occupants of all these other high-rise buildings, that these buildings are safe, this is such an unusual condition and we should -- i don't want people to be fearful as my building, something like that. >> all right, john. i learned a lot there. thank you for taking time tomorrow. >> you're certainly welcome. >> the rachel maddow show starts now. good evening. >> good evening. much preached. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. happy to have you here. says part of the mission of the minneapolis police department is to give citizens voice and respect. here, mr. chauvin, rather than pursuing the mpd mission treated mr. george floyd without respect and denied him the dignity owed to all human beings which he will certainly would have extended to a friend or neighbor. in the court's view, 2770 months

is the appropriate sentence. today former mams police officer zerk derek chauvin was sentenced to 22 1/2 years in prison for the nurd r murder last may of george floyd. he's been the prison since april when a jury found him guilty of several charges all for him holding his knee on george floyd's neck until mr. floyd was deemed up conscious and he died on a minneapolis street corner. he was going to receive a theoretical maximum sentence but the theoretical maximum associated with any particularly crime is put up against state-based snepsing guidelines. considering the fact that mr. chauvin had no criminal history, the minnesota state guidelines for a sneps in this case actually recommended a sort of

presumptive sentence of about 12 1/2 years. judges can depart from those sentencing guidelines and in particularly they can depart upward if there are aggravating faeblgts that make the crime worse than that source of base level offense. the judge in this case had ruled that there were four different aggravating factors that made this case essentially worse, that made it worthy of a longer sentence than 12 1/2 years. with it was nevertheless striking today to see the judge go a decade beyond that presume active guidelines there with the 22.5-year sentence. the judge spelled out his reasoning for issuing a more severe punishment than the guidelines would have suggested. he said he issued the sneps because mr. chauvin abused a position of trust and authority, that he treated mr. floyd with particularly cruelty, and

because mr. chauvin committed a crime with the group with the active participation of three other individuals. those four factors justified it to the judge. but that last point, that last aggravated factor, committed with a group with the active participation with other individuals. that's an important reminder that the legal fallout from floyd's murder on that minneapolis street corner last year, the fall-out p isn't over. the thee other police officers who were present for the murder of mr. floyd have also been charmed in state court for aiding and abetting the killing. they're set to stand trial early next year. their ongoing legal consequences for the other three officers and for derek chauvin, too. earlier this year, the u.s. justice department brought federal charges against chauvin and the other three officers. that trial has not yet been

scheduled. but with this 22.5-year sentence, derek chauvin becomes the second police officer in modern minneapolis history for being nut jail. is less than a dozen in the past 15 years. here we are today, derek chauvin sentenced to 22 1/2 years. today in court during derek chauvin's sentencing hearing, several members of george floyd's family gave what are called victim impact statements, statements by people who are affected by the crime. the first came from george floyd's seven-year-old daughter, who was allowed to give her statement bevideo and not in person because of her age. it's a sfoep video. it was played in open court today, and you can see her here. she's speaking to somebody off camera talking about her father. >> what do you miss most about

your daddy? >> well, i ask about him all the time and why he's not here. >> when you ask about him what are you asking about? >> well, i was asking how did my dad get hurt. >> do you wish that he was still here with us? >> yeah, but he is. >> through his spirit? >> yes. >> yes. and when you see your daddy again one day, what do you want to do when you see him? >> i want to play with him. >> what kind of games do you want to play with him? >> i want to play with him, have

fun, go on the plane ride, and see. >> yeah. >> we used to have events every single night before we went to bed. my daddy always used to help me brush my teeth. >> aww. do you miss him helping brush your teeth. >> yes. how do you hope that the world remembers him? >> well, that help him because many people did something to him. >> if you could say anything to your daddy right now what would it be? >> it would be i miss you and i love you. >> all right. thank you, gianna . i appreciate you answering questions today.

