regards -- what it refers to as critical race theory, but can be described as in any depth examination of the role of racism in american history from a black perspective, as so dangerous it needs to engage in state censorship to suppress it. i think that's the real problem. >> thank you so much for coming on tonight. that is "all in" on this tuesday night. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris. thank you, my friend. mush preachuated. this is the headline tonight at "the washington post." prosecutor in trump criminal probe convenes grand jury to hear evidence and weigh potential charges. "the washington post" was the first to report this story. within two hours, the associated press matched the key reporting at the heart of the problem. this is their headline, new grand jury seated for next stage of trump investigation. new york prosecutors have

convened a special grand jury to consider evidence in a criminal investigation into former president trump's business dealings. seven minutes after that, it was abc news. that also independently matched the key point in this new reporting. manhattan district attorney convenes special grand jury in trump probe. a special grand jury has been convened to consider the possibility of criminal charges against president trump and people related to his business. now, does this mean former president donald trump is going to be indicted? does this mean he's going to be criminally charged? i don't know. and neither do you, and anybody who tells you they know the answer to that for sure, umm, that's somebody you might enjoy hearing stories from, but don't necessarily assume they're true. we don't know. you can't have an indictment unless you have a grand jury. but having a grand jury does not

guarantee you're going to get an indictment. a jury, as you know, that's the group of citizens that gets called for jury duty, listens to all the witnesses as laid out for them in the course of a trial. there's a trial judge who keeps everything running according to the rules. sort of guides the jury as to the basis on which the jury makes the decision. but then the jury decides which side won the trial that's a jury. a grand jury is a different thing all together. boy, would it have avoid a lot of non-lawyer confusion over time if they had come up for a different term for it. but a grand jury is another group of regular citizens who get called for jury duty, in this case, grand jury duty. but they don't sit there and watch a trial unfold. a grand jury sits there and watches a prosecutor and looks at evidence and listens to witnesses who answer questions.

and the grand jury's decision at the end of the day is not which side won the trial. they're not watching a trial. the grand jury's decision at the end oh of the day is whether or not a person is going to get charged with a crime. whether an indictment is going to be issued so a defendant can face a criminal trial. that's what a grand jury does. and a regular grand jury, one called by state prosecutors in new york, they usually state for about four weeks. they are convened one or maybe two days per week for four weeks. and, you know, any charges that state prosecutors want to bring against anybody during that time, any indictments they want to seek they bring that evidence and those witnesses to the grand jury, and the grand jury, during the normal course of events in new york, they meet over the course of four weeks, and they take case after case after case, one after another, making a decision in each instance as to whether a person is going to be

indicted, whether criminal charges are going to be issued. well, in this new reporting about potential criminal charges for former president trump, they're talking about a variation on that grand jury structure. it's what they call an extra grand jury or a special grand jury. "the washington post" initial report tonight says that the special grand jury in the trump case will be convened to meet not for the usual four weeks, but for six months. and this special grand jury is not going to meet one day a week, maybe two days a week. they're going to meet three days a week for a solid six months. and this is, again, reportedly an extra grand jury. this is a special grand jury that is being convened on top of the usual grand jury that's in session in the normal course of events in the new york state legal system. that special status, this unusually intense and long-running commitment that they have asked these grand jurors to make, why is that?

why is this being handled by a special grand jury that's meeting so much more intensely than a normal grand jury? i don't know, and anybody that tells you they know for sure is not being straight. grand jury proceedings are secret. and they're considering whether or not people are going to be criminally charged. those deliberations and everything that happens in the grand jury room has to be secret as a basic tenant of fairness. because at the end of those proceedings, the grand jury decides somebody should not be charged, that grl charges shouldn't be brought. it would be everything unfair for everything to be dragged out into the public eye, right? a person didn't get charged, then they should not have aspersions cast on them by people knowing they were the subject of a grand jury process. you either get charged or you don't. it is secret what happens in that room. prosecutors lay out a case, once they indiet them and charge them, that's the public part of

the case. grand jury proceedings are secret. we don't know what's going on there. and we don't know exactly what's going on with this special grand jury that has been convened to hear the case related to trump. "the washington post" does say in its reporting tonight that the special grand jury isn't hearing trump-related stuff alone. they're also handling some other matters, some other cases. so who knows? but it is unusual to have a special grand jury meeting this intentionally. and the speculation is that these new york state prosecutors want this special grand jury available to work with unusual intensity, three days a week for an unusually long period of time, six months, because they are asking this grand jury to consider a particularly complex or otherwise intense set of decisions. of whether or not former president trump and other people in his orbit are going to be indicted. and this feels like a big deal tonight because it's a big deal.

