the election and put all his focus to the election and then fighting the election. so no, he never committed to it and it never got scale. >> the new book is called "nightmare scenario". it's full of fantastic reporting. it's out now. thank you for taking time tonight. that is "all in" on this tuesday night. good evening, rachel. >> thank you, chris. much appreciated. thanks to you at home for being with us this hour. so, he had been a slave. he was enslaved to a white man named john emerson in missouri, but then during the time emmerson was holding this man as a slave, he moved several times, including moving out of missouri. he moved to the wisconsin territory. he moved to the state of illinois. both of which were not slave territories or slave states, both of which were free. so that created an unusual situation. a white man and an

african-american man he has enslaved. they start in missouri. they traveled to and live in free territory for a time, and then ultimately they move back to slave state missouri. all right, when the white man died, the african-american man who had been enslaved to him, he tried to buy his own freedom from the dead man's family, from the dead man's widow, and the family refused to allow him to buy his freedom. the enslaved man then decided he would sue for his freedom. he would turn to the courts. and the basis for him suing for his freedom was that time in the free territory of wisconsin and the free state of illinois. if an enslaved person was moved into free territory, into a free state, they're freed from enslavement, and that is something that can't be reversed, even if you go back to missouri. once free, always free. so he sued on that basis in

1846, and it took forever, but finally 13 years later in 1859, the case was the subject of a ruling in the united states supreme court. it was a decision that hands down, no argument, is considered to this day to be the worst united states supreme court decision of all time. and part of that was its form. it was sloppy and flagrantly wrong on the facts and the history and the law. it was poorly reasoned. its logic was just a broken pretzel. but the chief justice who wrote that supreme court opinion apparently wanted the outcome that he wanted and he got it and that supreme court just sis remembered today for basically nothing else other than that terrible decision. the worst decision ever handed down by the united states

supreme court. because the enslaved man who sued for his freedom in that ruling was a man named dred scott. it was chief justice robert tanny that wrote the ruling. he wrote not only was mr. scott entitled to be free, he wrote did not even have standing to sue for his freedom because as an african-american he was not a citizen of the united states. because according to the judge, no african-american was a citizen of the united states or ever could be a citizen of the united states because of their race. and so none of the benefits or rights enshrined in the constitution could extend to

black people or would extend to black people. it afforded them no rights. the judge also went on to say the political compromise, the missouri compromise that kept states from establishing slavery in the united states was unconstitutional, too. that slavery could persist anywhere in the united states and congress could have nothing to say about that. and americans of african decent were not citizens of the united states, and they never could be and the constitution did not apply to them. dred scott. it's the worst thing the united states supreme court has ever done. the worst ruling, both in substance and in form and of course in effect. i mean, the decision arguably narrowly destroyed the country when it helped lead to the united states civil war just a couple years after the ruling was handed down. the worst supreme court decision ever. the ruling in the dred scott

case, again, that was chief justice roger tainey, and this is chief justice roger tainey. this bust of him sits today in the united states capitol. from 1810 to 1860, the u.s. supreme court held their sessions at the capitol. they sat in what's called the old supreme court chamber. the architect of the capitol says since they moved out of there in 1860, that big room has been used as a library, a committee room, it was even just used for storage for a while before they restored it to look essentially now like it did in the 1800s. the way you get into the chamber is you go in through a robing room. it's a funny word, but it's a thing in the modern courtrooms today. judges got put on their robes

somewhere, sow enter through a robing room. but in this one particular robing room in the united states capitol, which marks the entrance to this one specific entrance to the former court that was inside the u.s. capitol, in the robing room, there is a marble bust of just one person, roger tainey, the man who wrote the dred scott decision, trying to spread slavery through the united states and that black people by virtue of their race were not citizens. it's just him. it's not like that is a hall of chief justice. or a hall of justice. it's just him, roger tainey alone looming over the entrance to the u.s. capitol. as of right now. or how about not? how about we change that? tonight the house of representatives voted to not do that anymore. to swap him out. to take down from that place of

