let the water heal our were people. buffalo's mayor spoke about the importance of the stores reopening at the prayer service today. >> how everyone has come together, for the opening of our tops on jefferson avenue. is proof positive that love beats hate. we will take this place of tragedy, and in the days, the weeks, the months, the years to come. it will be a national and world wide example, of a place of triumph. >> amen to that. love beats hate, east buffalo, new york, tonight. may that be a lesson to us all. on that note, i wish you all a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news,

thank you for staying up late with us, i will see you at the end of tomorrow. lat with us, i will see you at we have breaking news about january 6th out tonight news about one of the key law enforcement agencies that has been at the center of several january 6th hearings so far. tonight, we are learning that the u.s. secret service service erased text messages sent by secret service officials between january the 5th and sixth of last year. that is according to a letter sent by congress -- a government watchdog that oversees the secret service. importantly, the letter says that the text messages were erased after they were requested as part of an evaluation of what happened on january the 6th being conducted by that government watchdog. the letter notes that the secret service is claiming that the messages were erased as part of a device replacement program. again, it is important to note that the messages were erased only after they were requested

by the inspector general. they also points out in this letter, that her office had been repeatedly rebuffed by and obtaining the records. a spokesman for the secret service responded to the release of this letter tonight, saying that we take strong issue with these false claims, and i will be responding in detail shortly. it's been two and a half hours after the, treat and we have not seen a statement from the secret service. you will recall, they played a prominent role in some of the most gripping testimony that we have heard so far veggies sixth. former white house aide cassidy hutchinson testified that secret service agents relayed that trump attacked an agent while trying to get them to drive him to the capitol with the rest of his mob. something that some secret service agents tried to deny off the record, after that testimony went public. they have yet to come forward and testify about it on the record. funny. we also know from the testimony

of a top aide to former--then vice president actually refused to get into a car with members of the secret service during the capitol attack, because they feared that they might take him away from carrying out his duty. we are learning the key records from that time have essentially vanished under circumstances that at least have the appearance of a potential cover-up. tonight, the committee attendance to reconstruct the missing text messages from the secret service as part of their investigation. what should we make of this? i have just the person to ask. joining us now is -- an investigative reporter for the washington post and has done some of the most preemptive reporting on the secret service. she's the author of zero fail, the rise and fall of the secret service. thank you for joining us tonight. let us start with the obvious question, what is your reaction to this story? you are somebody that knows the

secret service more than most, erasing tax messages? >> my first reaction upon reading the inspector general's letter, and our great crack team at the washington post getting a copy of, it was oh my gosh, not again. the secret service has had a's history of unpleasant, or unflattering records that disappear under the cover of night. they may contain answers to questions the don't look so good for the service, or don't look so good for the current president at the time. this happened in regards to john f. kennedy's assassination, and i'll get to that in a minute. after i made some calls, and did some digging, and after i getting on the horn. the secret service has, what they, view is a completely reasonable explanation for why this valuable evidence did, in fact, likely disappear into the

ether. that was this. if you will permit me for a moment. they had an agency wide plan for more than several years, to begin in january 2021. conveniently, or coincidentally. that is when they were going to start replacing a series of outdated cell phones with a new system. and a new contract, really. that is supposed to help all of the agency personnel talk to each other more easily. a third of those devices had been replaced throughout the month of january, 2021. by the time the inspector generals office requested all of these telephone a darn document. -- let me be clear. it is only texts that were lost forever. but it was not in the secret services view after that they got the request. they began transferring people

to new phones, and staff -- there is a policy to backup your phones, because they contain critical, important, and must preserve government communications. a lot of secret service personnel just don't back it up. >> so i got a new phone recently, and started my daughter. we had problems backing up our stuff. but i am not in the secret service, and the inspector general does say in a letter that even before this erasure happened, there had been attempts to rebuff her attempts to get some of these records. you mentioned that the agency has a history of these, i don't know we want to call, it inconvenient episodes. you mentioned kennedy. >> for my book zero fail, i learned about an episode that has never really been reported, in which a series of boxes, and only the boxes that contained the juicy bits, so to speak.