it's not out of the blue, though. and the timeline here i think is grounding in terms of us keeping this in context, keep thing perspective, making sure we are focusing on what we know and not speculating about stuff we don't know. we -- the way this has come about, the public reporting that has led us to this point, has been pointing in this direction for a while. it was as long ago as the summer of 2018 that the new york times is reporting that trump might face criminal charges from new york state prosecutors. as long ago as last summer, the summer of 2020, "the times" is the first to report that the scope of those prosecutor's investigation of trump appeared to include several different types of tax fraud, bank fraud, insurance fraud. in december, december 2020, it was reported that those prosecutors had hired a big very capable, forensic consulting firm that's very good at going through not only financial evidence, but they're

particularly good at going through large volumes of financial evidence. that was in december 2020. in february 2021 this year, it was reported that the office pursuing potential charges against trump had brought in a ringer, they had brought in an outside, very experienced former prosecutor, who had left that life behind, got into private practice, but the d.a.'s office recruited him back into public service specifically so he could run point on the trump organization being pursued -- the trump investigation being pursued. he has experience with white collar crime and fraud cases and he has some high-end and fairly gory mafia prosecution experience, as well, for what that's worth. but just days after we learned that they had brought in that ringer prosecutor, as well as the forensic accounting firm that they brought in to handle large amounts of data, just days

after that became publicly known, we learned that both of those things, the consulting firm and the ringer prosecutor, would come in particularly handy in the trump case, because the united states supreme court ruled in late february that tons, millions of pages of trump's financial business and tax records would be handed over to those prosecutors. good to have an experienced white collar lawyer, working on running point on that investigation, also good to have the consulting firm, the forensic accounting firm that's great at handling huge amounts of data. because in february they got huge amounts of data on trump and his business. and earlier this month, we got this public statement from the attorney general's office in new york saying that part of that office's ongoing civil matter

had morphed into a criminal matter. so we've seen from the initial reporting that president trump might face criminal charges from new york state prosecutors, based on the d.a.'s office in manhattan, from that initial reporting going back to the summer of 2018 we have been building up to today. the timeline of all of those steps, potentially facing charges, an open criminal investigation, criminal investigation adding lots of resources to handle lots of information, getting lots of information, being given criminal parts of other investigations that started in other offices, it's all been leading toward this revelation today in "the washington post." that timeline leading up to this reporting today, again, makes this not a surprise. even though it is still kind of a shock to see it in black and white. i mean, "the washington post" reporting tonight, their story on this is 24 paragraphs long. you have to get 22 paragraphs

into the 22-paragraph long story before they note as an aside, oh, my the way, no former u.s. president has ever been charged with a crime. oh, yeah, this has never happened before. this is kind of a big deal. but even the president's allies and confederates have seen this coming, to a certain extent. we know that because two different news outlets separately reported in recent weeks that florida officials have recently been meeting to discuss the possibility that trump might be indicted while he is at his mar-a-lago resort. they've been meeting to discuss the prospect if a warrant is issued for trump's arrest for him to face criminal trial in new york, could florida's republican governor try to intervene to block trump's extradition to new york?