honor in the u.s. capitol, the justice who wrote the worst supreme court ruling of all time and instead replace him with a different supreme court justice who didn't do that. how about justice thursday good marshall. how about that? the house passed a bill to take down the bust last summer. it passed in the democratic controlled house last july but never went anywhere. republican senate leader mitch mcconnell blocked it. republicans in the senate never took it up. so taney still sits there. now that democrats are in control of the senate -- not mitch mcconnell there anymore, it's chuck schumer, who is the majority leader in the senate. now that it's democrats in the house and senate, major roger taney is going to get downtime. maybe we'll stop the ongoing honor at the united states

capitol. see if somebody else will get a turn. the vote tonight in the house for the second time in two years they've take then vote, but the vote tonight in the house to take down the roger taney bust in the u.s. capitol was 285 to 129. 120 members -- republican members voting no to keep him up, the dred scott guy. and speaking of the idea of the confederate flag inside the u.s. capitol, tonight we learned that republicans in the house are whipping the vote, telling their members in the house to vote no on the creation of a select committee to investigate the attack on the u.s. capitol on january 6th. the attack where supporters of former president trump violently attacked the u.s. capitol in an effort to try to stop the certification of the election that trump had just lost, and yes, that attack did include

parading the confederate flag through the halls of congress. republicans initially negotiated a plan for a truly bipartisan -- basically a nonpartisan expert, independent commission to examine the attack and what led to it. republican leadership in the house and senate then turned against that negotiated proposal, even though their own side had negotiated with the democrats. they delegated republicans to work oncoming up with a nonpartisan or bipartisan plan for an investigation. they did that. it was successful, and then republican leadership said, no, don't vote for it any way. republicans voted no on a nonpartisan expert commission even though they helped come up with the idea. they filibustered it in the senate. so in lieu of that, democrats proposed a select committee that will include members from both parties and a staff and subpoena power to compel production of evidence and witnesses. tonight, though, we learned

republican leadership is whipping the vote to get all their members to vet against that, too. it is literally their own workplace that was attacked by a mob that was among other things shouting at the time they wanted to hunt down and hang the vice president from their own party. the republicans do not want the look into it. they will not vote for any inquiry, earth a nonpartisan or bipartisan or select committee to look into what happened there. they will not hear it. i love the beltway press still maintains that republicans are going to come along and vote in significant numbers for joe biden's infrastructure bill, or, you know, for bipartisan poliing reform efforts or literally anything biden or the democrats want to do. they will not vote to investigate a crime committed against themselves, not if the democrats want it. the republicans are not interested in doing stuff with the democrats. big stuff, small stuff. they don't want it.

president biden was in lacrosse, wisconsin, tonight, talking about his infrastructure plans. talking about how they would be the biggest investment since the new deal in the fdr era, which is true. it's true whether democrats pass that alone or with any republican support. that will be true. but this is just one of those days when the past -- the past just looms, right? everyone as everybody's trying to move forward in their own way, the pass sticks to us. sometimes as a benchmark, the biggest investment we've made since fdr, the new deal. sometimes the past comes with us on days like this in noble poetic ways. the moment roger taney bust gets taken down to be replaced even more carefully with a new best, right? the attorney who argued the

unanimous supreme court case that struck down separate but equally segregated schools in this country. when his bust goes up just ace carefully as taney's will go down, right? thurgood marshall went on to be a justice. no matter how many dozens of house republicans tried to head it off and vote against it, no matter how long the senate republicans were able to hold it off, that will be something when that happens. but the past is with us in today's news in petier and more distracting ways, too. do you remember mark sanford? he's a modern republican politician with his own freighted history. sanford, you will recall, was serving as governor of south carolina when he went missing. and his office initially tried to cover up the fact that no one knew where he was, but they really didn't know where he was.

he then tried to get away with a cover story that he was, surprise, off on his own on a sudden not preannounced trip to go hike the appalachian trail solo. he was not hiking the appalachian trail as you may recall. he was with his mistress in argentina. after mark sanford completed his term as governor of south carolina with that bizarre scandal following him every last day he was in office, nevertheless the good people of south carolina saw fit to elect him to congress after he finished his term as governor. they elected him to congress in 2013. he served multiple terms. all is forgiven. all was forgiven until he fell out with then president donald trump. he started being critical of president trump. so in 2018, three years ago, summer of 2018, mark sanford was running for re-election to that seat in congress, but he had made an enemy of then-president donald trump and president trump

jumped into that race and endorsed against mark sanfor endorsed a woman running against mark sanford. at the time this is what trump said. quote, mark sanford has been very unhelpful to me in my campaign to maga, to make america great again. he is mia. subtly referencing his previous scandal. he is mia and nothing but trouble. i endorse katie arrington. and in fact, katie arrington on the strength of that endorsement and her own criticism that mark sanford was not pro-trump enough to remain in congress, ousted a sitting member of the house of representatives. ousted mark san tord by beating him in the republican primary. the headlines were brutal.