>> victim impact statement was the first time that seven-year-old gianna floyd's voice was heard in that courtroom. after her statement, the court heard from george floyd's cousin and two brothers. they testified today in person. then the defense, mr. chauvin's side called just one impact victim, derek chauvin's mother who asked for leniency on his behalf. derek chauvin also gave brief remarks in which he offered his cop dole eppss to the floyd family. he also said cryptically to the floyd family, there will be information later that will be of interest and some things i think will give you some peace of mind. he directed that to the inside family. the july took those statements into account before handing down the sentence of any modern police officer, one of the longest sentences ever handed down for a police officer for a use of force case on the line of

duty. the case of chauvin was initially brought, tim walls took the job of prosecuting chauvin from the prosecutor who would over seen this in normal events. he took the case out of the traditional system that has led to so many failed indictments not just in minnesota but around the country. he gave this case to minnesota's attorney general, keith ellison. he assembled the team of prosecutors that ultimately obtained not only a conviction here but now as of today, a historic sentence as well. shortly after the sentence was hand oun, attorney general keith ellison made a statement alongside those prosecutors. >> the outcome of this case is critically important, but by itself it's not enough. my hope for our country is that this moment gives us pause and allows us to rededicate oust to

the real societal change that will move us much further along the road to justice. i'm not talking about the kind of kapg that takes decades. i'm talking about real change, concrete change that real people can do now. >> that is minnesota attorney general keith ellison who joins us now live exclusively in the wake of this sentencing decision today. mr. attorney general, thank you so much for making time. it's an honor to have you here tonight. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> you made remarks today talking about this being not justice but manager on the way toward justice. overall what do you think people in this country should think about this sneps today? overall how do you view it numerically in terms of the balance between what was prison and what was within the court's

power? >> it was a lodge sentence for this offense, but at the same time, no matter how much time judge cahill gave derek chauvin, it would never restore george floyd, and that beautiful child that you just showed, her daddy won't walk her down the aisle one day, won't be at her sweet 16 birthday party. those brothers will not be able to play with him and laugh about the old times because he's gone. that means to me that there's really no sneps that's truly satisfying, but the sentence is historically lengthy. it is a stiff sentence. it -- though the judge did not want to and did not intend to send a message, there was a message that was sent, which is that if you commit a murder, whether you wear a badge or not, you can face very serious

consequences and your role as a state actor is not going to shield you from responsibility and accountability. >> it was interesting today to see the judge talk about the aggravating factors that he used to justify northward departure, an upward departure from what had been the 12 and a half-year sentence. one of those was he actsed in a group with other individuals involved. i know that the judge -- that the case to have other three officers, the state charges against the other three officers for aiding and abetting in this murder, that trial has been pushed. it was otherwise going to be in august. it has been push to early next year in part because of concerns -- >> that's true. >> -- claims in the court that there's too much heat, there's a desire on the part of the judge to put distance between the chauvin trial and that next trial. what should people of minnesota and people of this country expect from the next trial of

the other three officers and ultimately, what's your perspective on the federal charges still mending against all four officers. >> well, rachel, i'm a little bit limited on what i'm allowed to say. what i will say is those three individuals are presumed innocent but there is probable cause for the charges of aiding and abetting, second and third-degree murder and manslaughter against them, and we expect to put their case in front of 12 jurors of their peers and present evidence, and we expect that the charges that we made will be found to be true by the jury, but that remains to be seen. they're presumed innocent. they have the right to prove yard and we're moving forward to hold them accountable as will. >> do you support that -- >> charges -- >> i'm sorry to have interrupted you. before you speak to the federal charges, did you support the decision to move that trial to

early next year rather than hold it at the end of this summer? >> no. that was a decision by the court's su'a responsibilitia, on the court's prerogative. we were getting ready for it but the court within its own judgment felt to -- it would be better to move it so we don't contest that decision. but moving on to the federal charges, they're different in nature, so we're -- as a state, we're vindicating our duty to make sure that people don't have to be fearful of murdering who murder and people who murder will be accountable. it's to make sure civil rights are vindicated. these are civil right charges. they are serious charges. if you look at the federal sentencing guidelines, when death as a result of a serious civil rights violation, you can be facing life in prisonment. so those are serious charges and beyond that i'll let the federal