i mean, they have been having these live discussions. this isn't like a party game. they're trying to come up with contingencies, expecting an arrest warrant for president trump might be issued. so, again, not necessarily a surprise, i guess, since a lot of this was foreseeable and a lot of people have been preparing for this in lots of different, observable ways, but it is still shocking. and for all the sort of unimaginability of a former president facing criminal charges, with this particular former president trump, there's a lot of these previously unimaginable prospects to keep an eye on. i mean, this is reporting tonight about new york state prosecutors convening a grand jury to consider a potential indictment for him. but this same president is also facing the possibility of a criminal indime in the state of georgia, where they are

investigating -- the administration of the presidential election in georgia last fall. also in that investigation, a grand jury has been convened to hear evidence. even back up in new york, don't sleep on the civil part of the case. that is still ongoing in the attorney general's office. yes, it made big news when we learns that part of that case had been hived off to become a criminal matter in the d.a.'s office. but the civil part of that investigation continues, and that is nothing to sneeze at. that office, the new york attorney general's office, brought a devastating civil case against trump's sham, fraudulent trump university, which resulted not only in the trump university being shut down, it resulted in trump having to pay $25 million. that same office brought a devastating case against trump's sham charity, the trump

foundation, which resulted him having to pay millions. that is the same office that is now still pursuing its civil investigation of the president's business. even as it kicks some piece of that investigation over to the d.a.'s office for criminal prosecution and sort of seconded two of its prosecutors from the attorney general's office to go over to the d.a.'s office to collaborate with them. all of these things are questions of serious potential liability for the former president. and then there's the question of what's happening at the federal level. the prospect of federal criminal charges against former president trump. and every time we report on this, i feel a little tickle behind my ear, which tells me that attorney general merrick garland has just eaten another

fistful of mint flavored tums. it is palpable that they want nothing to do with the potentially criminal trailing ends of the last presidency. they just don't seem like it. but they can only pretend so hard and for so long that isn't something that has been left for them to deal with. i mean, this is all happening at once. here tonight is this news of state prosecutors of new york, convening a special grand jury to work intensively over a period of six months, meeting three days a week, to weigh potential criminal charges against former president trump and other people connected to his business. that is dramatic, right? but at least that stayed in the federal, but the federal thing keeps creeping up on the biden justice department and i'm not sure how long they're going to be able to avoid the question. i mean, within the last 24 hours leading up to this bombshell reporting, hey, look, the federal potential federal case

is rearing its head. all this stuff is happening at once. within the last 24 hours, we learned that don mcgahn, trump's former white house counsel, the star witness for the several hundred pages of detailed allegations against trump that he might have committed felony obstruction of justice while he was president multiple times, lots of obstruction of justice, we just learned last night that don mcgahn is going to testify about that alleged behavior by trump next week. he will testify for the first time. don mcgahn spoke to prosecutors in the mueller investigation. that's why we know he's the main witness for the most serious allegations against trump when it comes to federal obstruction charges. but mcgahn has never testified about any of it. while trump was still in office, he blocked mcgahn from giving testimony. now that trump is no longer in office, mcgahn is not going to be blocked from testifying, and it's a funny story as to why. it has to do with money and

someone who is feeling a little on the edges these day. this is from charlie savage at "the new york times" --

>> he'd have to pay himself for lawyers to try to block mcgahn from testifying? himself? we all know that the man does not like to pay for things himself. and so he will no longer try to block don mcgahn's testimony. he would have to pay lawyers in order to do that, and he's not doing that. and so don mcgahn is going to testify to congress next week. he's going to testify to trump's potential obstruction of justice next week. he's going to testify for the first time on that matter and that will put all that alleged criminal obstruction of justice by president trump back in the public eye and sort of back in play. and none of those things are things that happened outside the statute of limitations.

why was trump never criminally charged in conjunction with those serious allegations already? turns out that's a funny story about that, as well. it was the mueller report that laid out hundreds of pages of detailed evidence of trump allegedly committing felony obstruction of justice. right when the mueller report came out, as soon as it was submitted to the justice department, trump's attorney general, bill barr, immediately volunteered to the public and then to congress under oath that, no, despite all that evidence laid out so carefully by mueller, no, trump would not be charged with obstruction of justice. was that because the justice department has this longstanding policy that says a president can't be criminally charged? is that why he won't face charges, attorney general bill barr? no. barr told the congress explicitly no. barr said, when the mueller report came out, that it was immaterial, it didn't matter at all that trump, because he's