sanford loses in stunner. mac sanford survived the appalachian trail. couldn't survive trump. all of which trump was -- until the general election was held in november, and even though this was a seat in south carolina, trump's endorsed candidate lost. katie arrington had beaten mark sanford in the primary to become the republican nominee for the state, but then it was a democrat named joe cunningham who actually won in november. so mark sanford was ousted from congress, but the republicans lost the seat. and what came of katie arrington? interesting. the post and courier in south carolina later reported that after that election in november when republicans lost the seat, right, the democrat who won the election, who won that seat in congress, he left south carolina to travel to washington to go start his new job on the same

day that katie arrington did, too. wait, she had just lost the election. why is she going to washington. she wouldn't tell the post and courier at the time why she too was going to washington after she just lost the election to that democrat. she told them she was going to see some group of people and would not further elaborate. but by the end of that year, she had somewhat inexplicably found herself serving in the trump administration in a high ranking job at the pentagon. she got the trump nod to oust mark sanford from congress but apparently got the next nod to become a senior cybersecurity executive right under donald trump, right away, right after the election. that's how things went. and we know very little about her tenure at the pentagon since that time. but today bloomberg was first to report this still quite cryptic

news. top pentagon cyberofficial probed over disclosure concerns. the lede -- the official has been placed on leave with a suspected unauthorized disclosure of classified information from a military intelligence agency according to an official document. katie arrington, chief information security officer for the pentagon's acquisition office was notified her security clearance for access to classified information is being suspended, quote, as result of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information and subsequent removal of access by the national security agency according to a memo made available to bloomberg news. now, we really do not know what this is about. she has herself a high end whistle-blower lawyer who said today she is being deprived of procedural and substantive due process and that the nsa has yet to explain their concerns that

have led to her having her security suspended and her being put on leave. but, you know, tell me more. this could very well have nothing to do with the very weird politic of how katie arrington got to washington in the first place and how she got into a high ranking pentagon position in the middle of the trump administration after her sort of odd political back story there. right? we don't know. it may have nothing to do with that. the weird political way she got that high ranking pentagon job may have nothing to do with the fact this her security clearance has been suspended and she's now been put on leave amid allegations she disclosed classified information. we don't know what this is about. the fact that the trump administration did staff up some of the most important agencies in government in such weird political ways looms, like every day. it is an underappreciated part of the challenge of standing up

and contining the work of those important agencies in the post-trump era now that joe biden is president. take the justice department. we have reported proverbially on the hazmat suits they need to put on before entering the washington. they're trying to do the work under new leadership, but they have to do it amid the toxic mess left behind by the previous administration, including a bunch of stuff that feels like it should be potentially examine in the potentially very serious ways. i mean, there was lot of attention in the news yesterday to an interview former attorney general bill barr did with abc's jonathan karl. jonathan karl published an excerpt in the atlantic magazine that includes apparently extensive interviews -- the book is based on extensive interviews with bill barr. in the excerpt published

yesterday, bar explains his decision to publicly admit after the election that it didn't look like there was enough fraud in the presidential election to have changed the outcome. barr said that to an a.p. reporter after the election. in the jonathan karl reporting we get lots more details of how mad trump was that barr did that. that ultimately led to barr's resignation, sort of, maybe, later on around christmas time before the inauguration. lots of news there. lots of consternation about that. there was less attention to the fact that in this excerpt from jonathan karl's book, he also documents that in fact, after the election when he was attorney general, bill barr did contact at least one u.s. attorney in michigan in pursuit of one of trump's made-up conspiracy theories about how the election was conducted. one of these conspiracy theories that there were mysterious vote dumps in michigan that weren't

real votes and that expert witness why it looks like biden won even though trump did. as attorney general of the united states, william barr didn't just listen to trump say that stuff and absorb it and do nothing with it. he in fact employed the resources of the justice department. he contacted a u.s. attorney in michigan with that trash. as attorney general he did that. barr's successor as attorney general after he left, jeffrey rosen, and rosen's deputy richard donahue also contacted people in pennsylvania and georgi with even more of that trash. the justice department didn't just get berated by trump trying to get them to -- we know two successful attornies general shovelled it out to u.s. attorneys to try to get the u.s.

