hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york today. the official beginning in the next chapter in the legal standoff between the january 6 committee and those protecting the ex-president, donald j. trump. the committee putting its money where its mouth is. expected to vote in a matter of hours to recommend contempt charges for steve bannon. bannon is defying a subpoena to turn over documents and to appear for testimony. citing donald trump's previous claims of executive privilege. the committee is making good on its vow to ensure that no one,

not even an ex-president claiming executive privilege is above the law. following the committee's vote, a vote will be put to the full house floor to refer steve bannon to the justice department for criminal contempt and though joe biden has signalled his full support for prosecution of bannon, the justice department will have discretion over what happen next and how bannon will be held accountable for refusing to cooperate. overnight, the committee put out a report detailing the legal case against steve bannon. and underscoring his role in the events leading up to the january 7 insurrection. from that report, quote, in short, bannon appears to have played a multifaceted role in the events of january 6. the american people are entitled to his his testimony. the select committee expects such testimony will be directly relevant to its report and its recommend days for legislative and other action. they add that mr. bannon's

reported basis for noncompliance is without merit and on any claims of executive privilege, quote, bannon was a private citizen during the relevant time period and the committee is demanding do not concern discussion of official government matters with the president and his immediate advisers. the law is clear. executive privilege does not extend to discussions between the president and private citizens relating to non-governmental business or among private citizens. on that point, legal experts are weighing in including one very conservative attorney who name may sound familiar. he specializes in immunity claims. chuck cooper. he said this, quote, bannon cannot legally defend defiance of a subpoena. the overarching point is that the president's immunity from subpoena extending only to his close civil office advisers. bannon did not qualify. post also cites attorneys take

opposing view, but cooper's take is particularly noteworthy because he represented john bolton in his subpoena during the ukraine scandal in 2019. beyond legal case, the january 6 is making, last night's report also provides details on the specific communications the committee is seeking offering a roadmap and the case they're building against him. the request includes documents relating to a january 5th meeting with members of congress at the willard hotel, financing, and fund raising, to assist with anyone's travel to the rally. the organization known as march for trump and its activities related to january 6 and quote anyone with whom he communicated with respects to efforts, plan or proposals to contest the 2020 election results or delay, influence, or impede the electoral count. the case taking shape against steve bannon and what he could

offer the committee on donald trump is where we start today with some of our friends. michelle, joyce vance, former u.s. attorney, now law professor and betsy swan. politico correspondent. betsy, let me start with you. what does steve bannon know? >>. >> on january 5th, knew that january 6th was going to be one of the most historic days in the history of this country. he said that on his podcast. he said things were going to get crazy and wild on january 6th. he's since tried to reinterpret those comments and suggest they were about something other than chaos unfolding, but it's clear in the days and the hours leading up to the attack on the capitol, bannon knew enough

about what was going on that he gave startlingly, one of the most accurate predictions of how the chaos that day would play out. it would be nuts if the congressional committee didn't want to get as much information from him as possible about his involvement, his visibility, the members of congress he was speaking to, the financial efforts to bring people into washington, d.c. on january 5th, january 6th. and one of the biggest questions, what did they think was going to happen. >> i want to read what betsy is describing. i'm of two minds about playing it. i decided not to do that today, but i will read it because this is verbatim. quote. all hell is going to break loose tomorrow, bannon told listeners of his radio show, quote, it's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen, okay? it's going to be quite

extraordinarily different. all i can say is strap in. you made this happen and tomorrow, it's game day. so strap in. let's get ready. man, if i was in a revolution, i would be in washington. well, this is your time in history. and it's all converging and now we're on the point of attack tomorrow. >> steve bannon knew exactly what was going to happen because he was the one amplifying the inciter in chief in calling for this delay. we know who wrote the memo. john eastman. we know what mike pence was supposed to do before it was sort of blown up that pence would carry out the plot the way eastman had mapped it out in his plan and we know exactly what bannon had summoned donald trump supporters to do. what is the rewrite of that even look like? >> it's sort of remarkable to go

back and read bannon's words knowing that he is the architect, chief co-conspirator of the grievance politics that former president trump was going after for so long for so many years. he was the person who was behind this idea of riling people up through briet bart and through being a chief strategist through president trump. so they understood they were gearing people up, angering people, feeding people these lies. and when you listen to what he's previewing for people on january 6th, it's that all hell is going to break loose. it makes sense that the committee wants to know exactly who steve bannon was talking to and lawmakers in their letters to say steve bannon played a quote, multifaceted role. right now, if question is what is going to be the end game here. you have the former president suing, trying to stop documents from being released.

saying that for these initial documents, there is no executive privilege. that assertion lies in the hands of president biden and he is saying that day was so extraordinary that that is being waived in order for lawmakers to get behind this. he's trying to delay the inevitable. at some point, we're going to find out more details about why january 6 happened. >> joyce, we included the report in "the washington post" about chuck cooper. conservative's conservative. important to this story, really the architect of the legal framework that kept john bolton out of the impeachment. that architect of him from having to testify saying that steve bannon has no such case to make not to testify.

>> you know, when you've lost chuck cooper who also represented jeff sessions, you're in really, really big trouble in this area and it demonstrates how very weak the arguments for executive privilege are in this case. bannon wasn't in the white house doesn't really apply. not even arguably, but something we need to be aware of here is that congress has imperfect mechanisms for enforcing their subpoena and they have no guarantee that they can obtain bannon's testimony. they can enforce civilly. prosecute criminally if doj will intervene. that might mean that bannon goes to prison for a brief period of time. it doesn't mean he'll end up testifying. so she makes a good point. she talks about bannon as the architect of trump's grievance politics. what we have to be prepared for if we believe it's important for congress to enforce these subpoenas and i believe that it is incredibly important here. if you can't enforce the

subpoena against bannon, congress might as well pack up and quit having any pretensive of oversight ability. but what we have to be aware of is the risk that bannon will wrap himself in that mantle of witch hunt and being politically persecuted and that they will try to use this to whip trump's base back into a fever. everyone needs to be prepared for that scenario. >> i guess if he was really down for going to jail, he would have begged for a pardon. betsy, the committee's naming names. not just steve bannon. he met with -- suggests that bannon was among several prominent support of efforts to undermine election results. the group that assembled at the willard is reported to have included members of the trump campaign's legal team.

several prominent proponents of false election fraud claims that had been promoted by trump. boris epstein was there as well as roger stone, who left the hotel with bodyguards and campaign spokesperson, jason miller. someone will be unwilling to go to jail for donald trump. someone will testify to this committee about where this plan took shape and donald trump's role in it. do you have any sense of where these other individuals stand and how far they're willing to go? >> it's not clear and particularly, many of those folks who were at the willard that day are also part of very much trump's inner circle. people who are closest to him. people who you might say livelihoods are connected to being part of trump's propagating the big lie. they're totally all the way in.

that said, if you're able to get inside this room at the willard, undoubtedly this would be a treasure-trove of information for the select committee. one person who has drawn some attention and whom i expect may draw more is boris epstein. he's been connected to trump world for quite a long time. one of the lawyers in the room, you haven't heard his name a ton in the mix as part of this probe, but i think there's a chance that will change going forward. of course, rudy giuliani and john eastman are two marquee names in this process. eastman was very much the intellectual quote unquote behind the effort to pressure mike pence to overturn the election. very much a key player and has been a key player in all sorts of farfetched conservative legal strategies to try to change the outcome of democratic elections in this country. he's also going to be a central

point for the select committee. one thing that's important to keep an eye on is what kash patel and mark meadows do. if they, both of whom were very much trump insiders, decide they're going to play ball with the committee and follow through on these discussions they're having, then that will send an important signal to other witnesses that say, maybe we're not all standing together. maybe there's some penguins jumping off the iceberg and it's not the worst thing in the world to cooperate with this committee and it certainly is preferable to going to prison. so those two folks are key figures to keep an eye on. >> there's that. >> there isn't a money train. there isn't a train and there isn't any money on it. trump doesn't pay his lawyer and he's in real legal peril in real trials in real courtrooms giving real depositions that will be

heard by real jurors. where do you pus this cast of characters and the odds they'll defy these subpoenas? >> what's always been the biggest question is this idea that loyalty to president trump, the consequences of that, the benefits of that, are still sort of up in the air a big question mark. but what you see here are a group of men, a group of people who are sort of surrounded president trump and given him this loyalty that president trump has never given anyone else. we've seen people close to him go to jail, but they have this greater idea that they will have to power within the gop. maybe it's to make money as consultants, maybe it's to have some power in running for office. the long-term goals of these people are really a big question mark here. what is clear is that there are