authorities handle that, but they're -- i think they're proper. they're appropriate and i'm glad the justice department is taking it seriously. >> wanted to ask you about something that happened in court today, that i'm not sure anybody knows exactly what it means, i'm not sure you know what it means but i wanted to get your reaction to it. the defendant today before he was sentenced gave brief remarks in which he did address mr. floyd's family and he said that there's going to be some other information in the future that would be of interest, and i hope will give you some peace of mind. it seemed both a little strange and potentially a little ominous. do you have any insight to what mr. chauvin was talking about or alternately, do you have any reaction to what he said snd. >> i only have speculation. obviously, when he said it, it was the first time i heard it and the first time my team heard

it. we obviously took our own guesses. we don't have any solid information on exactly what he meant. i will say that i think it is good that he offered his condolences. i think when you take a loved one away from someone it's the least you can do is say that, but there's clearly more that could be said. i can't say that i definite actively what he was referring to. >> keith ellison in the chief position of organizing this prosecution, which resulted not mope the historic verdict but in today's historically long sentence for derek chauvin. i know this has been an exhausting process and there's lots more still to come. thank you for helping us understand tonight. >> thank you. >> much more news. stay with us. h more news. stay with us you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. it starts with our free hearing assessment.

plus innovative products that fit your needs and budget. with free service and adjustments for life. we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage for yourself.

the world we're inheriting, it's in crisis. call 1-800-miracle today and experience we got here after years of bad policies, climate deniers, polluters, lobbyists. but now... i do solemnly swear... ...finally a president who gets it. real leadership in congress. it's our moment to tackle climate change and invest in clean-energy jobs. this is about our future because if we don't stand up, if they don't act, if we let this moment pass us by, we will never get it back. did you know prilosec otc can stop frequent heartburn before it begins? heartburn happens when stomach acid refluxes into the esophagus. prilosec otc uses a unique delayed-release formula that helps it pass through the tough stomach acid.

it then works to turn down acid production, blocking heartburn at the source. with just one pill a day, you get 24-hour heartburn protection. prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. delicia: this is where all our recycling is sorted -- 1.2 million pounds every day, helping to make san francisco the greenest big city in america. but that's not all you'll find here. there are hundreds of good-paying jobs,

with most new workers hired from bayview-hunter's point. we don't just work at recology, we own it, creating opportunity and a better planet. now, that's making a difference. ok. so the prosecutor starts off

with some immediate like drama in the presentation. it's one of those presentations that like goes big right out of the gate. which is good, provided that it all rolls out smoothly. but here's how it goes. prosecutor stands up, adjusts the mike and says, this is a case about greed. but not groed for money. dpreed for power. the judge: i'm sorry. i'm going to interrupt. what? i'm sorry i'm going to interrupt. pull the mic way up close. you can start over if you'd like because i didn't hear you. >> you've steeled yourself and practiced the whole first line. the whole point is seize the home. take the floor, this is a case of -- now just start over. adjust the mic. she starts over. prosecutor: this is a case about greed but not greed for money.