attorneys to deal with it. that's wrong. they're not supposed to do that. if you're at the justice department now, obviously you want to move forward with merrick garland's agenda and the biden administration's agenda, but you can't just move forward pretending that is all didn't just happen inside your department. you can't assume it will never happen again. if it happened there once, never got investigated, never got chased down, never had any consequences. that needs to be fixed. and that's true all over the government right now after what we just went through with the previous administration. even at a much lower profile agency -- take the u.s. department of agriculture. the past looms today. there was stuff that may need cleaning up. this may potentially need help cleaning up with the help of the fbi. this is a rocket of a story in "the washington post" from a reporter called desmond butler who we're going to speak to any moment here it happens lede.

it was a curious time for sonny perd to close a real estate deal. weeks after trump selected him to be agriculture secretary, perdue's company brought a small grain plant in south carolina. had anyone noticed it would have prompted questions ahead of his confirmation, but mr. perdue, the former governor of georgia, did not disclose the deal. there was no legal requirement for him to do so. an examination of public records by "the washington post" found the company in question sold that land to perdue at a small fraction of the estimated value, just as a company today to benefit from a friendly secretary of agriculture. during trump's campaign, sonny perdue was an adviser to trump. after trump won there was a lot of chatter about what job he might get. it was wasn't hard to narrow down the choice. he was in the business of agriculture himself. secretary of agriculture seemed like a good bet.

perdue spoke to the press in early december about how he was talk trump with his skills and where he might be a good fit. wasn't exactly a mystery that was where he was going to end up. a couple of years before all this, before he was in line for the agriculture secretary position archer daniels midland started talking with perdue's company about selling him this parcel. they bought it for $25 million. when they went to him about it in 2015, they asked perdue's company if he wanted to buy it for $4 million. that was 2015. after trump won, as perdue was about to come secretary of agriculture, they decided to sell it to him not for the $4 million they already asked him for. they decided to sell it to him for $250,000, which dsmond butler points out was 1/16 of

what the company asked perdue's farm to pay for it just two years earlier. back to desmond butler's piece -- quote, the timing of the sale, perdue was about to become the most powerful in u.s. agriculture raises legal and ethical issues. to whether the transaction could have been an attempt to influence an incoming government official, in violation of the bribery statutes. julie o'sullivan, a former federal prosecutor tells the post, quote, this stinks to high heaven. kwoerkt it deserves a prosecutor's attentional only a prosecutor with the powers of the grand jury can find out if there was a quid pro quo that existed at the time of the deal. the head of ethics els the "the washington post," this may be a matter for the fbi to investigate, frankly. sonny perdue ultimately sold off

the company that got that sweet deal on that property. it's not clear how much he and his family made off the sale after getting such a spectacular deal on it just as he was joining the cabinet. and of course perdue did make a number of decisions in the trump cabinet that were very favorable to the interests of the company that gave him that sweet deal. you know, everything from decisions on@knoll to the speed on meat processing plants to a tax credit that appears to have put hundreds of millions of dollars in their pockets. i mean, he might absolutely have done those things any way without his private business dealing with archer daniels midland. they insist they got no special treatment in perdue during the trump administration. they say they didn't give the company a deal on the sale at all, even though they previously asked him for $4 million for the

parcel and sold it to him for $250,000. but the past looms here. and if you are the new administration coming in after something like this with stuff like this at all the agencies, you can't just let it lie as history, right? you do have to clean this up. you at least have to investigate it, don't you? joining us now is desmond butler, investigative reporter at "the washington post." thank you so much for joining us tonight. i appreciate you being here. >> thanks so much for having me. >> let me ask you if i mischaracterized anything you reported or missed anything key to the plot here. >> no, you got it exactly right, rachel. >> did sonny perdue have any response to these very serious allegations, serious implications at least? did he or his representatives give you anything in response to the reporting? >> i tried to reach him every which way.