they disappeared from the secret service archives at the same time then a committee that replaced the war commission. a commission of congress was investigating a series of reports the secret service agents and headquarters had received numerous warnings and early red flags that kennedy was being targeted by people who wanted to shoot him from a high spot in a building. and so they were on alert long before they entered daily plaza in dallas, on that fateful day that kennedy was killed. the boxes of records that contained this information, the warnings out of chicago. the warnings out of miami. from a confidential informant. these boxes, the secret service embarrassingly had to report had been destroyed as part of normal protocol. it happened to be right when

this committee was seeking those records to find out how much the secret service knew about the threat to kennedy before is actually killed. >> we will have to see if history is repeating itself in terms of erasure of records. i will also note that some of those agents have not turned up to the committee to rebut cassidy hutchinson which they said they would, which is fascinating. i appreciate you coming to join us tonight with your latest reporting for the washington post, thank you so much. >> it's my pleasure. thank you. >> as we look at these various strains of the investigation into january 6th, and what may become of them. it is worth thinking back to 18 months ago, when the nomination of merrick garland as the attorney general was being celebrated as a gratifying move. there is the whole bringing seriousness and stability back to the justice department, if you are into that sort of thing. but also the political and moral satisfaction that came

with the garland nomination, that was palpable. this is the guy the republicans had refused a hearing to when president obama nominated him to the supreme court. they screwed him over to steal a supreme court seat, and here was president biden rubbing it -- while also writing the wrong that had been done to garland himself. a bold move. classy, even. that said, some people have been found themselves wondering if maybe giving the job of attorney general as a kind of consolation prize tumeric garland was not the best move. with the country needed was in ag ready and willing, and able to prosecute and attack -- including prosecute the former president of the united states. to be clear, nobody is disputing that merrick garland is an accomplished judge, a brilliant legal thinker, and by all accounts, a good guy. as the months have ticked by since the attack more than 18 months ago, there has been little sign that his justice department is preparing to prosecute anybody beyond the foot soldiers who carried out

the attack itself. the one exception came earlier this year when the deputy attorney general told cnn that the justice department was looking into the fake elector scheme, in which donald trump and his allies tried to overturn joe biden's win by submitting fake trump elector certificates in states that biden won. federal investigators to coat searches last month on john eastman who pushed the scheme, and former trump justice department official jury retired. he sought -- and overturn biden's victory in various swing states. so it's a start. but as recently as yesterday, the chair of the january 6th investigation said that the fake elector scheme is the only part of their investigation that the justice department has expressed specific interest in. it's not just me, cable news host, expressing frustration with the pace and seriousness of merrick garland's january 6th investigations. reportedly, president biden himself is frustrated. from the new york times this april, quote, mr. biden confided to his inner circle that former president donald j

trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted. according to people familiar with his comments. while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to mr. garland, he has said privately that he wanted him to act less like a ponderous judge, and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive actions over the events of january 6th. in addition to president biden it's also former doj prosecutor, he wrote this week that the garland justice department myopic focus on the capitol attack itself is preventing it from prosecuting the broader plot to overturn the election. a plot orchestrated by trump. it's also doj officials. from the reagan and w bush administrations, going public this week. the justice department must prosecute trump. and it is also january 6th committee member and chair of the house committee congressman adam schiff. >> i certainly think that the

justice department have more than enough evidence involving the former president. and whether they are ultimately believing it beyond reasonable doubt, that's too early to say. i certainly believe that there is evidence now that would be hard for the department to ignore. >> now, there may be some movement happening at the justice department in response to recent revelations. the new york times report that the explosive testimony from trump white house aide cassidy hutchinson jolted top justice department officials into discussing donald trump's criminal culpability. into the january 6th committee says that they have referred the justice department a case of potential witness tampering by trump himself, in the wake of cassidy hutchinson's testimony. they allegedly tried to call one of the support staff members who is talking to the committee. here's the thing, there is a lot of talk about how it would be unprecedented for the justice department to charge a former president.