greed for power, for press teaming, for importance. it's about this man, steven calk who wanted a powerful government title and gave out millions of dollars in bank loans to try to get it. he was the chairman and ceo of a bank called the federal savings bank. he pushed his bank to lend to paul man fort a political lockieist. calk gave out millions because manafort gave him things even more valuable. and manafort's help in getting caulk on a top job. in other words, he took a bribe. manafort gave him favor and kauk gave him bank loans. this for that. bribe from paul manafort because he used it as his personal piggy

bank. we're going to learn that in july 2016 palm manafort asked for a loan he was running the presidential campaign for donald trump. the bank has greed to make the loan and manafort put caulk on the campaign. you're going to learn that the loan had all sorts of red flags but kalk didn't care. the first loan closed shortly after election night once it became clear that manafort can help caulk because trump had won the election. the second was approved. it's a little interruption from the judge at the top kind of steals the thunder but bang, right back into it. that is how the trial opened this week in a courtroom, federal courtroom in the southern district of new york, the allegation at the heart of this trial is that on the donald

trump for president campaign, the campaign manager, campaign chairman -- excuse me -- was offering consideration for high-level u.s. government jobs in exchange for cash. in exchange for millions of dollars paid to him in the form of loans from a small midwestern bank, loans that definitely would not have gone to him. he definitely did not qualify for. had he not -- and he would not have received them from that bank had he not been offering to make the bank president literally secretary of the army provided that the dude caused up the cash. the most eye opening testimony so far in this trial has been from an employee of the bank who explains in fine detail on the stand why in the normal course of events there was no way that trump's campaign chairman who got 16 million dollars from this little bank unless there was something else that was part of the deal here.

she explains, for example, how they learned that the credit score has dropped several hundred points to a point where it was so low, most lenders would not lend to someone with a score like that. she explains her surprise at learning he had an unpaid balance on a credit card. that is something the bank had to discover on its open because paul manafort didn't disclose it to them me went to them for his loan. in september 2016 she gets an e-mail from somebody else at the bank who says, just an fyi, looks like these guys are in default to genesis. here's how that went on the stand. question, did you know who genesis was? >> i believes it was another lender. question, what does it mean? answer. it means he took out a loan and did not pay. question: why is it relevant? because if they didn't pay a loan to another lender that

makes us believe that they will not pay back our loan, either. so surprise. turns out credit way below what they would approve anybody for. surprise, 3400,000 and surprise actively defaulting on another loan. she and her colleagues loernd that manafort proposed putting up a property that he owned as collateral for the loan. they were surprised to learn that there's a mechanic's lean on the property because paul manafort has hired somebody to work on the property and he didn't pay them, either. then they found out that actually he doesn't really open that property, anyway. he just neglected to mention that he doesn't open the property outside right, which he had led them to believe. in fact, he had a two and a half million dollars mortgage on that property. he wants to use the property as collateral for the loan. ites got a $2.45 million

mortgage against it. oh, but sorry. turns out he also forgot to mex an additional hundred million dollars he had borrowed against that same house. that again was going to be the collateral for him getting millions more dollars in loans of this bank. this bank is pigging out that this loan may not make sense. prosecutor, question, do you understand what he's saying here when he says what the hell? how can he be a million dollars off? answer. yes. >> what is he saying? answer he could have mistaken two and a half million for -- instead, it would be three and a half million. >> question: when you say he, who is the he? >> answer: i believe it would be paul manafort. question: can read what you wrote? yes. i wrote, quote, he is so in debt. question: and who did you write

there to? answer: i wrote it to the head underwritering in the bank. >> is that positive or negative? are you saying a good thing or bad things about the loans to the head underwriter? answer: i'm saying a bad thing. quote, it became very obvious that this was a bad loan. the head underwriter and myself were, quote, exasperated by the information coming in about the loan. question, dove any basis to know the views other than the e-mails we've seen? yes. he and i spoke on the phone. question: do you remember anything he told you? answer: i don't remember specifically. we were both in agreement that this loan was not good. question: did he provide you any advice on what to do? answer: yes. what advice did he provide you? answer: he told me to hold on to all the e-mails. or save all the e-mails because the fbi will be looking into this.