president, was immune from being prosecuted. he said that didn't even come into play, because he said trump didn't need immunity. he said trump was innocent. barr said he consulted with justice department lawyers about all that evidence that was laid out by mueller, and he concluded on the basis of that evidence that none of that was a crime, none of that was all that serious. there was nothing to prosecute. trump didn't need immunity, he was innocent. earlier this month, a federal judge in washington, d.c. issued a scathing ruling that basically said, yeah, that's not what happened. in a case about whether the justice department has to release to the public some of their internal documents about the decision whether to prosecute trump, the judge ruled that the way bill barr described that decision, his supposed exoneration of trump, is not actually what happened. she ordered the justice department to release their internal memo about the potential prosecution of trump

for obstruction of justice. she gave the justice department until yesterday to release that document or appeal her ruling. late last night, after we were off the air, the justice department told that judge they are going to appeal her ruling, they will still fight to keep secret that stuff about bringing federal charges against trump and how the justice department came to its decision on those matters. and, listen, i understand why bill barr and the trump justice department wanted to keep secret their reasoning about whether or not to bring federal criminal charges against trump. that's easy to understand. why is the justice department under joe biden doing the same thing, though? right? i'm honestly not sure. i don't know. you don't know either. anybody telling you they know for sure either doesn't know for their work for merrick garland, which they shouldn't be talking to you about this. but i'll just finish with this,

with two things to know about the justice department under merrick garland making the decision to appeal this judge's ruling, to try to continue to keep secret the document that trump's justice department prepared about whether or not to charge him with criminal obstruction of justice. the first thing to know about the justice department now appealing this ruling and fighting to keep this document secret, the first thing to know about it is that the brief filed here, the reasoning explained by merrick garland's justice department is humiliating. it's abject and humiliating. throughout the brief filed with the court late last night, the justice department, the current justice department is just crawling and scraping about how they didn't mean what they said and how sorry they are, that it looked the way that the judge thought it looked but they didn't mean it to look that way, and now in retrospect they can

see how misleading their previous statement seemed to the court when barr was attorney general but please, couldn't they be forgiven for that? i know you think i'm being hyperbolic, but this is the actual language filed with the court. court. >> i mean, this is gross.

this is humiliating. this is the justice department now, under merrick garland as attorney general, bending over backwards like this to try to make it seem like the justice department, under trump, was acting in good faith and doing their best and all the false and disingenuous things they told the court about former president trump's liability to potential criminal prosecution, the false things they told not just the public but the court, should all be forgiven. because we're so sure that they didn't mean it to be as bad as it seems. i could see the justice department under bill barr, the trump era justice department, making these kinds of representations about themselves and their own bad behavior here. but why is the garland justice department trying to make this go away, trying to clean this up? we didn't really mean it.

does it seem like we lied? we didn't mean to lie. we recognize it kind of looks like a lie, but look at us, we never lie. that's one thing to know about it. the other thing to know about it, the other thing to at least ask about all of this is however this resolves with the justice department and what gets released to the public and what doesn't, and this question of why the new attorney general is trying to paper over what barr did to protect trump and to try to aclude even from the courts the question of trump's potential liability. regardless of how that all resolves, the question that's now live and kind of red hot is whether or not president trump now is libel to federal prosecution for obstruction of justice by the justice department. whether or not he's libel for prosecution right now for the instances of alleged obstruction of justice that were laid out in the mueller report. none of those things are so far

in the past that they are outside the statute of limitations. what has been clear through all of this is that the barr era justice department never did substantively consider obstruction charges against trump. despite all the evidence laid out against him, despite them lying to the public and the courts saying they looked at that evidence clearly, they did not. it was never looked at. we now know. the question of whether or not trump should face federal criminal charges is no longer constrained by him being a president and -- a sitting president and therefore immune from prosecution. that no longer applies. and the question of potential federal prosecution of him for obstruction of justice has never been substantively looked at, despite the hundreds of detailed pages of evidence about those alleged crimes that was made public in the mueller investigation. so will the garland era justice department now consider those charges? on top of everything else? hold that thought.