you know what else is unprecedented? that the former president might be the next president. as if to drive home this point today, donald trump started heavily hinting to reporters that he plans to announce another run for president this fall. possibly ahead of the midterm elections. among other things, this seems like a naked attempt by trump to get the justice department to back off. with merrick garland's well-known aversion to political, trump might be daring biden's justice department to indict a declared presidential rival to joe biden. it may come a point that some say we have already reached, when there will be so much evidence pointing to trump's criminal culpability, that it will simply be untenable for merrick garland to investigate the former president directly. especially as the list of possible crimes that he could be charged with keeps growing. .

former federal prosecutor babara laid out prosecution on two charges. conspiracy to defraud the united states, and obstruction of aid official proceeding. now she has raised the possibility of yet another charge -- she writes on twitter, quote, a strong case that can be made that trump committed five counts of manslaughter on january 6th by recklessly causing the unintended deaths of others. she adds, quote, doj, are you up yet? very good question. joining us now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, and now a professor at the university of michigan law school. thank you for joining us, you've argued the trump should and could face charges of conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of an official proceeding, all of the other offenses, but now you have added five possible charges of manslaughter to that list. that's a pretty big deal. guide us through that thought process, how would you

prosecute trump for manslaughter? >> well, you know without looking for when we have the next january six hearing, next week, the committee said they're gonna be focusing on this idea about what was occurring at the white house during those three hours, the 187 minutes of inaction. and it may be that the justice department is also, ultimately able to connect trump to the intentional attack on the capitol. but i think, charges of manslaughter could be brought, even if it wasn't intentional, even if he was not connected to them up -- there's only three elements to proving a manslaughter case. one is an ac or mission. the second is causation, and the third is the requisite intent. and under the washington d. c. district of columbia statute, it's really just undo care, so it's really a gross negligence standard. so during the time that trump sat there for three hours, and people urged him to do something to stop this, he didn't send in the national guard. he didn't go on on television, you know, in the briefing room to make a statement. he didn't even tweet that they

should stand out. in fact, he tweeted just the opposite about how mike pence didn't have the courage to do what he needed him to do. i think all of those things could put together the elements of a manslaughter case. and hence, the tightness of bringing a simple charge that's easy to understand. it doesn't have all these complexities of intent. people died, and he could've stopped it, and he failed to do that. that's a manslaughter case. >> i am just gonna pause here, it's a thursday night. and we're sitting on live tv, discussing whether the former president could be prosecuted for manslaughter. what have we come to, as a country here? it's astonishing! let me ask you this, though, the department of justice, you've made clear, have made clear on other shows, moving far too slowly. what do you think the doj should be doing? if you were the ag, what would you be doing right now? >> well, i don't wanna suggest that i know what's going on inside there. and it may be that they're doing a lot more work than is apparent to the eyes. but i think a few things that may be happening is flipping

cooperators who are members of the proud boys and the oath keepers, to try and connect up roger stone, donald trump, and others, to the physical attack on the capitol. i think that is useful. i would also be after prosecuting and convicting steve bannon. i put him in the grand jury. there, if he tries his shenanigans, pretending he doesn't know that he can show up, or sort of asserting executive privilege, he can be jailed for refusing to comply. he can also be given you some unity, so that he is not exempt from prosecution. but he's exempt from having his statements used against him. but they can be compelled to testify, and answer the questions about why he said, tomorrow, all hell is going to break loose. those are just some of the things that i think they should be looking at right now. and i am not going to suggest there, i think they're smart, i think they're diligent, and i think they're brave. so i'm hopeful that what we can see doesn't mean it's not gonna occur. >> a good mix of praise and advice there for doj prosecutors. i do hope they're watching tonight and they're listening

to you. former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, barb mcquade, always a pleasure. thank you for taking time. >> thank you, mehdi. >> much more ahead here tonight, in just a moment, we'll be joined live by one of the members of the january six committee, who will be leading the next public hearing. stay with us. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. [ sfx: submarine rising out of water ] minions are bitin' today. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ minions: the rise of gru, only in theaters. >> mark your calendars for one