the sort of cracks that we're seeing. yet you see mark meadows and kash patel being reportedly engaged with the committee, but we don't know what that means. if they're going to give up documents, critical information about what former president trump was doing on january 6th. we have some reporting that he was boasting about the crowd size. i've been reporting for month that he was sort of enjoying this at some parts of this attack on the capitol. all that being said, it really does take just a few people to really start to break this open in terms of the real strategy was behind having this sort of insurrection happen. so all you need is a few people, but whether or not that will be there is a big question and obviously, lawmakers are trying to get some in the trump orbit to turn on him. >> joyce, one, so much of this happened at public events. donald trump told the insurrectionists he was going to walk with them down to the

capitol. we know that donald trump told mike pence to do the right thing. donald trump pressured mike pence not to count the votes of the georgia rally i think two days before january 6th. donald trump committed his attempt to overturn the election result in public on recorded phone lines, on calls for which there were notes taken, and bannon seems to be very unwilling to have this contempt vote go down. i just want to share with our viewers the latest developments. bannon's attorney requested a delay of tonight's meeting and tonight's vote citing trump's lawsuit against the committee. the committee responded that because trump's lawsuit is related to an archives question and not bannon's testimony, they would deny that. the white house has also weighed in to bannon's attorney today saying this, as you are aware, bannon's tenure as white house employee ended in 2017. to the extent any privileges could apply to bannon's conversations with the former president and white house staff after the conclusion of his

tenure, president biden has already determined that an assertion of public interest is not justified. with respect to certain subjects. president biden's determination that an assertion of privilege applies to your client's deposition testimony and to any documents your client may possess concerning either subject. the white house seems to be saying and correct me if i'm wrong, executive privilege isn't a thing for bannon, who's now a podcaster, and but the insurrectionist so serious that we wouldn't honor it even if it might be? is that where they're heading? >> i think that's absolutely correct. they're making the point that executive privilege doesn't exist and it's game over there. that's really all they need to say. but they're taking this second step, this theme we've heard before that the insurrection is such a standout event in merch history that congress is obl

obligated to engage. it's not an individual sitting president who owns this notion we have of executive privilege. it's the presidency itself and it's the white house counsel that often drives these conversations to ensure that not only this president and past presidents, but future presidents, too, will be able to obtain candid, honest advise from their advisers without fear that their words will be released and taken out of context or otherwise put on display. so the white house really guards executive privilege very jealously. it's important to note that insurrections are so important that even the white house, the presidency, can siege the fact concerning insurrections belonging to the public. >> i guess i'm thinking of the ex-president, donald trump's most senior lawyers in their own words. i'm thinking of pat as quoted by

bob and robert saying he was expecting the president to be arrested day of 1-6. i'm thinking of the acting attorney general, mr. rosen, who has now willingly testified before the senate judiciary committee for more than eight hours and before the 1-6 committee, describing not just a coup plot, but a conspiracy involving republican members of congress. donald trump's closest legal advisers knew that something unlegal and untoward was going on and they have already talked to congress. >> that's right. the fact that so many senior administration officials that late in the administration were appalled by what they saw trump doing at the justice department tells you just how wild that episode was. at this point in trump's administration, he and some of his lackeys had engaged in elaborate efforts to try to purge anyone from the administration who they deemed as disloyal. jeff sessions, trump removed him

from the justice department. he sort of exited humiliated because he wasn't entirely loyal to trump and because of that, because sessions wasn't so deeply loyal to trump, his political career was ended. he was not able to get re-elected to senate back in alabama. trump very much made an example of sessions. punishing him for the fact he just deferred to basic ethics guidance. that punishment that sessions face absolutely send a warning sign to the folks now who are trying to connect themselves to trump going forward. but of course, this committee has real leverage. it has the ability to bring people in. it has a lot of influence. and so what that means going forward is that we expect them to be able to get testimony likely from other trump lawyers. the fact that there was really only one senior doj official who was a hand maiden to trump's efforts to turn the justice department upside down tells you how wild it was.

it tells you that even when you took the last guard standing around trump to his very final days at a point when many administration officials had already left. even when you took that last core, basically, even among that group, there was really only one justice department lawyer standing by trump. it's extraordinary and for the country, it's lucky. >> thank you so much for starting us off on this news today. joyce is sticking around. when we come back, prosecuting the insurrectionists. how the interview of one who attacked an officer can help us understand how the big lie and the republican party that supported it has led to the torment of so many of these defendants. plus, the doj asking the united states supreme court to move quickly on blocking the texas near complete ban on abortions. court has denied that request once. what happens if they do it again? how the role of the supreme court is changing before our very eyes and we'll ask if

enough is being done about that. and later, as we march toward tonight's vote against steve bannon, we'll look at the seriousness of a new white house and a new justice department. ones that believe no one should be above the law. all that and more after a quick break. don't go anywhere. at and more a break. don't go anywhere. david: my grandfather, pinchas. michael: my great-great- grandfather, rachmaiel. gigi: pinky and rocky. simi: there was an uprising in poland. david: and then the family broke apart. michael: they scattered around in different places. gigi: they worked hard. simi: and built new lives. michael: but rocky and pinky's families didn't see each other again... all: ...until now. david: more than 100 years later, ancestry helped connect us to our ancestors and each other. i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! ( sighs wearily ) here, i'll take that! ( excited yell ) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one-gram of sugar,

and nutrients to support immune health! ( abbot sonic ) qunol is the number one cardiologist recommended and nutrients to supform of coq10.alth! qunol has 3 times better absorption than regular coq10. the brand i trust is qunol. ♪♪ your new pharmacy is here. to make sure you don't run out of meds here. and with amazon prime, get refills and free two-day shipping. who knew it could be this easy? your new pharmacy is amazon pharmacy.

at one point, i came face-to-face with an attacker who repeatedly lunged for me. i heard chanting from some in the crowd. get his gun and kill him with his own gun.

i was aware enough to recognize i was at risk of being stripped of and killed with my own firearm. i was electrocuted again and again and again. with a taser. i'm sure i was screaming but i don't think i could even hear my own voice. >> that was officer michael finnone about his battle with the mob of insurrectionists who stormed the capitol that day. more than ten months after the attack, the department of justice is prosecuting more than 600 people for their role in carrying out the insurrection. among them, one of the men who allegedly attack michael that day, a man named daniel rodriguez. daniel rodriguez tells the fbi that he regrets his actions at the capitol. he says he was radicalized by right wing media and duped into believing the election was stolen from donald trump. the transcript of his interview

with the fbi shows him saying quote, i'm so stupid. i thought i was going to be awesome. i thought i was a good guy. my story is just that we thought that we were going to save america and we were wrong. "chicago tribune" columnist points out the devastating effect of the big lie on countless other americans. they write this, quote, you need only scan social media a few moments to see how these lies do the same for so many and on fox news and on info wars and in the facebook feeds of conspiracy profiteers and in the words of tweets of my gutless elected republicans, you see those lies still tossed out like chum. it's unconscionable what these people are doing to americans. they know will be susceptible to such lies. their words are turning citizen against citizen and warping minds for nothing but money and power. joining us is ryan riley.

joyce vance is still with us. ryan, it is hard to feel sorry for someone who electrocuted michael allegedly again and again and again, in his words. but if we're going to deal with the radicalization of our fellow citizens, by fox news and facebook and donald trump and every single silent, complicit republican, which is all of them, except for liz cheney and adam kinzinger, a little sympathy is as good a place to start as any. >> you sort of see him get sucked away. he was homeless at one point. but you really see i think the core of this is that this is why this is so frightening and scary to have these sort of ludicrous conspiracy theories out there. because some people are going to believe them. millions believe them, but some of those millions of people are going to do something about it and engage in the kind of

violence that rodriguez did. i think it's interesting to look at how the fbi conducted this interview. it's a really skillful interview in how they basically got on his side. essentially what they did, you know, we had reported on rodriguez' identity in february. built upon the work that some online sleuths and some anti-fascist activists who knew him from california who were able to identify him. so a month later when the fbi arrested him, they approached him with this information and said basically that antifa, the black lives matter and "huffington post" were forming the narrative. it worked. he spilled his guts. broke down in tears several times and explained what happened and admitting to toewsing the officer. it was clear today on video. wasn't much of an argument he could make there. but it was really the view inside the mind of someone who

had been sucked in by these conspiracy theories and shows the court danger of these theories floating around out there in the world. >> joy, my question for you, as a prosecutor, when do you feel like saying i'm so stupid is a matter of seeking leniency and when is someone actually crying out for help and saying yes, i've been duped by fox news? >> something that you always have to remember as a prosecutor is that the people you're prosecuting aren't just statistics. they're human beings with families and back stories and we have every reason in our system than to exact a harsh demanding sort of a justice, but also there's in notion that the law is entitled to exact consequences for criminal conduct and the way we deal with people who are truly, truly sorry for what they've done who come forward and plead guilty and can perhaps cooperate in other cases is that they're

given credit at sentencing. under the sentencing guidelines, a reduction in the sentence that they face and that really, in many cases, is a significant benefit that may get over people who insist on going forward. i think you're sort of asking a larger question here though, nicole. is what do we do in this setting where we see people like this being prosecuted and we don't see the people who brought them to this point being prosecuted or at least held accountable. no accountability for facebook. no accountability for fox news. no accountable till for trump. that's what we're really going the need if we're going to get closure on this situation and find a way to move past it as a country. >> i mean, ryan, i want to read more from this interview because you're right. it is a skillful questioning. quote, i thought that trump wusz going to stay president. and they were going to find all this crooked stuff. we thought we were part of a bigger thing.