i called his businesses. i sent a letter to his home. i tried former spokesmen and never got any response from him whatsoever. i did get a former unnamed spokesperson to talk about part of this, but he was pretty elusive. >> now, archer daniels midland says this wasn't a sweet deal, this wasn't some, you know, special deal for perdue on his way to becoming a trump cabinet secretary who was going to be in a position to do nice things for the company. they say first of all they didn't get any special favors and said it wasn't that great a deal. they describe this as an underperforming asset, especially that the $250,000 was market rate. you did quite a bit of leg work to figure out what this sale might have been priced at in fair market value.

>> yeah. >> you had both -- you spoke with the county tax assessor's auchls they did a multimillion dollars assessment but you also got an independent assessor to look at it. >> that's right, we had a professional appraiser look at it and his estimation came out at about $5.7 million. we then got a second appraiser to review, that and he conquered. >> so, if it was a property that is independently appraised at $5.7 million and perdue somehow landed it for $250,000, i understand there's complicated issues around disclosure here. him on his way to becoming an official, once he was an official. but the prospect that this might have been a bribe, that this might have been a being company who stood to benefit from his favor, doing him a big financial

favor, who would investigate something like that? i mean, on its surface, there's a lot that looks questionable here. what's proper venue for this to be investigated? >> well, there's a lot of possibilities. it could be congress. it could be the inspector general at usda. or it could be the justice dechlt department. >> desmond butler, investigative reporter at "the washington post." mr. butler, this piece is a remarkable window into what happened here. it raises all sorts of interesting questions. but i want to thank you in plr for laying it out so clear sbli doing so much work with the team at the post to make it otherwise what's complicated and deliberately obfuscated a good story on potentially troubling misconduct. thank you and congratulations on this work. >> thank you so much, rachel. all right, much more news to get to tonight. stay with us.

nicorette knows, quitting smoking is freaking hard. you get advice like: try hypnosis... or... quit cold turkey.

kidding me?! instead, start small. with nicorette. which can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette my name is douglas. i'm a writer/director and i'm still working. in the kind of work that i do, you are surrounded by people who are all younger than you. i had to get help somewhere along the line to stay competitive. i discovered prevagen. i started taking it and after a period of time, my memory improved. it was a game-changer for me. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

saving the world is our family business. [ snoring ] i feel like i'm surrounded by interns. in 2003, a republican from

iowa named steve king started serving in congress. he was never in leadership. he never did much in congress, but he became very famous when he was in congress for not good reasons. steve king became a famous member of congress because of how frequently he earned negative headlines for his increasingly blatant flirtations with really out there stuff on race and white nationalism and i mean that specifically. steve king would opine about birthrates and certain populations not having enough babies and birth control turning america into a, quote, dying civilization because, according to steve king, white people contributed to civil transition more than anything else. quote, where are these contributions that have been made by other categories of people. where did any other subgroup of people contribute to

civilization? okay. steve king met with far right nationalist politicians from europe and said things like, cultural suicide by demographic transformation must end. he said, quote, we can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies. he wondered aloud to "the new york times," white nationalist, white supremacist, how did that language become offensive? yes, when did that happen? that "the new york times" interview is a couple of years ago now, and at that point the republican party -- the republican party in the white house under the leadership of kevin mccarthy decided they were going strip steve king of his committee assignments, an exile in the party where steve king could sit around and twiddle his thumbs and take votes but he

couldn't do any of the business that a member of congress was supposed to do. and in that exile, that move by the republican party to seal off steve king in a kind of quarantine of crazy, that made steve king ineffective enough and unpalatable enough to his constituents at home in iowa that he lost his seat. he lost his seat in a republican primary last year after spending almost 18 years in congress. and, you know, time has born out the wisdom of what republicans decided to do with steve king. since he lost his seat in congress he sort of regularly pops up at overt white nationalist events, like this one earlier this year who was post hosted by a guy who's an advocate for a white homeland, as in a country exclusively for white people. i'll give you a guess as to what country he thinks that should be. but the time warp problem here for the republicans is that while now former congressman steve king is there at the white