week from tonight. that is when the next january 6th public hearing is set to be held, according to nbc news. that hearing is expected to be led by democratic congresswoman elaine luria and republican congressman adam kinzinger. they will lead a hearing focused on a key part of the january 6th saga, that we have not heard much about yet. what donald trump did and did not do during the hundred and 87 minutes, from one of the mob stormed the capitol, to the moment he finally begrudgingly told them, go home, we love you, your very special. joining us now is congresswoman elaine luria, who will be co-leading the next hearing. congresswoman, thanks for

joining me tonight. i wanna start by getting your reaction to the breaking news we got tonight about the secret service, allegedly deleting text messages sent on january the 5th and sixth. a lot of our viewers here in the story, my thing, it sounds like a cover-up. >> well, this is obviously very concerning, both in my role as a member of the homeland security committee, to which the letter was, sent as well as the january 6th committee. it's critical that we have all of the government records, including these types of records that documented the events of that day. so, we plan to work with the inspector general, get to the bottom of this and try to determine what the situation is with these records that have been requested by the committee for sometime. >> so, congresswoman, what can you tell us about this next hearing, about what we should expect to hear about donald trump's inaction during that crucial period, when the capital, where you are standing right now, was being attacked? >> as you mentioned, we're gonna focus on that 187

minutes. so, it's really from the time that the former president stepped off the stage, at the ellipse, when he gave this cry to essentially follow him to the capitol. and many of the people who are in attendance thought it was going himself. until the time at 4:17 pm, which was the time when, as we will show, rather begrudgingly went into the rose garden, and gave an address to the nation. we look at that asked julia dereliction of duty. he, as the commander in chief, the only person whose duty in the constitution, it's clearly outline to ensure that the laws in the nation are faithfully executed, he didn't do that on that day. and myself, mister kinzinger, we are both veterans. we both served in uniform. mr. kinzinger served in the national guard. and that oath that we take to

defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is really significant, and coming from that perspective and understanding, garneau, what's someone who's essentially in charge has a responsibility, in this, case to ensure the safety of our nation which is what, laws implemented. like, he did nothing. he did not act, even at the urging of so many people around him. we're gonna go into a lot of details about that timeline. >> and your fellow committee member, congressman kinzinger, said the committee has not ruled out attempting to get testimony from the former president, and former vice president. is that your understanding as well? and how is the committee, if so, going about to try and get that testimony? getting donald trump under oath to be cross-examined by liz cheney. i will pay good money to watch video of that. >> i'm gonna say, i will reiterate to things the committee has said all along. first, we don't talk specifically about future witnesses, or people who've spoken to the committee, and the second, i will reiterate what chairman thompson said at the very beginning of this. the committee is gonna go where we need to go to find the evidence, in order to perform our duties. the congressional committee gets to the bottom of the

events that happened that day, so that hasn't changed since a year and a half ago, or a year ago since the committee was formed. >> congresswoman, my last guest, i'm not sure if you heard her, law professor and former prosecutor, barbara mcquade, was making the case that donald trump could potentially be charged, in her view, with manslaughter for the events of january the 6th. what you make of that someone who was investigating that case? >> well, i would say in her assessment, it's chilling that we could even be having this conversation, for that type of allegation against someone who was formerly the president of the united states. i am not a lawyer as she is, and i think she studied this carefully. but what i would say, no one is above the law. so, our investigations, putting the information out there, that we've found throughout our investigative work, and thousand witnesses. and, you know, that information, you know, we know will be used by the committee to make legislative recommendations,

and prevent something like this in the future. but also, merrick garland told us the department of justice is listening. and so, i hope they will continue to pay close attention to this next hearing as well. >> so, you mentioned merrick garland. that is the big question. where is merrick garland? your fellow committee member adam schiff has repeatedly gone on camera to say, we've given enough in material. there is more than enough there to start a case, to start a criminal investigation of the president himself. the new york times reported earlier this week that doj's been playing catch-up. they were shocked by the cassidy hutchinson testimony. they don't really talk about donald trump in their internal readings. what do you make of the doj's performance so far, if i can put it that way there? the slowness that a lot of people in your party's team upset with? >> but i would say is that we don't, as a committee, have a lot of insight into where the department of justice is in their card investigations. i will tell, you it's ratcheting up in the sense of going after these domestic violent extremists who are charged now, with seditious