we thought we were being used as part of a plan to save the country, to save america, to save the constitution and integrity. steve bannon on january 6th said many of those things to the daniel rodriguez' of the world. if you want to be part of a revolution, go to washington. it's all happening tomorrow. tomorrow. so how, how -- do these individuals blame the president and his inside circle for sending them or making them believe that? >> you know, at one point, they asked him did trump put the taser in your hand, no. i think there's still some loyalty there amongst a lot of these people. danny rodriguez talked about how he felt like he knew donald trump from the apprentice and watching him on television and really thought he was a part of this broader movement. he actually tried to join the military after donald trump became president but was rejected. he was 35 at that point.

had little bit of a criminal record so it wasn't something that was an easy entry for him into the military, but that's sort of how dedicated he was to this movement. he was on television. he was at trump rallies and appearing on local news and getting into fights with anti-trump protesters. this was a guy who really thought he found a cause and dedication. we've seen this in so many instances before. i think back to this trial i covered in kansas where three trump fans plotted in 2016 during the 2016 election to slaughter muslim refugees. you look back to the individual who mailed pipe bombs to all of trump's enemies across the country. there's this real thorough through of all these individuals who think they're patriots and think that they're acting on behalf of donald trump and that they're targeting the right people here and are a part of this broader movement in support of this one individual. >> then they realize they're just felons. let me show you, joyce vance, a clip from the hbo documentary,

this is congressman reuben talking about fighting the mob. watch. >> i was in the united states marine corp. i had to deal with some very aggressive crowds when i was in iraq. individuals themselves aren't usually a problem. but when they get collectively together and create a mob, the mob is the weapon. >> use your helmet. >> i was ready to bite. i saw a lot of [ bleep ] back in my day, but i was not going to die on the floor of the [ bleep ] house of representatives. i was not going to get taken out by some insurrectionist [ bleep ]. >> i hope you go and watch it. you need everything that was beeped. but it's important to remember what we thought was possible that day. and i covered it live. i'll never forget covering it live.

and thank god nobody was hurt. thank god no republican member of congress. thank god mike pence wasn't hurt. it was not a sure thing that no one would be hurt and this veteran congressman said i was ready to fight. i saw a lot of bleep in my day, but i was not going to die on the floor of the house representatives. how do you move toward accountability for institutions like facebook and donald trump and steve bannon? >> that's perhaps the biggest problem that we're facing right now. we're not even a year out and somehow, the events of january 6th, which like you, i remember in such blazing detail. it's almost like having post-traumatic stress, seeing pictures. i was thousands of miles away at the time. it seems like it should be a moment in our cultural history

like 9/11 that's in everyone's memory and somehow trump and his folks or maybe just time and other events like the pandemic have led it to recede from our memory. so i think that's one of the reasons this committee's work is so very important. having public testimony could be very important. bringing a narrative to the public can be very important. but to go back to ryan's reporting, it's very interesting to me that the defendant in the case that he talks about, his lawyers have suggested he will use a defense called public authority and what that defense boils down to is he will say that he was acting when he was part of that mob that stormed the capitol on former president trump's orders. public authority is a very limited sort of defense. the reason we know he'll use it is because you're required by the rules to advise prosecutors of that early and it's used in cases, for instance, maybe you're working with the cia and

they ask you to go something that's technically illegal and you're arrested. as a defense to your conduct, you say i was working undercover, helping the cia, and that's what we're going the see in that case. that defense of public authority and depending on the facts or the sort of arguments that are presented by the defense lawyers, this could be the responsibility of trump as magnified by platforms like facebook and conservative news media that put his message out in a way that will finally help us really understand january 6th and put it in the context of the president's responsibility for those events. >> thank you for joining us with your reporting on this. joyce is sticking around. the biden administration giving the supreme court another opportunity to reconsider. allowing texas' draconian near total ban on abortion to go into effect there. talk about that story next. go o effect there talkbo aut that story next for so long. sis i felt gross. people were afraid i was contagious. i was covered from head to toe.

i was afraid to show my skin. after i started cosentyx i wasn't covered anymore. four years clear. five years now. i just look and feel better. see me. real people with psoriasis look and feel better with cosentyx. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections—some serious— and the lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. five years is just crazy. see me. learn more at cosentyx.com. ♪ i see trees of green ♪

♪ red roses too ♪ ♪ i see them bloom ♪ ♪ for me and you ♪ ♪ and i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ a rich life is about more than just money. that's why at vanguard, you're more than just an investor, you're an owner so you can build a future for those you love. vanguard. become an owner.

the justice department is asking the supreme court to act now to block texas' near total ban on abortions. has made abortion effectively unavailable in texas after roughly six weeks of pregnancy. texas has in short successfully nullified this decision allowing it to remain in force would perpetuate the ongoing injury to thousands of texas women who are being denied their

constitutional rights. this is the second time the supreme court has been asked to block the law from taking effect. justice alito asked to file by thursday. the sign the court intends to act quickly given they declined to block the law one month ago, it is unlikely the court's decision would be different this time, which would not only deny women access to vitally important healthcare, but could reshape the role of the united states supreme court in american life in states from coast to coast. joining our coverage, donny deutsch, host of the podcast, on brand. also, nick compesory. joyce vance is still here. joyce, help me understand this legal move and then we'll get into sort of the politics and the ramifications. >> sure. so what's being litigated here is still not the substantive merits of whether sb 8 is

constitutional. this is still preliminary skirmishing over whether or not the law should be enjoined. the first time it reached the supreme court late at night on their shadow docket, they said we're going to permit this law to stay in effect because texas is using this perplexing situation involving vigilante justice to enforce the law and there's no one that we, the supreme court, have the power to enjoin. that's a silly, disingeneral would you say argument, but doj comes back and this is what's different about this new request. doj says okay, supreme court, we'll spot you the first education, but we have the ability unlike the private plaintiffs in that first case to directly sue the state of texas. texas has no legal immunity like they might have in some other cases. we're asking you to enjoin the state of texas. you have the power to do that. unless there's a different jurisprudence that applies to

abortion, if the same rules still apply and if we're entitled to an injunction, roe versus wade is still the law and women are being ir rep bly injured, then you're obligated and that's what we're find out later this week. is this supreme court using a separate jurisprudence for abortion or do we have one sets of law, set of laws and procedures that applies to everything no matter what the substantive nature of the lawsuit is. >> joyce, i want to turn to something i always try to do when we have those conversations and that is a real world implication. the real world, implication isn't the right word. the horror that is not the reality of women living in texas. rape victims. victims of incest. maybe even someone who has a miscarriage. let me read those from "the new york times." britney poula, 19 years old,

showed up at the hospital in oklahoma last year after suffering a miscarriage at home. a medical examiner cited her drug use, list that also included congenital abnormality. she was arrested on a charge of manslaughter in the charge of first degree. a jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to four years in prison. her case is an injustice, but also a warning. this is what happens when the law treats embryos and fetuses as people with rights that supersede the rights of those people who carry them and it offers a glimpse to the sort of prosecutions that could be become common, one we could be living in as soon as next year. i don't know that people understand this. claire mccaskill has made this point on this program.