at which point the request defense pops up, objection! she was right. the fbi did ultimately end up looking into this and the e-mails are handy. and you know, it's something to have the employee from this bank there on the witness stand saying i did not believe that the borrower, paul manafort, had the ability or the will to repay the loan. she said given the prospect of what this means for steve caulk, though, i understood with my life experience that no matter what this loan would be made. the bank making this load would result in steve calk getting something of advantage. i believe there's no way that steve would not make this loan. that would mean he would not get a position within the trump administration. this case is under way now in the southern district of new york. banks are federally insured. there's a federal government interest in making sure that

banks don't get ripped off by people who are using banks as piggy banks to pay for government jobs which are not supposed to be able to buy. and if you are supposed to be able buy them you shouldn't be able to buy them by giving the money to paul freaking manafort. but that was the trump campaign. one of the things that president's now pardoned campaign chairman is said by prosecutors to have done is he allegedly bribed this bank ceo with the promise of a job for the low, low cost of $16 million and otherwise totally indefensible loans he never should have gotten and never would have qualified for. but the guy who he was offering federal government positions to, if the guy would only pay paul manafort. the guy put in writing what exact jobs he wanted in exchange for his bank's money, which he was stuffing in paul manafort's pockets. he made a list.

quote, ambassadors i would like in rank order." number one, united kingsessingdom. number two, france. number three germany. italy, spain, australia, china, united nations, the eu, portugal. portugal after the eu? come on. in addition he would like in rank order a list of what he labeled perspective roles in the trump administration, which goes to show you for one thing, the man could spell neither the word pro speckive nor the word rolls. nevertheless he thought paying donald trump's campaign chairman millions of dollars. he thought his -- well his number one perspective role is that he should be the top official in charge of the united states army. in fact, after the dude, you know, agreed to pay up, the

trump transition in fact interviewed him to potentially be secretary of the army. we got that confirmation on the witness stand from a very well known witness, do you remember anthony scaramucci? the mooch. he testified this week in this bribery trials a witness for the prosecution, he testified that the prospective bank rolls guy who is short rolling by sending all the banks money to paul manafort. he is so in debt. scaramucci testified he did take lots of communications, calls, and texts and e-mails about getting steven calk that job. mr. scaramucci ultimately did kind of offer that the dude could be undersecond of the army if he'd be good with that.

mr. scaramucci on the witness stand this week in southern district of new york. he's reading his text messages for the prosecution. at 7:46 p.m. scaramucci writes and he's reading out loud. quote, would he take undersecretary of the army. are we double sure? then he says, if so, i think we can get it done.

and scaramucci didn't know as far as we can tell, right, that manafort was getting paid by this guy, but this is the way the trump campaign worked. manafort was the campaign chierm home run chairman. he's going to make this die the undersecretary of the entire united states army. sure, why not? because that's what the campaign brought to the table. in addition to scaramucci, another trump transition official testified this week about thousand vetting process worked around this guy who was involved in the election bribery scheme of manafort. honestly, in normal administrations, i think -- i think officials will sometimes have little reunions, get-togethers, how's your family, living in d.c., catch up. they were going to meet up at the criminal proceedings they're going to be witnesses at. hey. haven't seen you sins the rudy disbarment proceeding! let me know how it goes with the

subpoena. i know. it's so hard to keep in touch. i keep having to get phones, too. darn fbi. they got all my stuff. i mean, being an ex trump administration official is a thing that isn't true for other recent administrations going back to watergate. other than anthony scaramucci, the other trump transition officials who testified in this trial this week, his name is corey langehofer, he's working in politics. which they guess is another kind of work these folks can find for themselves, questioning the election results from 2020? today, "the new york times" was first to report that lawyers for the trump organization have been informed by new york state prosecutors that criminal charges are now being considered

against trump's business and they may come very soon. you may recall that trump university was pursued as a criminal fraud scheme by new york prosecutors. trump university was ultimately shut down and trump had to pay $25 million to settle that matter. then it was the trump's foundation, the big charity that was pursued also as a fraud scheme. it, too rpgs was shut down and trump was forced to pay millions of dollars. now it's the trump organization. it's his core business, and as early as next week, the trump organization itself looks like it may be criminally charged as well as potentially individual employees or executives of the trump organization. now, whether or not the former president ever faces potential criminal charges himself in this matter -- and there's no sign of that at this point -- what this nevertheless represents is the very real prospect that the former president will be forced