nationalist conference as a living embodiment of the party sort of showing it ability to confront and excise members who have its own problem, look, at that same event, the same nationalist let's have a white homeland event, steve king was there alongside someone who is right now a serving member of congress. steve king spoke at the event, but so did republican paul gosar of arizona. he gave the keynote at the conference hosted by the white homeland guy. now it appears that wasn't a fluke, according to this ip viation that went out, paul gosar is doing some kind of fundraiser on friday with the "turn america into a white homeland" guy. the event claims to be authorized by paul gosar's campaign. it has a link to donate to the campaign, even though the link

has a typo, so paul gosar will not get any money if you go to the link. he also appeared to defend it via a tweet. not sure why anybody's freaking out. that said, when asked today, paul gosar told reporters, i have no idea what's going on. there's no fundraiser scheduled for friday. it's a weird response when asked whether or not you're holding a fundraiser with a white nationalist. not like, i'm not a white nationalist, why are you associating me with these people? instead he goes, i don't see anything on my calendar. does that mean it's not on the calendar for friday? does that mean it's a different day? paul gosar is not being coy about where his sympathies are, so what's happening with him in the republican party? we know from the steve king experience that this republican party can kick out people who

have this particular problem that manifests in this certain way. when it comes to paul gosar they appear to have lost the will. more on that in just a moment stam ways. stam ways. because with the right pain reliever... life opens up. aleve it, and see what's possible. when you really need to sleep you reach for the really good stuff. new zzzquil ultra helps you sleep better and longer when you need it most.

it's non habit forming and powered by the makers of nyquil. new zzzquil ultra. when you really really need to sleep.

(piano playing) here we go. ♪♪ [john legend's i can see clearly now] ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ make your reunion happen with vrbo.

your together awaits. vrbo

lori roberts is a columnist for the arizona republic newspaper. i want to show you the title of her latest column today. s this about republican congressman paul gosar and new indications he has planned a fundraiser at the end of this week with a white nationalist. literally a far right activist that advocates for the creation of an all whites homeland. the latest column is paul gosar is going full-on white national sbis the republican party's sigh ens is -- not surprising. thanks very much for your time. i appreciate you making time to be here. >> hi. good to see you. >> i feel like a lot of us looking in from the outside at this phenomenon and what's going on with republicans in arizona right now are seeing two things.

one is the audit, the so-called audit of the presidential results, which seems to be having a -- it's certainly making national waves. there are some interesting. polling out that voters in arizona might be turned off by that, but then there's this emerging story from paul gosar. we have a direct parallel. former republican congressman steve kick who was effectively drummed out of the party for stuff like this, yet congressman gosar hasn't seemed to face any consequences for this stuff at all. from your perspective in arizona, do you have an explanation for those of us in a national audience as to how these things fit together and how they're going to work out? >> well, i'll just say this is arizona. it's very difficult to say. congressman gosar is from our most conservative district in the state. but he flies under the radar a lot because he's from a rural

area and he really doesn't have a whole lot of power in congress so i think they have been able to sort of ignore him for a while. but i think it's becoming increasingly difficult. first he appears, as you said, as the keynote speaker, the only sitting member of congress to do so. then he tries to form an america first caucus with representative marjorie taylor greene. which he backed off of once he found out that was going to be about saving america one anglo sax on at a time. now we have the fundraiser which he's saying isn't true, isn't happening, but nick certainly thinks that it is. he was on his podcast or live stream, whatever it, is last night saying it will be friday as part of his white boy summer tour. it lists, as you mentioned, how to donate to representative gosar's campaign, so as my mom once told me, you're known by

the company you keep. >> hmm. the arizona audit that we have been covering. lots of people have been covering from a national perspective, it was interesting to see the new polling released today. it was written up at politico.com saying among arizona voters broadly, a politician supporting that audit actually loses their chance of being elected or re-elected by --i it was an 11-point margin, arizona voters would be less likely to vote for somebody in support of audit than somebody not in support of the audit. i have to wonder if that's going to be a sobering effect at all. >> no. >> no. >> no, because if you're a republican running for office in this state, you must support the audit. you must support donald trump. and if you don't, you're not going to get out of a republican primary. the fact that you're not going to win a general doesn't seem to