ivf. should roe v. wade be overturned in which miscarriages, which are a tragedy, could become a new war against women. a criminal war. do you feel, joyce, like people understand what's on the line? what's before the united states supreme court right now? >> i think that they don't and the primary horror of this, women who need or want abortions and who are unable to access them, that's horrific. these cases about younger women. these cases about people in difficult situations. victims of domestic violence or women who don't feel prepared or ready to carry a pregnancy to term. there are a lot of complicated questions there in the supreme court's judgment, best left to a woman and her doctor to decide. beyond that, this notion of women that do terminate a pregnancy or worse still, women who suffer a miscarriage but

have a vindictive person around them who allegations it wasn't a miscarriage, but abortion, are then subject to criminal prosecution, whatever new standard the supreme court sets, we have fetuses who now carry the same rights at human beings. they can be assaulted. people can be prosecuted. the spillover imact of this decision is something people haven't begun to contemplate yet. >> i want to turn to the politics of this. this is the virginia governor's race, which is getting a lot of national attention. this is some reporting from "the washington post." abortion is a major factor in 48% of virginia's voters's decision. running behind vaccine mandates, race, history and taxes. the top three issues voters cited. is that the right place for it? >> yeah, look, a poll, abortion

basically spiked, 11%. went up from 39 to 51 and abortion went down in importance to republicans. i think this issue, women's rights, other than on a daily basis how people vote, putting food on the table, is the one that triggers. it's the one that symbolizes who we are as a society. are we progressive or regressive? i don't think it just toughs women. i think it so trumps every other social issue and economic issue, really, at the end of the day. so i do think the only silver lining in this heinous thing that's going on, i think it's important to talk about specifics because when you hear the specific stories, you understand the severity and the obsceneness of what's going on. but the only silver lining is that politically, it's a wedge for democrats to use and i think if this sticks in texas and we

see it coming in mississippi and arkansas, it's going to become a national issue and real baton for the democrats. >> no one's going anywhere. president biden is working behind the scenes largely this afternoon to try to wrap up some lingering issues around his big and transformative agenda with members of his own party. he's got to do this before he goes out to sell the whole plan to the public. we'll bring you the latest, next. ing you the latest, next ♪ ♪

there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪ as someone who resembles someone else... i appreciate that liberty mutual to unveil them to the world. knows everyone's unique. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh, yeah. that's the spot. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪darling, i, i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪girl, i don't know, i don't know,♪ ♪i don't know why i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪oh no, babe girl, if i could only make you see♪ ♪and make you understand♪

get a dozen double crunch shrimp for $1 with any steak entrée. only at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. (upbeat music) - [narrator] this is kate. she always wanted her smile to shine. now, she uses a capful of therabreath healthy smile oral rinse to give her the healthy, sparkly smile she always wanted. (crowd cheering) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores. (sfx: video game vehicle noises, a bhorns beeping,). (engines revving, cars hitting one another.)

(sfx: continued vehicle calamity.) just think, he'll be driving for real soon. every new chevy equinox comes standard with chevy safety assist, including automatic emergency braking. find new peace of mind. find new roads. chevrolet. hi, i'm steve and i live in austin, texas. i work as a personal assistant to the owner of a large manufacturing firm. i've got anywhere from 10 to 50 projects going at any given time. i absolutely have to be sharp. let me tell ya, i was struggling with my memory. it was going downhill. my friend recommended that i try prevagen and over time, it made a very significant difference in my memory and in my cognitive ability. i started to feel a much better sense of well-being. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. i truly believe that if we

work in good faith and we understand where we are today and where our country is and the needs we really have and any aspirations that we have further down the road, let's do what we can do together. let's get that piece of legislation agreed upon that we can start working the framework of that and putting it together. >> today, joe manchin just one of the many democrats president biden is meeting with as he tries to rally his own party to come together and wrap up negotiations on his economic package ahead of their self-imposed halloween deadline. most notably, in addition to manchin there, president biden also met with senator kyrsten sinema, both major holdouts on the bill in the senate while also meeting separately with a large number of lawmakers from the progressive and moderate wings of the party, attempting to come to an agreement on his signature economic bill that has plagued the first year of his presidency so far. democratic leader schumer says they're hopeful a framework can be reached this week. we're back with donny deutsch, nick confessore, and joyce vance. the white house will tell you

they're not mad at the progressive wing because they're trying to enact the president's agenda. they're not mad at the moderates because they need them at the end of the day. how do you put this together? >> well, the way is everybody has to lose something. it's probably not going to be a $3.5 trillion christmas tree. the political dilemma here is that biden and his party are trying to stuff four years of pent-up policy demands into one bill that can pass through reconciliation. it is extraordinarily hard. it's through the eye of a needle and it's not clear that everyone can have what they want so it's going to get a little worse and a little harder before it gets better for democrats and what these meetings are about is, okay, what's the most important and which things are going to be jettisoned so we can pass something? because passing something is pretty important for biden and for the house democrats and the senate democrats. if they pass nothing, if this all ends in a heap, it's kind of the end and probably the last big chance they're going to have

in this congress to pass something huge and important. >> you know, donny, the edicts of sort of perfect being the enemy of the good seems to apply here. as long as this white house can take something meaningful and the whole range of options is meaningful to people in their lives, it seems like a winner, but even the white house is not -- doesn't view it as a foregone conclusion that democrats will come together and do what nick just described. what do you think? >> i believe they will. i believe it's a little bit of a survivalist instinct and really if you're looking at the big prize or the big fear it's 2024 and a new trump presidency, a trump presidency whether it happens legally or illegally and the democrats fumble this ball, we're looking at the precipice of the end of our democracy. i'm not shrieking, howling at the moon. this needs to be said every day. the democrats have got to have their eye on that ball. i believe it will be around $2 trillion. i think it's better than even if they pass the entire thing

because it doesn't give the republicans a socialistic club to hit the democrats with and say, they've swung so far left, so i think this will end up okay for the democrats. >> nick, you talked about the stakes for this white house and the legacy of the biden presidency. the stakes are, in some ways, higher and more immediate for congress. talk about the pressures weighing on speaker pelosi and chuck schumer. >> look, this could be a last year of a democratic house or senate, and you know, in this day and age, with polarization so bad, essentially the first two years of a presidency of the same party are the big chance to get big things done. and all these pledges, all the discussions about the things the democrats could do if trump was defeated and came into office, all these plans, all these ambitions are now coming down to this one bill. it's not the best circumstance, but again, if house democrats are going to have, you know, the slightest chance of bucking history and holding on to the

house, they have to have something significant and popular that they can show voters on the campaign trail. they have to have something. >> and you're right, making it popular is sometimes the work of the many, many months leading up to the midterms. donny deutsch, nick confessore, joyce vance, thank you so much for spending time with us today. the next hour of "deadline white house" starts after a quick break. don't go anywhere. we're just getting started. k br. don't go anywhere. we're just getting started they do things differently. yeah, it's wireless with unlimited data and if you join a group it's as low as $25/mo. all powered by verizon. 5g included. woo! just get together and save! we look goooood! what's everyone's handle? visible. unlimited data, as low as $25/mo all-in. powered by verizon, 5g included. wireless that gets better with friends.

qunol is the number one cardiologist recommended form of coq10. qunol has 3 times better absorption than regular coq10. the brand i trust is qunol. ♪ ♪ don't be fooled by the bike. or judge him by his jacket. while ted's eyes are on the road, his heart stays home. he's got gloria, and 10 grand-babies, to prove it. but his back made weekend rides tough, so ted called on the card that's even tougher. and the medicare coverage trusted by more doctors. medicare from blue cross blue shield. by your side, no matter what.

that's the benefit of blue. find your local blue cross and blue shield plan at benefitofblue.com

michael myers is the essence of evil. find your local blue cross and blue shield plan the boogeyman... needs to die. if you track michael's victims, it's a straight line to michael's childhood home. [ screaming ] tonight my family will kill him. [ gasps ] [ screaming ] well, he was in reportedly constant communication with donald trump in the days leading up to january 6th, in particular the day before the insurrection,

he forecast that all hell was going to break loose. so, he has very plainly relevant testimony to our committee. it's also important, though, that the committee affirm the rule of law, that people, when they're subpoenaed, need to show up, and if they don't show up, they need to be prosecuted. >> hi again, everyone, it's 5:00 in new york. just a few hours from now, the january 6th select committee will send its biggest signal yet to donald trump and his allies. no one is above the law. at 7:30 p.m. this evening, the committee will vote to refer former trump senior advisor steve bannon for contempt of congress after he did not comply with its subpoena. in what is expected to be a short meeting, the committee will vote on its report, recommending steve bannon be held in criminal contempt following opening remarks by the chair and vice chair with the resolution expected to pass it will then head to the full house for a vote. as you heard from committee member congress adam schiff there, taking this step is

crucial to the investigation. for one, because steve bannon is the committee writes in its report had specific knowledge about the events planned for january 6th before they occurred and two, because the vote makes an example out of bannon, an unwilling witness, signaling to other witnesses the committee wants to hear from. don't comply with us, and you will face consequences. here's a little more from congressman schiff on how the committee is not messing around. >> the only thing i can say is that our patience is very short. we want cooperation. we're not going to allow ourselves to be endlessly strung along. >> that steadfastness also exhibited when the committee put out a statement in response to the ex-president's lawsuit filed yesterday. trump filed a suit against the committee in an attempt to block the handover of documents sought from the national archives. this is the committee's response. the former president's clear objective is to stop the select committee from getting to the facts about january 6th. his lawsuit is nothing more than

