunteers are going across the country -- 60 stops in 22 states, covid safe, about 16,000 miles long, and we're telling d.c. -- that's where it will culminate -- that we want our senators to act. this is the perfect time. our organization and our movement is stronger than it's ever been and, the nra is weaker than it's ever been. just to put that in perspective -- the last time we had major fight, which was in 2013, the nra was a political powerhouse. today, they have to ask the court the pay tear power bills. i mean, literally. the roof is collapsing in and the nra has to get permission to fix it. this is a different time. i truly believe the nra is a paper tiger, and senators should vote their conscience. otherwise, you know, they will be held to account and it will be at their political peril. currently, the nra, the

"a"ratizing a scarlet letter. >> shannon watts, appreciate being able to talk to you about this tonight. >> thank you. as i mentioned the nra bankruptcy trial is in federal bankruptcy court in texas. the nra officials who are having to testify at that bankruptcy trial, it's the first time any of had to testify under oath and had to answer publicly for the ways they allegedly ripped off their members to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. this is one of those stories -- i feel like lawsuits and legal cases get covered pretty well in this country. i don't know if it's because it's a bankruptcy court it's not getting as much attention, but this has huge ramifications for our country. it is just shocking. any way, more news ahead. stay with us. because a good night's rest is where muscles recover, and our minds are restored. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing.

and it helps keep you asleep by sensing your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. perfect for those relaxing weekends. proven quality sleep, is life-changing sleep. only from sleep number.

it is week two of the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin in the charged with murder and man

slates in the death of george floyd. the prosecution continues to roll out law enforcement witnesses one after another, to testify that officer chauvin's actions were not what he was trained to do. including the chief of the minneapolis police department. >> once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when mr. floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back, that, in no way, shape or form, is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training and it is certainly not part of our ethics or our values. >> today, the prosecution called a minneapolis police officer who

led use of force training classes, which officer chauvin took. >> sir, is this an mpd-trained neck restraint? >> no, sir. >> has it ever been? >> a neck restraint? no, sir. >> say, for example, the subject was under control and handcuffed, would this be authorized? >> i would say no. >> one of the defense's strategies in the trial so far has been to argue that the crowd mattered, the crowd that had gathered out of concern for george floyd that day, the crowd that included an off-duty firefighter, an elderly man, a 9-year-old girl. the defense argued that they were so rowdy and threatening that they were a distraction to officer chauvin and drove some of his actions. today, two more minneapolis department officials gave testimony that undermined that argument from the defense. >> if we're looking at assessing somebody's medical condition for the purpose of rendering

emergency aid, would that be a big thing or a small thing? >> that would be a big thing. >> if, then, that is contrasted with, say, a 17-year-old filming you with a camera, would that be a big thing, the filming, or a small thing? >> the filming would be a small thing. >> so far, the prosecution has called 26 witnesses. ten of those 26 have been law enforcement officials, not including several emts, a 911 dispatcher, a firefighter who witnessed george floyd's death. the trial resumes tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. watch this space.

story tonight that just broke as we were getting on the air tonight. the "new york times" furthering their story on republican congressman matt gaetz, probably the most pro-trump congressman on capitol hill. he is reportedly under federal criminal investigation for alleged sex trafficking. "the times" reporting tonight in the closing days of the trump administration, gaetz actually asked the office privately for a preemptive blanket pardon of himself. this is while the justice department investigation of him for alleged sex trafficking was underway. at the time he asked for the pardon, justice department investigators had begun questioning associates of mr. gaetz about his conduct, including whether he had had a

sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl which violated sex trafficking laws. he obviously never got that pardon, not that we know of, but him asking for it is just the latest nauseating wrinkle in this story. that's going to do it for us now. see you tomorrow. "way too early" with kasie hunt is up next. get all of your friends, tell them. get a shot when they can. we are going to be able to do this. everyone will be able to before the month is out. >> president biden visiting a vaccine clinic just before urging states to speed up their time lines for when all adults are eligible for a shot. with new data showing where new cases are clusters, the question should the biden administration revamp its vaccine strategy? another frightening story from the southern border. a week after this video surfaced, two kids being dropped over a border wall comes new video of a 10-year-old migrant boy