and greatest ! but even i'm not as memorable as eating turkey hill chocolate peanut butter cup ice cream with real cocoa. well, that's the way the sandcastle crumbles. you can't beat turkey hill memories. with relapsing forms of ms... there's a lot to deal with. not just unpredictable relapses. all these other things too. it can all add up. kesimpta is a once-monthly at-home injection... that may help you put these rms challenges in their place.

kesimpta was proven superior at reducing the rate of relapses, active lesions, and slowing disability progression vs aubagio. don't take kesimpta if you have hepatitis b, and tell your doctor if you have had it, as it could come back. kesimpta can cause serious side effects, including infections. while no cases of pml were reported in rms clinical trials, it could happen. tell your doctor if you had or plan to have vaccines, or if you are or plan to become pregnant. kesimpta may cause a decrease in some types of antibodies. the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and injection reactions. ready for an at-home treatment with dramatic results? it's time to ask your doctor about kesimpta. i was drowning in student loan debt. i was in the process of deferring them, paying them... then i discovered sofi. completely changed my life. lower interest rate. my principal is going down. sofi is a place where you can start to tackle

those money goals today. compared to where i was three years ago, i'm kinda killing it. ♪♪

it's been a whole different show planned tonight. this is one of those things where the news sneaks up on you. but we're now following these two big stories that sort of landed as a surprise. "the washington post" first to report that the new york state prosecutor's office running a criminal investigation into former president trump and his business, reporting that the prouters have convened a special grand jury that is expected to last six months meeting three days a week. that's a grand jury that will be considering potential criminal charges in conjunction with the trump case. six months is far longer than a typical grand jury.

attorney general garland nevertheless did decide to appeal the judge's ruling.

joining us now is senator sheldon whitehouse. he signed the letter telling attorney general garland not to do this. thank you for joining us. it's great to see you. >> thanking, wonderful to be with you. >> what was the basis of your case to attorney general merrick garland that he shouldn't appeal that ruling from the judge, that he should facilitate the public learning about what the former justice department did when they had to -- when they were confronted with potentially charging president trump? >> well, it was obviously a very controversial decision at the time. there was a lot of anger and angst about what was going on at the department of justice. and then along comes the decision from judge jackson that required that the entire report be disclosed.

and in doing so, she made some really powerful findings. she said that the doj prosecutors, particularly from the office of the legal counsel, had been disingenuous to the court, which is brutally strong language from a court to a federal prosecutor, particularly to a senior federal prosecutor high up in the department of justice, and that the affidavits that they filed under oath, i'll read it here, were so inconsistent with the evidence, that they are not worthy of credence. that's an unbelievably strong comment from a federal judge, and it's not the first harsh commentary about the office of legal counsel. so at this point, it really to us made no sense not to just clear the air of this, go with the judge's decision that gives the department every reason to pursue it. and not continue to drag the

department through the nightmare of its own mistaints and misleading statements to the court. you are right to read all that apologetic makeup stuff they have tried to do. but the department of justice should not be there in the first place. that's why you're the department of justice. not so the court can say you've been disingenuous and the after dates don't merritt credence. you're the department of justice. you're there to do justice. >> in terms of what the justice department should do now, obviously you disagree with this decision to appeal the judge's ruling. you think that this material should be made public. that will be a source of continued litigation. that will be decided in court ultimately. but what about the substantive question that is at the heart of this, which is the justice department, under the previous president, being confronted with hundreds of pages of detailed

evidence about him potentially committing felony obstruction of justice while he was president. we now know because this litigation that the justice department never substantively considered that evidence. should they now substantively consider that evidence? >> well, if you said you didn't consider the olc policy that a sitting president can't be indicted, so that's not your reason for not proceeding. and you haven't actually considered whether or not you should proceed or by implication you've made the decision you should not proceed irrespective of that on the merits, i think that's a question you then have to be prepared to defend. and what it looks like came out in all of this is that they never really made that decision. and part of judge jackson's anger, i think, was that they were treating it predecisional to a determination about the

president's culpability, what was actually strategic public relation framing of how they were going to roll out this performance they were engaged in. and she, i think, said that's not predecisional when what you're doing is trying to cook up what you're going to tell the public. so they've got, i think, a lot of problems that this case opens up that merrick pursues. and if, in fact, the olc firewall is absolute that a sitting president can't be indicted, well, that's past. so that's a decision for garland to have to make. but the longer he kicks this open, the more alive this is going to stay. and the more the pressure is going to build for a real decision. at this point, it appears that the department has not made a real decision on whether or not president trump committed obstruction of justice.