an attempt to delay and obstruct our probe. it's hard to imagine a more compelling public interest than trying to get answers about an attack on our democracy and an attempt to overturn the results of an election. the attempts to delay and obstruct may have worked for the ex-president and his allies in the past, but now they're dealing with a new white house. now they're dealing with a new justice department. the white house already roundly rejected trump's attempt to assert executive privilege, and president biden himself said that those who don't comply with the committee's subpoenas should be prosecuted. the resounding message to trump world, no one is above the law, and that is where we start this hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. neal katyal is here, now a georgetown law professor. former republican congressman david jolly, the national chairman of the serve america movement. and jonathan lemire is here, white house reporter for the associated press, all three msnbc contributors. neal katyal, i start with you. take me through the legal back

and forth today. this feels like trump world running the same play, executive privilege, for a podcast host who is nowhere near the west wing for years and years and years before the insurrection and the white house saying, no, that's not a thing. >> yeah. so, this play has been run many times before, trump has always lost the play. he's going to lose it again. so basically, the congressional committee seeking all sorts of information about steve bannon and what he was up to on january 6th on the days before. bannon says, no, i refuse and so congress is going to take this vote at 7:30 to hold him in contempt and it's an obvious vote. it's an easy vote. i don't think the outcome is in any doubt whatsoever. liz cheney and others have been telegraphing this for a long time, that people who stonewall the committee on something as important as january 6th will be held in contempt. so bannon is saying, well, i have executive privilege over

this information, and the problem with that is, first of all, bannon wasn't even in the government during january 6th and all the events so that's really hard. bannon's, like, saying, well, trump knows me, therefore, executive privilege attaches. by that standard, then we might as well abolish congressional oversight, all 4,000 presidential appointees, just because at some point, trump had to read their names so he knows them. that's ludicrous. and then the other problem with this is that, you know, executive privilege is something that is generally held by the current president, not the former one, and trump's kind of whole attempt here, going into court yesterday, filing a bogus lawsuit is like, you know, it's just -- it's not plausible on its face. he doesn't have the ability -- you know, he has very, very modest ability to invoke executive privilege as a former president, but when the current president says, uh-uh, the

supreme court's basically said, we're going to defer to the current president so this is going nowhere. >> that is -- that's an important piece of analysis, that the supreme court has sided with the current president's sort of prerogative on this. i want to read you some of "the new york times" reporting on what is likely to ensue, neal, and ask if you agree. the lawsuit, the trump lawsuit, touches off what is likely to be a major league battle between trump and the house committee investigating the attack. its outcome will carry consequences for how much the panel can uncover about trump's role in the riot, pose thorny questions for the biden administration, and potentially forge new precedents about presidential prerogatives and the separation of powers. do you agree with that? would you -- i mean, it seems like one of the things -- one of the many things that was so out of whack was that congress had no authority. it was capable of almost no oversight. the impeachment witnesses, people like john bolton, did not -- were not compelled to go.

don mcgahn, the mueller witness, they spent years in court trying to get him to testify. i think it was after president biden's inauguration that he finally made his way to the hill. tell me about the stakes of this trump lawsuit. >> yeah, i agree with that "new york times" piece to a point. i think the problem with it is it treats this like any other contempt dispute and the fact is, it's not. we certainly held people in contempt before and had litigation about that. and litigation about executive privilege. but never on a matter as central to our democracy as this. and so, i do think that, yes, maybe there are, you know, quote, unquote, thorny legal problems in the sense that the courts haven't decided them before, but that's because no president before has decided to -- former president has tried to stonewall a congressional inquiry into something so serious. and so, i actually think, you know, trump, delay is always his playbook. he's always trying to stretch things out. i think it's hard to delay this one too much, just because the

merits of the lawsuit are so weak and the need for the evidence, so compelling. and you know, i just feel like, you know, this is trump running into court, trying to delay things and it's like, we're one lawsuit away from donald trump trying to argue that the electoral college is unconstitutional because that's the power to an elected democrat. or something. i mean, you know, at some point, yes, though no court has ever decided that question before but that's because it's a kind of joke question in the first place and shouldn't be asked and certainly not by a former president of the united states. >> neal, i have one more for you on the judge who will hear this lawsuit. this is kyle cheney from politico, who tweeted, good news for the january 6th committee. the trump executive privilege lawsuit has been assigned to judge tanya chulkin who has expressed horror about the january 6th attack and extended sentences beyond what prosecutors have asked for in a couple cases.

when she referenced daniel, she said, quote, he went to the capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country. is that important? >> i don't think so. judge chutkan is an excellent, excellent judge, and i think that's all you need is, frankly, any judge in this court in the d.c. federal courthouse could hear this case and throw this thing out easily. so, yeah, i guess it's good news in the sense that she's a judge and that's all you really need to resolve this lawsuit. >> you know, jonathan, i want to bring you in on the white house posture on this. the white house seems to be making two points, and neal talks about one, the executive privilege, the bogus nature of donald trump exerting it, let alone steve bannon, but the other seems to be that the event is so extraordinary. this is from michael, white house spokesperson. former president trump abused the office of the presidency and attempted to subvert a peaceful transfer of power. the former president's actions represented a unique and existential threat to our democracy that can't be swept under the rug.

as president biden determined the constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the constitution itself. white house not leaving any sort of ambiguity here about the fact that it is both the weakness of any claim of executive privilege and the grotesque nature of what the president and his inner circle did on january 6th. >> yeah, that's precisely right, nicole. we'll just go through it here. on the first part, yes, donald trump is not president anymore so therefore it's not executive privilege and certainly steve bannon was nowhere near the west wing on january 6th. he was hosting a podcast and probably wearing a lot of shirts. but he certainly is in the trump orbit but not someone who that could be executive privilege which could be applied but the larger point is the more important one, the idea that, yes, traditionally, presidents are pretty deferential to their predecessors when it comes to executive privilege and maybe on other issues, this president

might be too. but not in this case. the biden administration believes, and president biden himself personally believes that what happened that day is deemed as one of the darkest days in our nation's history, january 6 ofth, and therefore, no stone should be left unturned. to find out what happened. that no courtesy or favor should be given the former president or his allies in their efforts to obstruct and block the discovery of what happened that day. as more details come, this is one of those events that is the more we learn about it, the more images we see, the more stories we hear, the more reporting that my colleagues and i have done, you are more horrified at what happened at the capitol, but also what didn't happen at the white house and the lack -- the utter lack of help and urgency from then president trump to stop. so, yes, this administration, one that, remember, ran on the very nation of trying to restore the soul of the nation and redeem america to what it once

was is certainly not going to help what they believe is the, you know, one of the darkest days the nation had ever seen. >> it's such a good point, david jolly, that jonathan lemire makes there. it's not just what we saw with our own eyes at the capitol but what we didn't see at the white house, where mike pence's life was in danger, at least for a while. you know his secret service ran him out of there. i've traveled all over with the secret service. they don't run their principals places unless they think there is a danger to them. and we don't know a whole lot about what was going on at the white house. this idea of an example, it's not making an example for punitive purposes, it's making an example about the seriousness of the investigation and i wonder if you can speak to the stakes of tonight's vote and everything that happens next. >> yeah, it's a very important premise, nicole, because look, i'm intimidated being on a panel with neal katyal and actually offering a contrasting legal thought here, but let's just

presume there is a universe in which a federal court does recognize a privilege for a former president. now, they might recognize a privilege and then say, there's an exemption when the information is in the national interest that overrides that privilege, but let's say there is a privilege that is extended. you know, there is a lot of frustration right now in the political world that the courts might do that. there's a lot of frustration with the democratic-controlled house that somehow they are not providing the oversight necessary. that oversight is only necessary, and that privilege only obstructs the investigation if donald trump exercises it, and to your point, donald trump is not required to exercise the privilege. steve bannon is not required to exercise the privilege. donald trump and the people around him have information about the events that led to the attack on the capitol and the near underpinning of an otherwise peaceful transfer of power following an election. donald trump has information that the american people deserve

to know, and he is refusing to share that. and i think that is where the anger of the american people should be focused right now, that even if there is a privilege extended, it is still donald trump's use of that privilege that is obstructing the american people's ability to get to the bottom of what happened. we have the political tools to deal with that by never letting donald trump or people like him be elevated back to federal office in this case. >> well, on that note, let me read this opinion piece in the "washington post" to you, jonathan lemire. trump's ludicrous january 6th lawsuit shows why we should worry about 2024. this is greg sargent. let's focus on trump's claim that the committee's request lack any legislative purpose. that's just crazy. here in the real world, it's easy to name numerous legitimate legislative purposes that might apply when democrats undertake reforms of the electoral count act or safeguards against presidential manipulation of law enforcement. these will immediately become associated with enemies of trump

since they smack of a response to bad things trump did. republicans won't associate themselves with any of that at a time when republicans are increasingly running on an open vow to subvert future election losses and touting their support for trump's 2020 lies as a qualification to take control over critical election machinery. that should further stoke worries about 2024. i wonder, jonathan lemire, if there isn't any remorse on the part of republicans for not being for that bipartisan commission that mcconnell and mccarthy sent congressman katko out to negotiate. he got everything republicans wanted and scalise and mccarthy whipped votes against a republican compromise. they have now unleashed a slow motion insurrection of future contests of 2022 and 2024, and i wonder if that brazenness, jonathan lemire, makes the stakes of 1/6 and what the white

house does and what the justice department does in the coming days and hours and weeks all the more fraught. >> certainly no republican has publicly broken with the idea that there shouldn't have been a bipartisan commission. we know the few at the time who voiced support for it, not nearly enough. privately, of course, there's long been skepticism and worry about the presence that trump has in the republican party but there's far more fear than private worry, a fear as to what he would do to them, fear of his voters, fear of what used to be his twitter account. so there aren't republicans standing up. and i think that the point the piece makes is right, that this is not really about 2020 anymore. yes, donald trump can rage and email statements about it when he's not tweeting incredibly classless things about colin powell, american military hero who just passed away, but it is about laying the groundwork going forward, about undermining the democracy further about 2022 but most particularly 2024.