out of business with criminal charges that could come as soon as next week. and think about how that arrives right now. think about the sort of mind set that may be at play here, right? this word that the -- the trump organization's lawyers met. they're trying to talk them out of filing criminal charges. prosecutors have made it known to them that criminal charges are likely and soon. in a matter of days. and that news arrives with a day of the president's personal lawyer, rudy guiliani, having his license to practice law suspended in new york state for what a new york court found were his repeated knowing lies to the public and to the courts about trump's fantasy that he somehow didn't lose the last election. that news arrived yesterday, within a day of michigan senate republicans publicly debunking trump and guiliani's claims about the election being stolen in that state as well. last night we learned about the effort to, quote, audit the

election results in the state of georgia. that effort is getting turned back by a state court in georgia. looks like the trump supporters' fantasy of doing to the president al vote in georgia what they're doing to it in arizona. looks like that won't happen thanks to a judge's ruling yelled. today we learn that the u.s. justice department is suing georgia for voting restrictions that republicans passed into law on the basis of all the supposed fraud that trump has been climg happened in that state in the election which he lost. it is a huge deal. we'll have more on that coming up in a couple of minutes on the show. but like i said, take these things together. right. put these things together as bricks in the same wall. things are not going well in trump world right now. in a way that is i think worse than anything since the first week in january. i mean, from the trump campaign criminal bribery trial in that new york courtroom this week,

which is turning into a little reunion of witnesses techg for the prosecution, to the brick falls that trump is starting to hit about him being reinstated as. . be one thing he was quietly nurturing that hope. he's been crowing about it for months as it starts to become impossible and humiliating, his pup statements that he'll be reinstated are things he's up against himself. ever hear him say, oh, i was wrong? turns outs that's not going to happen. really? and then there's the cold hard consequences that trump is starting to bash into from rudy losing his law license to shutting down the business. this is all quite bad if you are donald trump. putting business out of business? this is existentially challenging stuff to him and it's all piling on top of each other in fairly short order.

i put these things together. i can't predict the future and neither can you. i know i said this one other time this week. i feel like it is worth having a heads-up on this. they say when the things get weird, the weird turn pro. when things get quite this bad, things also tend to get weird and radical. i'm not sure anybody can predict what's going to come next out of trump world given all the pressure they're facing on all these different sides. we know he's planning a rally in marin county california, tomorrow. we also know one of these election conspiracy movies is going to be released this weekend. the big cyber news audit that trump supporters have been running in arizona, it was supposed to end yesterday but it's still happening they're apparently still keeping it going and nobody knows why or

exactly what they're doing, even as trump and supporters claim that the vote will be certified and he'll be reinstated as president. they would be done in april. then they said it was done yesterday. they're not done. they're still doing something, and nobody knows what. none of this is good. with this much treasure on trump right now, i think that anything's possible. i'm hoping for a very boring weekend. i always am. but heads up. spicy like them pajama pants. hey, the camera is staying up here. this is not the second date. are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? hey, the camera is staying up here. what if your clothes could stay fresh for weeks? now they can! downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters keep your laundry smelling fresh way longer than detergent alone. pour a cap of downy unstopables into your washing machine before each load and enjoy fresher smelling laundry. with 6 times the freshness ingredients,

downy unstopables gives you more of what you love. if you want laundry to smell fresh for weeks make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters.