conspiracy. and we know that they are listening. we know that they are watching. and as america, and have faith in the fact they're gonna take it for you that we are putting out there is the committee, and they're gonna act on it. again, no one can be above the law, and you know, when you topple that, you will be held accountable. >> but do you agree with congressman schiff that your committee is given more than enough material not to start a criminal mastication? >> i think so. and i'm gonna, i've been asked a lot of times, what does the future prospect of a criminal referral from the committee? i'm not gonna speak up on behalf of the committee. we haven't made a decision yet of how if we're gonna do something officially like that. but from my personal opinion, i think we have a duty to make sure that if we have information about crimes we believe to be committed, that we pass that on to the american people. >> last quick question, we're out of time. but i gotta ask. is next week's hearing believed to be happening, thursday night, primetime, is that gonna be the last public hearing for the committee? there's talk about another one later in the summer. >> but i will say is, prospect for hearings is not over, until

our investigation is complete. and it is certainly not complete. you've seen, as we had, you know, short notice scheduled hearing with cassidy hutchinson. people are still coming forward, and we're healing for more people every day. so, we have planned on a framework for this first series of hearings. but i will say, it's a framework for the first series of hearings. there is certainly the possibility that, you know, we'll have information to present, to the hearing again after the one next week. >> congresswoman elaine luria, number of the january 6th committee. thank you for your time tonight. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> up next, after trying to discredit a horrific story that turned out to be true, republicans are now revealing the truth of where they really stand on abortion. stay with us. with us rs, with no replacement. elections will be decided by politicians, with no regard for your vote.

democrats will protect your rights. and the only way to stop maga republicans is to vote for democrats. ff pac is responsible for the content of this ad.

my tribe has lived on this land for 12,000 years. we call it oleyumi. you call it california. our land, our culture, our people once expansive, now whittled down to a small community. only one proposition supports california tribes like ours. while providing hundreds of millions in yearly funding to finally address homelessness in california. vote yes on 27. tax online sports betting and protect tribal sovereignty and help californians that are hurting the most. tomorrow marks three weeks

since the supreme court handed down the decision in that case that overturned roe v. wade. on that evening on june 24th, a federal judge ruled and ohio six-week abortion ban, which had been enjoying for 50 years -- 3 years, could go into effect. and with the stroke of a pen, abortion effectively became illegal in the state of ohio. if you are over six weeks pregnant, tough luck, you can't get an abortion in ohio. just three days after that ban went into effect, a child abuse doctor had a ten year old rape victim in her office. just ten years old. the child was six weeks and three days pregnant. she was just three days to wait to get an abortion. in ohio, there is no exception

for rape, and so if that ten year old got an abortion in ohio, she would be breaking the law. that doctor took action. she called a colleague in indiana, seeking help from that patient. she travelled to indianna, which currently has a 22-week abortion ban, and received the health care that she needed. the ten year olds series -- made national headlines when a doctor in indiana came forward to tell the ten year olds story. she went on the record to share what happens when abortion is outlawed. to tell her patients story, to show but republicans on ohio and on the supreme court had just done. the gut wrenching story caught the attention of president biden, and he highlighted the case. he signed an executive order aimed at protecting reproductive rights. and like clockwork, republicans and conservatives threw their arms in the air and declared it is not true! the wall street journal's editorial board titled an op-ed titled, quote, and abortion story too good to confirm. the new york post, quote, the

ten year old rape victims abortion leaves a number of glaring questions. republican congressman jim jordan of ohio tweeted, another lie, anyone surprised? republican south dakota governor said, quote, it was literally fake news from the liberal media. republicans ran with the story that they were obsessed with. as they declared that this is just some made of liberal talking point. but to republicans great surprise, the terrible story turned out to be true. a 27-year-old man confessed to raping the child. and at least two occasions. he's been arrested on tuesday, and charged with rape. let's take a step back here for a second. even if the story was not true, something just like it is still what republicans are okay with, some would argue. this is what it looks like when you overturn roe v. wade. ten year old rape victims will be forced to carry babies to term when abortion is legal no matter.