installing republican trump-friendly republicans as secretary of state in battleground states. we've seen the measures already by state legislatures to restrict access to the ballot. and now, this claim, saying that 1/6 -- the subcommittee has no versus diction, just undermines the whole point of congress, suggesting this is not a co-equal branch of government, that it's just executive power and one wonders and fears what that would mean for this president if, for president trump, were he to take office again in 2024. just a blatant disregard for the authority put up on the other end of pennsylvania avenue. i mean, we're in uncharted, dangerous, unfettered and unchecked territory, even more so than the last four years, perhaps. that's the fear and that is the stakes here for this committee, which is why, as a final point, there are some democrats who are angry at the -- and activists and liberals and progressives who are angry at the biden administration. a lot of anger they haven't made that more of a priority because they were afraid democracy is at

stake in the next four years. >> david jolly, the very democracy is at stake in the next four years. they're right. and i want to be thoughtful about this, but republicans are winning. they're rigging the game. this is not about 2020. i mean, it may be on donald trump's couch in his pajamas with his hand in a jar of peanut butter, but in terms of the laws being passed, they have been proposed in 48 states, the primaries being run against the brad raffenspergers of america, against the katie hobbs of america, they are rigging the game for '22 and '24 and they're doing it really quickly and effectively and doing it with almost zero democratic resistance except for mark elias's lawsuits, which take a lot longer to make their way through the courts than these laws take to make their way through legislative -- legislatures controlled by republicans. and i wonder what you think the remedy is. >> yeah.

nicole, there's only two ways republicans return to power. it's by changing hearts and minds or by stealing an election. and you can look at everything that the republicans have done in the last year. there's not a single thing they've done to expand their coalition. there is nothing they have done to expand their coalition based on policies or politics, but what they have done is exercise the authority they have to try to create the tools going into '22 and '24 to essentially rig and steal elections, either by oppressing the opportunities for people to get to the ballot box or by giving authority to otherwise partisan actors in elected office in some of these states that would have the ability to either decertify an election or certify a falsified election. this is being put in place for '22 and '24 as a tool to try to get republicans to return to power, and the threat there, then, certainly, if we saw a donald trump return to power, is, i'm not sure our democracy survives four years of donald trump in a second term not facing re-election.

consider already at the end of his first term, the people he had around him. there were no guardrails around donald trump in that last six months or so, and he certainly would not bring any reputable counsel into a second term. that is why it is critical that if nothing else, if all of these tools fail of the democratic house oversight committee and the 1/6 commission, if the courts side with donald trump, the one tool the founders give us is for the voters to prevent someone like donald trump and his ilk to return to power. >> our thanks to neal katyal as well as david jolly and jonathan lemire for starting us off this hour. when we come back, the fight to protect american democracy in the face of what we've been talking about, an unprecedented assault by republicans at all levels of government all across the country on the right to vote. plus, a top united states senator, what democrats hope to achieve when they finally vote tomorrow on voting rights. plus, republicans in texas approve a new congressional map that critics say punishes black

and brown voters. the very same communities that have sparked that state's population boom in the first place. and the brewing showdown as police officers in the nation's third largest city are being placed on no pay leave for refusing to get vaccinated. what's behind the reluctance among police officers to take the covid vaccine. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. continues after a quick break. don't go anywhe.er ♪ ♪ there are beautiful ideas that remain in the dark. but with our new multi-cloud experience, you have the flexibility you need to unveil them to the world. ♪

growing up in a little red house, on the edge of a forest to unveiin norway,the world. there were three things my family encouraged:

kindness, honesty and hard work. over time, i've come to add a fourth: be curious. be curious about the world around us, and then go. go with an open heart, and you will find inspiration anew. viking. exploring the world in comfort. this halloween, xfinity rewards is offering up some spooky-good perks. like the chance to win a universal parks & resorts trip

to hollywood or orlando to attend halloween horror nights. or xfinity rewards members, get the inside scoop on halloween kills. just say "watch with" into your voice remote for an exclusive live stream with jamie lee curtis. a q&a with me! join for free on the xfinity app. our thanks your rewards. the vote fundamentally is about your voice, and your voice is about your human dignity and regardless of your faith tradition or if you claim no

faith tradition at all, it is about the preciousness of our humanity. we must pass voting rights no matter what and while i think there are many wonderful things that hopefully will get done this congress, i think history will judge us harshly. if, in this moment, when we've seen a violent assault on our capitol, and we've seen debate and division in our country about the state of our democracy, if the world's most important deliberative body is not willing to debate this issue, i think history will judge us harshly and it ought to. our children are waiting and history is watching to see what we will do. >> that was georgia senator raphael warnock, one of the architects of the democrats' latest voting rights proposal. on msnbc earlier today with a reminder for his colleagues in the senate of exactly what is at stake in the fight for federal voting rights legislation. republicans are set to filibuster warnock's sweeping voting rights bill, which commands the support of every single senate democrat but not even one republican. "washington post" puts it like

this. no republican has emerged as even being curious about supporting new federal voting legislation of the breadth that democrats are contemplating. joining us now, senator angus king of maine. he's a member of the intelligence and armed services committees. senator, we've covered this before. you believe the filibuster should be put aside for federal voting rights legislation. is that still your view, and do you think that's where this is heading? >> well, when you say put aside, there are lots of options. it's not all or nothing, nicole. there are opportunities to modify the rule to require the opposition to be there to require actual speaking on the floor, so i think there are some options, but i think it ought to be emphasized what we're talking about. we're being filibustered tomorrow to even bring the bill to the floor. in other words, people talk about the filibuster facilitating debate. this is the filibuster being used to stifle debate.

which is really kind of ridiculous when you think about it. they're filibustering tomorrow something called the motion to proceed, which is just to bring the bill to the floor. if we have a debate on the bill and they don't like it, then there's an option to filibuster at the end of the process, but that just underlines that, you know, there's just no interest as "the post" headline you mentioned said, there's no interest in finding a solution to this. david jolly said, this seems to be the strategy. i thought the way to win elections was to have better candidates and better ideas. this seems to be the way to keep elections is to keep people you don't like from voting. >> you just -- not that i needed it, but you just made the filibuster sound even more obstructive and heinous than i already think it is. why are democrats not united in filibuster reform to preserve the right to vote, to preserve the right to have votes counted? this is the republican strategy,

and i don't believe that you're actually surprised that republicans don't want anything to do with voting rights legislation. are you? >> i'm not surprised, no. i'm not surprised because there really hasn't been any outreach. the compromise bill that we worked out over the summer has been around for more than a month. nobody's come forward with a counterproposal, or, hey, we could maybe do this. the reservation, nicole, is that this is a double-edged sword. right now, the filibuster is being used to obstruct. it could be used in the future to deconstruct important legislation and there would be no defense. the way i put it is today's annoying obstruction can be tomorrow's precious shield, so all of us are conscious -- i certainly am -- about the fact that anything we do sets the precedent that can be turned around and used against interests that those of us hold dear, whether it's voting rights, the affordable care act, social security, medicare, you

name it. the defenses are down once we make this change. on the other hand, i've concluded that democracy itself is more important than any senate rule. and i think that we ought to be able to find some way to satisfy those who are committed to the idea of the filibuster, bipartisanship, requiring minority engagement that we can find a path that will satisfy them but at the same time allow us to move forward. the filibuster used to be used once every five years, and now it's everything. i mean, we're having to overcome filibusters on deputy secretaries of defense. everything we do is subject to this obstruction, and it's not what the framers had in mind. the framers knew fractions. they understood. in the constitution, there are