and we are entitled, i think, to that decision and to a credible defense of it. >> rhode island u.s. senator sheldon whitehouse, thank you for joining us in a unique position to help us understand. i appreciate it. >> thank you. all right. we've got much more ahead tonight. stay with us. more ahead tonight. stay with us ♪eh uh, eh uh♪ ♪flow (oh my gosh)♪ ♪where man go (oh my gosh)♪

♪if a man see me (oh my gosh)♪ ♪i guess you never know what you got 'til it's♪ ♪flow (oh my gosh)♪ ♪where man go (oh my gosh)♪ ♪if a man see me (oh my gosh)♪ ♪i guess you never know what you got 'til it's♪ ♪eh uh, eh uh eh uh, eh uh eh uh, eh uh eh uh♪ to support local restaurants, we've been to every city. including little rock and even worcester. and tonight... i'll be eating the chicken quesadilla from...tony's tex mex...in... katy. (doorbell) (giggle) do ya think they bought it? oh yeah. we've got 'em on the ropes. the billionaires buying elections. the corporate special interests poisoning campaigns with dark money, frantic to preserve big-money politics as usual. because the for the people act is on the verge of becoming law. reining in corporate lobbyists, finally banning dark money, and protecting our freedom to vote. billionaires and special interests, your day is nearly done. because it's time for the people to win.

i order my groceries online now. shingles doesn't care. i keep my social distance. shingles doesn't care. i stay within my family bubble. shingles doesn't care. because if you've had chicken pox, you're already carrying the virus that causes shingles. in fact, about 1 in 3 people will develop shingles, and the risk only increases as you age. so what can protect you against shingles? shingrix protects. now you can protect yourself from shingles with a vaccine proven to be over 90% effective. shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after vaccination with shingrix. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. talk to your pharmacist or doctor about protecting yourself with shingrix.

shingles doesn't care. but we do. i'm evie's best camper badge. but even i'm not as memorable as eating shingles doesn't care. turkey hill chocolate chip cookie dough creamy premium ice cream and chasing fireflies. don't worry about me. i'm fine. you can't beat turkey hill memories. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ monitor, check and lock down you money with security from chase. control feels good. chase. make more of what's yours.

tonight at the u.s. justice department, vice president harris swore in the brand new chief of the civil rights division of the u.s. department of justice. her name is kristen clark. the vote to confirm ms. clark took place earlier today in the senate. just one republican, susan collins, joined all the democrats to confirm her. kristen clark hereby becomes the first african-american woman to ever become the civil rights chief at the u.s. justice department. and boy, what a moment to take over that job in that place. kristen clark's swearing in

comes today as people gathered in minneapolis outside the cup foods, the corner store where george floyd drew his last breath exactly one year ago today when a minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes while mr. floyd pleaded for his life. mr. floyd's death sparked months of mass protests across the country and around the world. and the murder conviction of the officer who killed him notwithstanding, his death prompted sustained and serious calls for systemic police reform. today on the first anniversary of george floyd's death, mr. floyd's family visited the president at the white house. they were attempting to use the momentum from this somber anniversary to try to move the george floyd justice and policing act. this is a bill that's passed the house, it is stuck in the senate. mr. floyd's family and frankly the biden white house are trying everything they can to get it unstuck. to get it passed.