(gong rings) - this is joe. (combative yelling) he used to have bad breath. now, he uses a capful of therabreath fresh breath oral rinse to keep his breath smelling great, all day long. (combative yelling) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores.

today's 22 and a half year prison in the killing of george floyd was also a reminder of the federal government, specifically the u.s. justice department, has stepped up on policing issues since the biden administration started. the federal investigation, the pattern and practice investigation of the whole minneapolis police department, the federal charges being brought against chauvin and three other officers in the trial that's yet to be

scheduled. another pattern and practice investigation in louisville where brionna taylor was killed, federal hate crimes charges brought against three georgia men being believed to be involved in the death of ahmad a bring. arbery. before today we had seen comparatively little from the biden justice department. when it comes to the other major responsibility of its division which of course is protecting voting rights. you'll remember that the justice department sent a stern letter to arizona warning them that their so-called audit might violate federal laws. they cents a stern letter but no follow-up action besides the letter itself. then a couple of weeks ago attorney general farland gave a speech in which he said the justice department would look at

restrikive voting laws around the country as well as threats to election officials. that was just a speech. today, though, we finally saw some action. first, a memo from the deputy attorney general, announcing the creation of what appears to be a substantive task force inside the justice department the that will respond to and look to head off threats against elections officials and elections workers around the country. that's a substantive thing. that matters. also, landing like a, you know, cannon ball in the keep end of the pool today was the justice department announcing a major lawsuit against the state of georgia for its ream passed bill to dramatically scale back access to polling places in that state. >> today the department of justice is suing the state of georgia. our complaint alleges that recent changes in georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of black georgians to vote on account of

their race or color in violation of section 2 of the voting rights act. >> our complaint challenges several provisions of sb 202 on the grounds that they were adopted with the intent to deny or abridge black citizens equal access to the political process. >> here's the government complaint referenced there by attorney general garland and by kristin clark, the recently confirmed hefd of the civil rights division in the justice department. it's about 46 pages. it's very readable. the thing that leaps outs at you even if you're not a lawyer is that what the justice department is saying about georgia is that not only have they taken these unjustified steps to restrike the ability of some georgia cannians to vote, the very serious allegation is that it wasn't incidental. it was done with intent. as the complaint, the lawsuit states playly, quote, passage of senate bill 202 was motivated by

discriminatory purpose. they list all the ways. then they say this, quote, the georgia legislature enacted zmet bill 202 with the knowledge of the disproportionate effect that these provisions both singly and together would have on black voters' ability to participate in the mill process on an equal basis with white voters. with knowledge of the disproportionate effect. the justice department really mincing no words. but the justice department's lawsuit today was not the first to accuse georgia of exactly that. there's a question now as to what happens with this big justice department action going after the state and all the other entities that have started suing georgia over this exact fact. interesting future here. hold that thought. we'll be right back. hold that thought. we'll be right back. coverage customizer tool?

sorry? well, since you asked. it finds discounts and policy recommendations, so you only pay for what you need. limu, you're an animal! who's got the bird legs now? only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when heartburn takes you by surprise. fight back fast, with new tums naturals. free from artificial flavors and dyes.

- [narrator] this is steve. he used to have gum problems. now, he uses therabreath healthy gums oral rinse with clinically-proven ingredients

and his gum problems have vanished. (crowd applauding) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores. darrell's family uses gain flings now so their laundry smells more amazing than ever. isn't that the dog's towel? hey, me towel su towel. more gain scent plus oxi boost and febreze in every gain fling. good boy! [laughs] ♪ hold my pouch. ♪ trust us, us kids are ready to take things into our own hands. don't think so? hold my pouch.

gillette proglide. five blades and a pivoting flexball don't think so? designed to get virtually every hair on the first stroke. so you're ready for the day with a fresh face for a fresh start. for a limited time get a 5th cartridge free.