places where they required two-thirds. they debated at the founding convention about whether there should be a super majority requirement for the passage of legislation and decided not to. and here's what's really shocking, nicole. i did the math the other day. you can assemble 41 votes in the senate to stop anything, and those senators, those 41 senators, represent 24% of america. so, 24% of americans can basically veto anything that's important and desired by 76% of americans. to me, that doesn't square with any theory of the way the democracy is supposed to work. >> senator, i want to push, respectfully, on something you said, because i think you said out loud something that senators have said to me privately that some of the preciousness of the filibuster is this concern about how it could shield you should you be in the minority again. do you really still believe that? do you really think the

filibuster would shield you from mitch mcconnell, 2021's mitch mcconnell, should you be in the minority? >> well, that's a fair question, only i mean, the only evidence we have is past actions, and for four years, president trump hammered on mitch mcconnell to eliminate the filibuster so they could do whatever they wanted, and he didn't do it. i do think, in the republican caucus, there are those who are committed to the filibuster as an institutional principle, so yeah, i understand that's a risk, if they take the majority in two years or a year or four years or whatever it is, it's certainly a risk that they could make that change. and you know, that's one of the factors that has to be weighed. but nicole, i think the discussion you had with david jolly and jonathan lemire was really important because we're talking about a fragile

democracy. representative democracy is an anomaly in world history. most countries, for thousands of years, have been run by dictators, pharaohs, czars, kings, you name it, and what we have is unusual and it's fragile and i don't think we americans really realize how fragile it is and what happened last winter was a close call. if it hadn't been for a few public officials, almost all republicans, by the way, like raffensperger in georgia, mike pence, a republican certifier of elections in michigan, if it hadn't been for those people, lord knows what would have happened. people talk lightly about our constitutional crisis. it would have been a serious crisis. we had a close call last winter, and that's why this voting rights act in clarifying some of these things that are going on in the states and limiting them is so important. >> i couldn't agree with you

more. look, i, like you, am an independent who votes for the democrats. i have voted straight party line not over a single policy but over the preservation of our democracy, and i worry about your side. i worry about the democratic party who right now controls the house, controls the senate, controls the white house, and seems like a deer on a frozen pond about what to do about the filibuster when it comes to federal voting rights legislation. and i hear your conviction of purpose, but i do not hear a strategy for getting the bill through the senate. is there one that has consensus? >> there is not one that has consensus. there is a lot of discussion going on about how could the rule be modified that would maintain the protections for the minority, and that's really what it's all about. at the same time, not be a tool of just stone cold obstruction. and there are those discussions going on. jeff merkley, for example, from

oregon, has done a huge amount of research about what we call the talking filibuster, just requiring people to come that, you know, most members of the public, when they hear the word "filibuster," they think we're talking about "mr. smith goes to washington," and people talking all night. that's gone now. you can phone it in. it's just too easy. we're talking -- i believe what we ought to be talking about is restoring the senate, restoring the senate to what it once was where the minority views are protected and you get bipartisanship but not enabling, as i say, stone cold obstruction. and by the way, what's going on in the states is in no way bipartisan. i mean, it would be ironic if we failed to act here in the name of seeking bipartisanship and you're then enabling straight-up partisan actions in the states to restrict voting rights and

to -- they're even talking about changing their rules so that a state legislature could override the voters of the state and send their own preferred set of electors to washington in the electoral college. i mean, talk about, you know, finagling the mechanics of our electoral system. that's, you know, it times ten. >> well, i mean, that is the perfect point to end on. the only people who make the republicans in washington look halfway decent are the republicans out in the state and power grab is too kind to articulate what they're doing. they're destroying democracy, one voter suppression, voter nullification bill at the same time. we focus on texas. major league baseball moved the all-star game from georgia because their bill was so bad. but you have a remedy. federal legislation usurps a lot of that. is that on your minds? are people fluent and concerned about what's happening out in

the states, senator? as this goes into this crucial week. >> yes. and i wish i could tell you that, you know, we've got -- it's going to be a, b, c, d. i can't tell you that because there are members of the democratic caucus who are very concerned, and i have been one of them, about undoing the filibuster on policy matters. but to me, this is a whole different category, and if i have to choose between democracy and a senate rule, that's a pretty easy call, i think. and even understanding that it could come back to bite us, it could come back to bite me on something that i'm deeply concerned about in the future, but i think this issue is so transcendent that it deserves a solution, because otherwise, you know, we're sunk. this democracy is fragile, and it's under attack. and it's our fundamental

responsibility as members to preserve and defend the constitution of the united states and right now, it's in doubt. >> i want to single you out for praise for your candor, for telling me where you are, not, you know, trying to make it sound like there's a plan to get from a to z and i would ask you to keep coming back. keep letting us know how this is going, because i agree with you. i don't know that there's anything more important than legislation to protect our democracy from what's happening out in the states. senator angus king, thank you so much for spending time with us on this today. >> thank you, nicole. great to be with you. when we come back, the latest move by those republicans in texas to decrease political representation for voters of color, the same communities that are driving the state's population growth. that stiers next. state's population growth. that stiers next at t-mobile for business, unconventional thinking means we see things differently, so you can focus on what matters most.

whetory's next.it's ensuringd arrives as freory's next it departs... being first on the scene when every second counts... or teaching biology without a lab. we are the leader in 5g and a partner who delivers exceptional customer support and 5g included in every plan. so, you get it all, without trade-offs. unconventional thinking, it's better for business. bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ i like it, i love it, i want some more of it♪ ♪i try so hard, i can't rise above it♪ ♪don't know what it is 'bout that little gal's lovin'♪ ♪but i like it, i love it♪ applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

joint pain, swelling, tenderness. my psoriasis. cosentyx® works on all of this. cosentyx can help you look and feel better by treating the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections—some serious— and the lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. watch me! get real relief with cosentyx. regina approaches the all-electric cadillac lyriq. it's a sunny day. nah, a stormy day. classical music plays. um uh, brass band, new orleans. ♪ ♪ she drives hands free... along the coast. make it palm springs.

♪ cadillac is going electric. if you want to be bold, you have to go off-script. experience the all-electric cadillac lyriq. if you want to be bold, you have to go off-script. when that car hit my motorcycle, insurance wasn't fair. so i called the barnes firm, it was the best call i could've made. call the barnes firm now, and find out what your case could be worth. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million

and i d d so my y quesonons coueouout hicacase.y y son, ♪ call one eight hundred, cacalledhehe bars s filion and i d d soit was the best call coueouout hii could've made. call the barnes firm aand find out what your case all ccould be worth.uld've made. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ it's desperate, it's dirty politics, it's morally reprehensible, anti-democratic and yet might also be a sign of great political weakness and fear for republican lawmakers in texas who evidently feel they need to use every trick, and i mean trick, in the book just to maintain political power in a state that is trending blue. we have already discussed the gop's malignant crusade on voting rights but further proof today that their effort to put a

big fat thumb on the scales of democracy goes much further than that. last night, lawmakers in texas approved new u.s. house maps that according to the associated press, quote, favor incumbents and, surprise, decrease political representation for growing minority communities. from that a.p. report, "republicans have said they followed the law in defending the maps, which protect their slipping grip on texas by putting more gop-leaning voters into suburban districts where democrats have made inroads in recent years. the texas gop controlled both chambers of the legislature, giving them nearly complete control of the map-making process. the state has had to defend their maps in court after every redistricting process since the voting rights act took effect in 1965. but this will be the first since the u.s. supreme court ruling said that texas and other states with a history of racial discrimination no longer need to have the justice department scrutinize the maps before they are approved." joining us now, our friend,

texas state representative jasmine crockett and our friend, basil smikle, director of the public policy program at hunter college. representative crockett, we are, again, talking about texas. we are again talking about anti-democratic moves by the republicans. this feels like a big one. >> yeah, absolutely. first of all, it's great to see you. obviously, we have to talk about how crazy texas is. >> every day. >> and how racist texas is. yeah. it's a constant down this way. it's really sad, though, because you know, just like i kept saying that they only wanted our bodies in the state house so that they could bulldoze us, they only wanted all of these people to move to the state of texas so that they could then increase their power. they completely ignored the numbers, and it was really sad to hear the bill author consistently say, i'm not advised, i'm not advised, so to

think there's only 150 people in the house to represent almost 30 million people, and we're entrusted with writing the laws and the very person that is the bill author or redistricting, which is done once every ten years, who's been the chairman of redistricting now for a second time, is telling us that he is unadvised about the numbers and about what's happening in these districts? it's just deplorable. and it's inexcusable. and i think that we've got to do everything that we can to vote as many of these people out, but unlike the president, i don't think that we can out-organize bad policy. >> yeah, i mean, look, basil, i understand the structural limitations of pushing senator angus king on that, and he was pretty candid about where the caucus is. but the -- the notion that you can out-organize nullification of votes, nullification of citizens, is faulty on its face.