naacp is mark thing by reflecting on the progress towards police reform that has happened in the last year. the progress that's been made possible by the outcry and the protests that has happened ever since floyd was killed. she said this today online -- >> joining us now is the president and director council of the naacp educational fund. it's an honor to have you here tonight. thank you for being here with us. >> thank you, rachel. >> tell me about the progress

that you see as having been made in the past year, and what you think made that progress possible to. >> yeah, it's important to take a moment and to recognize what shifts have happened, because, you know, the truth is, black people are still being killed by the police. they were being killed by police during the derek chauvin murder trial, after the derek chauvin murder trial. and so, you know, i don't in any way want to suggest that we are out of the woods or that, you know, the kinds of shifts that need to happen have happened. but i also want us to be clear about the fact that some really important shifts have happened. one of the most important, rachel, is just in the narrative, the conversation that we're having about the nature of policing. we're now not just talking about individuals or even individual cities, we're talking about reimagining public safety, we're talking about should police officers be on mental health

calls, you know, we're talking about the need for supporting the kinds of social services that we have starved and used law enforcement in its place in terms of dealing with the homeless and addressing issues of poverty and mental illness and so forth. so the whole conversation has shifted. but there's also been a policy shift. there are multiple states that have passed laws requiring duties of officers to intervene when they see misconduct happening. multiple jurisdictions have ended qualified immunity for police officers, including new york city and new mexico. maryland passed a huge bill requiring transparency of records, of police officer misconduct. and new york city repealed the famous law 50-a, that prevented the disclosure of discipline records of police officers, and many more. there are jurisdictions that have removed schools from police, stopped police from

engaging in certain kinds of conduct. there are jurisdictions that are now saying that mental health professionals will be the first line of defense for mental health calls. we don't want to forget that those changes are happening, and they happen because we saw the largest mass protest ever in the united states last summer. >> i know that kristen clark's nomination to lead the civil rights division at the justice department is something that is close to your heart. she is a life-long civil rights attorney, an alum of the organization, and her confirmation and swearing in today is a landmark moment. the first african-american woman to hold that post. it's also, i think, critically important that she's a life long civil rights attorney going in to hold that post. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you think the justice department under merrick garland has done so far on civil rights issues, and on these issues of police reform, even in advance of ms. clark

taking her position tonight? >> yeah, it matters who leads the department of justice, and we've seen that already. the department has already opened an investigation into the minneapolis police department where george floyd was killed. they've opened an investigation into the louisville police department where breonna taylor was killed. so we're already seeing that important sea change, and it will intensify, i think, in the coming weeks and months. kristen clark is a dedicated and serious civil rights lawyer. rachel, she's not only the first black woman to be confirmed for this post, but the first woman to be confirmed for this post. that's because of the derailment of the nomination of lonny gweniere in the early '90s. she was subjected to the smear campaign they tried on kristen clark and bonita gupta. but i'm proud for our community fighting back and for these two

extraordinary women that will be bringing this wealth of civil rights experience into the department of justice. so i think we will see a lot more changes happen. they have their hands full. it's not just policing, let's be clear. you just did some extensive segments on voting rights, what's happening in arizona with the audit. there's a lot of work for the department of justice to do the civil rights division that was essentially stood up during bill barr and jeff sessions and i suppose matt whitaker's tenure as attorney general. so they have a lot to do to pull the department up. it's already happening, and it's going to intensify and while both bonita and kristen have been dear friends of mine, you should know i'm going to be pushing them from the outside, because they're going to be in their role as government lawyers, and i'm going to be in my role as a civil rights lawyer. and we're going to be pushing them to do more. >> i have absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever. and it is heartening to hear you

say it and to hear you say wit that smile on your face, knowing how much you mean it. it is a really big day today. thanks for being here. >> thanks so much, rachel. good night. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. thanks so much, r. good night. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. >> we'll be right k stay with us re freely with powerful claritin-d. claritin-d improves nasal airflow two times more than the leading allergy spray at hour one. [ deep inhale ] claritin-d. get more airflow. ing gain flings, their laundry smells more amazing than ever. ah, honey! isn't that the dog's towel? hey, me towel su towel. there's more gain scent plus oxi boost and febreze odor remover in every fling. gain. seriously good scent. love the scent of gain flings? then you'll swoon for long lasting gain scent beads.

♪ when i was young ♪ no-no-no-no-no please please no. ♪ i never needed anyone. ♪ front desk. yes, hello... i'm so... please hold. ♪ those days are done. ♪ i got you. ♪ all by yourself. ♪ go with us and find millions of flexible options. all in our app. expedia. it matters who you travel with. you're strong. you power through chronic migraine - 15 or more headache days a month, ...each lasting 4 hours or more. botox® prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. so, if you haven't tried botox® for your chronic migraine, ...check with your doctor if botox® is right for you, and if samples are available. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, ...speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness... ...can be signs of a life- threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions...