in march, the republican governor of georgia signed a new law to radically restrict voting rights in georgia. just four days later civil rights groups like the naacp's civil defense fund sued the state over the law. they argued the restrictions in that law have a pronounced disparate impact upon voters from historically disenfranchised communities, a result so clear that it can only be intentional. it can only be intentional. now almost three months later those groups are being joined by a heavy. the u.s. department of justice, which today announced that on behalf of the american people it too will sue georgia to block that law. our guest is associate counsel with the naacp's defense fund. thank you so much for making time. >> it's a pleasure to be here. >> i hear the echo in your

lawsuit from march and the justice department's action today, talking about intentionally targeting voters of color, that language in your lawsuit. today the justice department saying that the law was motivated, meaning the intent was discrimination, motivated by discriminatory purpose. for us non-lawyers, can you help us understand the gravity of that charge and how important it is to whether or not this law is constitutional? >> absolutely. to allege that a law is intentionally discriminatory requires you to prove that the legislators acted with intent, that they were aware of the consequences of their actions, and they intended for those consequences to be so. we know that in the case of georgia, the particular provisions of this 90-plus page law that evolved over time from something that was just a few pages to this tome that ultimately is one of the worst

voter suppression laws that we've seen, is the result of legislators effectively examining what worked for black voters in this last election where there was historic turnout in both the november 2020 election and the subsequent runoff election, and then crafting a suppression bill that addresses the very ways in which black voters were able to exercise their fundamental right to vote so robustly. so what we see in this 90-page law is a restriction on the time in which you can request an absentee ballot. we see restrictions on the ability of election officials to voluntarily send out absentee ballots to eligible voters to enable them to vote through this well-used mechanism that people have used across the country for many decades without incident. it limits the ability of people

to cast ballots outside of their designated precincts and have those ballots counted for the races that have nothing to do with where that precinct is assigned. there are just particular ways, if you look at the exact provisions of this law, you can see a roadmap to how black voters were able to exercise their right to vote and now how that right to vote will be fundamentally denied and abridged. >> do you expect that the justice department may intervene in your lawsuit or that in some other way we'll see these lawsuits essentially become joined? obviously you're aiming at the same target here. >> well, rachel, there are seven lawsuits, and now with the department of justice, one additional lawsuit. many of the lawsuits overlap in their claims. but we represent individual plaintiffs and groups that have distinct interests. so the department of justice is operating, as we know, on behalf of the united states government. and the united states government

has a distinct interest in ensuring that our elections are free from racial discrimination. we also have a distinct interest as an organization that has worked for over 80 years to protect the rights of black voters to ensure that they can exercise the franchise free and fair of discrimination. so we have brought claims of intentional discrimination. we've brought claims about the effects of this law on black voters. and especially voters who have disabilities. let's not forget that many of these provisions affect individuals who may face particular challenges in light of the pandemic and in light of limitations that they may face, and that these restrictions make it much more difficult for persons with disabilities to exercise their right to vote. so we represent a very broad class of plaintiffs that is distinct from the interests of the u.s. government. but we are delighted that they have filed this lawsuit, that they are bringing their artillery to this fight. we need all hands on deck.

and i think the number of organizations that have sued on this law is a reflection of how deleterious and offensive it is to our general norms and expectations about how we should treat the right to vote in this country. the fact that so many groups are alleging racial discrimination should be a real signal as to how clear it is to so many of us who care to deeply about the right to vote. >> associate director, counsel of the naacp legal defense fund, thank you for giving us that perspective, i hadn't heard it put in those terms. thank you so much. keep us apprised. >> you're very welcome, thank you, rachel. we'll be right back. e very you, rachel. we'll be right back. did you know prilosec otc can stop frequent heartburn before it begins? heartburn happens when stomach acid

refluxes into the esophagus. prilosec otc uses a unique delayed-release formula that helps it pass through the tough stomach acid. it then works to turn down acid production, blocking heartburn at the source. with just one pill a day, you get 24-hour heartburn protection. prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn.

did i tell you i've been doing this for like 13 years now and i'm still absolutely terrible at it? i just barreled through i think two, maybe three commercials. like, that's totally illegal in cable news but i just did it. like, i've never done this before. 13 years. i apologize. but i do it all the time. sorry. that does it for