matter to these people. whether they're in denial or it just doesn't matter. the money keeps coming in. red meat keeps going out. they're all becoming more well known. kelly ward, our own state republican party chairwoman is now a national figure. they're all getting something out of it. but i think there's going to be a huge blow back for the republican party, a huge reckoning coming in 2022. >> lori roberts, columnist for the arizona republic. thank you for your time and your perspective on this tonight. i feel like we're all very much dependent on you and other close observers of these phenomenon in arizona to make sense of them at the national level. i'm grateful for your time. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. be right back stay with us g liberty mutual's 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. ♪ facing leaks takes strength. so here's to the strong, who trust in our performance and comfortable long-lasting protection. because your strength is supported by ours. depend. the only thing stronger than us, is you.

just a matter of weeks, almost all u.s. forces and nato forces are going to be out of afghanistan. president biden announced earlier this year in april that

all u.s. troops would be gone out of afghanistan by september 11th, but now it's looking like u.s. troops are going to be out even sooner than, that potentially by early next month. and as you'd expect, there's been lots of debate about the wisdom of that decision, right. >> just today the top commander of u.s. forces in the region said after the withdrawal some kind of civil war is basically inevitable. lots of people are sounding alarms about how much strength the taliban is showing as the last of the u.s. forces leave. lots of americans will find things to disagree about, why we went to afghanistan in the first place, how the mission an involved, whether it's a good idea to leave now in the current circumstances and how. all of those are legitimate questions and up for debate and good people will continue to debate those things.

but one thing is not up for serious debate is whether america should keep its promises to the people who helped u.s. service members there at great risk to themselves. the question whether or not afghans who helped us there are left to be abandoned and massacred by the taliban when u.s. troops depart. when u.s. troops leave the country, afghan interpreters and drivers and clerks and security guards and lots of other people who have worked for and helped the u.s. military in afghanistan all these years they are legitimately will be killed by the taliban once u.s. forces are gone. there are thousands of afghan special immigrant visa applications that are backlogged. the need to fix that slow process in congress, though, is something that both sides of the aisle seem to be agreeing on,

mostly. there's a little worry on this front when last week senator rand paul argued that the u.s. should not speed up the visa process for afghans who are now facing this imminent danger because of our departure. he said those afghans should stay behind. he said, quote, you can say the people in afghanistan helped us, but you can also say we helped liberate them as well. that's what he a said, so they should be left to fend for themselves no matter ma promised we made. today the house voted to expedite the process. house voted yes by a very large majority, a convincing majority of 366-46. so that passed the house today. the biden administration say they have a plan to get thousands of afghans who helped us along with their families out

and to safety as the u.s. force there is start to leave. house today voted to facilitate that. we'll see whether rand paul decides to block that in the senate, if he wants to blood -- at least in the house it gets through. now it goes to the senate. watch this space. h this space ever notice how stiff clothes can feel rough on your skin? it's because they rub against you creating friction. and your clothes rub against you all day. for softer clothes that are gentle on your skin,

try downy free & gentle. just pour into the rinse dispenser and downy will soften your clothes without dyes or perfumes. the towel washed with downy is softer, fluffier, and gentler on your skin. try downy free & gentle. recognized by the national psoriasis foundation and national eczema association. the world we're inheriting, it's in crisis. 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.

another day, another chance. it could be the day you break the sales record, or the day there's appointments nonstop. with comcast business, you get the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses, and you can get the advanced cybersecurity solutions you need with comcast business securityedge. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. get started with a great offer and ask how you can add comcast business securityedge. plus, for a limited time, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card when you upgrade. call today. all right, that is going to do it for us tonight, but before i go, it has come to my

attention that i said the dred scott case, the worst supreme court case of all time, the dred scott case was 1859. it is not, it is 1857. i thought i had said 1859 but apparently i said 1857. i will endeavor to do better when i see you tomorrow night. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> good evening, rachel. you really screwed me up at this hour because i'm sure i'm going say 1859 about something. i don't know what, but it will come out, because that's the kind of mistake that i fear so desperately all the time. and it kind of magical how you can actually have