i want to read some more from this a.p. reporting about the lawsuits, but i just want to start by saying that i am concerned that y'all don't have time for lawsuits to wind their way through the court. so let me read this. we'll talk about it on the other side. civil rights groups, including the mexican-american legal defense and education fund, sued before republican lawmakers were even done on monday. the lawsuit alleges that republican map makers diluted the political strength of minority voters by not drawing any new districts where latino residents hold a majority. despite latinos making up half of texas's 4 million new residents over the last decade. the plan does not create any additional districts where black or hispanic voters make up more than 50% of the voting population, even as people of color accounted for more than 9 of 10 new residents in texas over the past decade. where do you go from here? >> yeah, it's -- no, it's -- it's incredible when you think

about some of the structural problems to getting this to change. i mean, we don't have nationally any one way to redistrict our state. it's as fragmented as voting is across the country. and when you think about the supreme court cases, there were two in the last year that -- in the last eight years, excuse me, that ripped the guts out of the voting rights act so that you have republicans saying, we don't need to go back to the court. we understand -- we know exactly what the court says and we're operating within those rules. which, of course, is done in a pernicious manner. you're right to suggest and point out that the -- that democrats who are activists that are really concerned about this may not have the time to take these matters to court. and we should be organizing. we should be doing more. we see evidence of that. but we've also seen this coming.

we've lost seats through the rust belt and they're being gained in other places like florida, texas, north carolina, we saw this coming, and why we haven't done more, and there are individuals, certainly, my friend, cliff albright, black votes matter in georgia and other groups like that, they're mobilized but we need to be doing so much more legislatively in anticipation of what's to come. we saw back in the early 2000s democrats get redistricting out of the midwest. we've seen how democrats are now in the suburbs, in ways that they weren't previously, which is why you had donald trump talking about the suburbs in the way that he did towards the election in 2020, and you see now republicans trying to make inroads in urban areas because of gentrification, so as these demographic shifts are taking place, we have to be just as nimble, just as agile to sort of beat them to the punch, because they're drawing lines around us

to restrict and curtail our power, and we can't -- we just can't continue to let that happen. >> representative crockett, you know, you and your colleagues now famously came to washington to ask for help. do you feel like those pleas landed on deaf ears? are you going to pick up the phone and call again for help on this front? >> i think that we rang the alarms, right? and i don't know if they recognized, as has been stated, that this is something we saw coming, right? but we rang the alarms to the extent that even the general public became aware that we are in a point in which we don't know where democracy is going and we should never have a question about that in the united states of america. but after ringing the alarm, we saw some action on behalf of the house. the senate has continually let us down, and this idea that we're still debating, well, how do we go about the filibuster? i don't really think that there

is a debate. i think that we have to just say that we are going to do whatever it takes, because democracy is on the line. this isn't one simple policy issue. this is the policy issue that actually has the ability to shape policy in the entire country. and so, this idea that we're still, like, we don't know what to do, we think that we can do something, maybe. we don't have time for that. right now, we know that not just the texas legislature but the legislatures in arizona, the legislature in florida, the legislatures throughout this country are really tearing down our very democracy and what we know of it, and we've got two people, really, that are sitting in d.c. that are saying, nope. we don't do anything. and when you think about the numbers, when you think about how many people they don't represent, right? we know that we did everything that we can. when we talk about organizing, he talks about cliff albright. we talked about black voters

matter. we know what happened in georgia, and we know that there was backlash because of the hard work that was done in georgia. we know there was backlash in texas because trump only managed to win the state of texas by five points. that is unheard of and if you start to lose texas, then you will never get the white house back, and texas back. and texas understands that. >> it's like a mad, frantic power grab. their fear is showing. texas state representative jasmine crockett, it might be time for you to head to washington again. thank you both for spending time with us. when we come back, what's behind the reluctance among so many police officers about getting vaccinated. it's a question so many cities are grappling with. we'll be back with that after a short break.

if you're 55 and up, t- mobile has plans built just for you. whether you need a single line or lines for family members, you'll get great value on america's most reliable 5g network. like 2 lines of unlimited for just $27.50 a line. only at t-mobile. what makes new salonpas arthritis gel so good for arthritis pain? salonpas contains the most prescribed topical pain relief ingredient. it's clinically proven, reduces inflammation and comes in original prescription strength. salonpas. it's good medicine. when you're driving a lincoln, stress seems to evaporate into thin air. which leaves us to wonder, where does it go? does it get tangled up in knots?

or fall victim to gravity? or maybe it winds up somewhere over the bermuda triangle. perhaps you'll come up with your own theory of where the stress goes. behind the wheel of a lincoln is a mighty fine place to start. wealth is your first big investment. worth is a partner to help share the load. wealth is saving a little extra. worth is knowing it's never too late to start - or too early. ♪ ♪ wealth helps you retire. worth is knowing why. ♪ ♪ principal. for all it's worth.

this is... ♪ ♪ this is iowa. we just haven't been properly introduced. say hello to the place where rolling hills meets low bills. where our fields, inside and out, are always growing. and where the fun is just getting started. this is iowa. so, when are you coming to see us? ♪ ♪ ♪♪ your new pharmacy is here. to help you compare prices, and save on your medication. amazon prime members get select meds as low as $1 a month. who knew it could be this easy? your new pharmacy is amazon pharmacy. you get more with aarp medicare advantage plans from unitedhealthcare. like $0 copays on tier 1 and tier 2 prescription drugs. ♪ wow! ♪ ♪ uh-huh. ♪ $0 copays on primary care visits. ♪ wow! ♪ ♪ uh-huh. ♪

and with unitedhealthcare, you get access to medicare advantage's largest provider network. ♪ wow! ♪ ♪ uh-huh. ♪ most plans even have a $0 premium. so go ahead. take advantage now. ♪ wow! ♪ major showdowns over covid vaccine mandates across the country are coming to a head. in chicago, 1,300 officers told the city they have not been vaccinated, another 4,500 or one-third of the force has not submitted their vaccine status as required by the mayor's mandate, putting their pay in jeopardy. let's bring in cedric alexander, former member of president obama's task force on 21st century policing. tell me what's going on. is this resistance to getting the shot or resistance to being

mandated to get the shot, or both? >> let's think about it this way. our police officers are just a microcosm of a larger society in which we live in. we know there are people out there across this country who choose not to get vaccinated. they come in all professions. these just happen to be police officers. but i think it's important to understand that many of these police officers understand the risk that they're taking if they choose not to get vaccinated. they know they're in the public, they meet people, they're talking to people, engaging in conversations. if they choose not to get vaccinated, that's a risk they're choosing to take. here's a thing they also have to take into account. with their other officers, they go home with family, friends, loved ones, if they're taking all these things into account, they choose not to get vaccinated, then the question becomes do they have the right to not take it.

and i think it's no different than any other part of the population in this country that are choosing not to get vaccinated. i, myself, vaccinated. most police officers i know across this country, vaccinated. but you're always going to have a certain segment of the population, even within chicago pd and others, that may choose to do otherwise. so this is going to be an ongoing issue and debate and i think over time they will resolve this. but everyone is going to have to take individual responsibility for themselves and do what they feel is best for themselves. this is going to be a case -- these are going to be cases that are going to certainly be challenged on both sides and hopefully they find some resolve. >> covid-19 is now the leading cause of death for police officers in america. not gunshots, not anything else. with your help, we will stay on it because i would like to understand how it gets resolved.

thank you so much. >> you're welcome. >> to be continued. a quick break for us. we'll be right back. gold. your strategic advantage. you could fret about that email you just sent. ...with a typo. aaaand most of the info is totally outdated. orrrr... you could use slack. and edit your message after it's sent. [sigh of relief.] slack. where the future works. there is no place like home y'all! and these people know that there is no place like wayfair. i never thought i'd buy a pink velvet sofa, but when i saw it, i was like 'ah'. and then i sat on it, and i was like 'ooh'. ooh! stylish and napable. okay now. i can relate to this one. i'm a working mom with three boys. [ yelling ] wayfair is my therapy. amen, kim! yup! i'm hiding from my kids, as we speak.

♪darling, i, i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪girl, i don't know, i don't know,♪ ♪i don't know why i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪oh no, babe girl, if i could only make you see♪ ♪and make you understand♪ get a dozen double crunch shrimp for $1 with any steak entrée. only at applebee's.

now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, with any steak entrée. only at applebee's. jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the last two hours? ...delegating? oh, good one. move your xfinity services without breaking a sweat. xfinity makes moving easy. go online to transfer your services in about a minute.

get started today. thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. we're grateful. hi, ari. >> hi, nicolle. welcome to "the beat." we're tracking a big story. news coming out of capitol hill is preparations are under way for a vote tonight to hold trump aide steve bannon in contempt of congress. here is what we know. tonight's vote is the first time the january 6th committee is using these powers to enforce its mandate. it's suggested they have to votes to hold him in contempt. now, if that happens, then congress hands a criminal referral of bannon