...neck and injection site pain... ...fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions... ...and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. most patients may pay as little as $0 for botox®. so, text to see how you can save. botox® has been preventing headaches and migraines before they even start for 10 years. so, ask your doctor about botox® today. ♪ ♪ ♪ with cutting-edge tech, about botox® today. world-class interiors, and peerless design... their only competition is each other. the incomparable mercedes-benz suvs. extraordinary runs in the family. lease the glb 250 suv for just $429 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer.

you need an ecolab scientific clean here. and you need it here. and here. and here. which is why the scientific expertise that helps operating rooms stay clean is now helping the places you go every day too. seek a commitment to clean. look for the ecolab science certified seal.

this was view over the nation of belarus today. all those yellow little blobs you can see on the screen there, those are commercial planes. you can see belarus, even though you can't really see anything else there. that's because all those commercial planes are trying to avoid flying over belarus, which is why you can read the name of the country on the map. this weekend the authoritarian leader of belarus alexander lukashenko sent a military fighter jet to take down a passenger plane. protoself-itch runs an authoritarian media that reports

on the regime in belarus and the large scale protests against it. he has been living in exile in lithuania. that's why the passenger plane he was on was forced down in belarus on sunday, so that lukashenko could get him on belarusian soil and arrest him. this was what he looked like before he was arrested on sunday. and this is what he looks like now. this is from a video recorded yesterday, the day after he was arrested. in this video released by the regime in stiff, stilted language, he confesses to everything they apparently told him to confess to. you can see the marks on his forehead. also his nose appears to be a little out of whack. so, his father told reuters since his son has been in custody, the shape of his son's nose has changed. he told reuters, it looks like

they put make up on him to cover up who knows what. he would know what the face of this journalist should look like, right? he's his dad. not long after the passenger plane was forced down and this 26-year-old kid was arrested, u.s. secretary of state anthony blinken condemned this, saying the united states government condemns this. he is still in custody in belarus. they apparently have no immediate plans to let him go. i don't know how this is going to end, but it must. more ahead tonight. stay with us. ust. more ahead tonight st wayith us cal: our confident forever plan is possible with a cfp® professional. a cfp® professional can help you build a complete financial plan. visit letsmakeaplan.org to find your cfp® professional. ♪♪ limu emu... and doug.

visit letsmakeaplan.org to fso then i said to him,onal. you oughta customize your car insurance with liberty mutual, so you only pay for what you need. oh um, doug can we talk about something other than work, it's the weekend. yeah, yeah. [ squawk ] hot dog or... chicken? [ squawk ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high you know how i feel ♪ ♪ breeze drifting on by you know how i feel ♪ [man: coughing] ♪ it's a new dawn, it's a new day... ♪ no matter how you got copd it's time to make a stand.

♪ ...and i'm feelin' good ♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. it's time to start a new day. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy. and save at trelegy.com. tonight i'll be eating a calzone from doughballs in aurora. (doorbell) rock on. tonight i'll be eating lobster thermidor au gratin. really? sh-yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt. make it two calzones!

look...if your wireless carrier was a guy, sh-yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt. you'd leave him tomorrow. not very flexible. not great at saving. you deserve better - xfinity mobile. now, they have unlimited for just $30 a month. $30 dollars. and they're number 1 in customer satisfaction. his number? delete it. deleting it. so break free from the big three. xfinity internet customers, take the savings challenge at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings or visit an xfinity store to learn how our switch squad makes it easy to switch and save hundreds.

all right. that is going to do it for us tonight. my big plan is that no news is going to happen tomorrow, which will allow us to do the whole show that we had planned for today before the news blew it up. we're just carrying it over, assuming that news will still be fresh tomorrow, right? good plan? why not? i'll see you again tomorrow night where i'll be doing yesterday's news. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening, rachel. i'm planning to do a short script for monday night tomorrow gh