republicans know that to be true. they know it! democratic congressman eric swalwell drove that point home in a house judiciary committee on abortion today. he questioned the republicans antiabortion witness. >> miss foster, do you think a 10 year old would choose to carry? >> in a ten year old case, ohio -- >> my question, is with a ten -year-old shoes to carry ohio -- >> i'm asking you -- >> abortion would've been justified. >> focus on the question please. with a ten year old shoes to carry a baby? >> i cannot -- >> do you think it's enrolled should choose to carry a baby? >> i think it would impact her life. and therefore, it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion. >> it would not be an abortion, if a ten year old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of a rape?

>> if a 10 year old became pregnant as a result of rape, and it was threatening her life, then that is not an abortion. it wouldn't fall under any abortion restriction in our nation. >> are you familiar with this information? >> yes, i am. >> did you just hear some disinformation? >> yes, i heard some significant disinformation. >> can you tell me about that? >> and abortion is a procedure, a medical procedure. it -- individuals undergo for a wide range of circumstances. including because they have been sexually assaulted, raped in the case of the ten year old. it does not matter whether or not there are statutory exemptions, it is still a medical procedure that is understood to be an abortion. beyond that, i think it is also important to note that there is no exemption for the life or health of the mother in the ohio law. that is why the ten year old had to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion. >> they may be trying to deny that a ten year old child being denied health care after being

raped is not an abortion, but we know that's not true. in essence, this is the gop position. now we are okay forcing a ten year old child to give birth after being raped. the attorney general of indiana said that he is looking into potentially prosecuting the doctor who provided the abortion, and quote, we are gathering evidence. joining us now is dr. jennifer a gynecology at the stanford university school of medicine. doctor, thank you for being here. we have been hearing some odd arguments from some antiabortion advocates, that the medical procedure of an abortion somehow does not count as an abortion in certain circumstances. we heard that exchange from congresswoman swalwell in the case of a ten-year-old pregnant rape victim, the pregnancy would, quote, probably impact your life, and so it would not fall under any restriction. what do you think of this decision to redefine abortion in this way? >> thank you for having me on.

i think that i have watched and rewatch that clip countless times today. the mental gymnastics that these people are doing in their head in order to justify wet is and isn't an abortion is insane. i can tell you as an abortion provider, as somebody who cares for people in the abortion -- that story in ohio is not one-of-a-kind. young people, children, need abortions sometimes so that they can keep on being children. you may try to deny it, but it happens. because of all of the different ways that we systemically fail people in this country. i, like many of my colleagues who are trained in complex family planning have cared for young pregnant girls seeking abortion. we would absolutely provide the same care the dr. bernard provided this child in ohio, because unlike some legislators, we don't cherry pick who we help. >> the ohio abortion ban prompted the ten year old girl

from ohio to travel for the abortion to indiana. it makes exceptions for the life of the mother in narrow cases like diabetes and an inevitable miscarriage, and other -- it also does not say that and women's mental health qualifies for an exception. given the narrow exceptions under that law, how can anybody are they're -- that it is not a line abortions? >> the nuances that people think are protected in these laws are absurd. this is why abortion restrictions are harmful, and this is why exceptions, quote unquote, to abortion bans are meaningless. let's have this example. if you are the parents of the ten year old that has just been raped and impregnated, and you have just heard that your state would not allow abortions after six weeks, you don't have time to dig through the weeds and fine print exceptions. your energy and focus is on

finding the person that did this to your child, and getting her the fastest helped possible. exceptions are meaningless because of these nuances. >> one last question. the indiana tierney general told fox yesterday that he is going to investigate the doctor who provided the ten year old rape victim from ohio with an abortion. he suggested that that doctor did not properly reportedly terminated pregnancy of a minor. we now know that she did reported to the indiana department of health and child services. what is your broader reaction to that kind of intimidation as an ob/gyn? what kind of chilling effect do threats like that from people in power have for doctors who now provide these procedures? >> if you are in this line of work, you take on that there are inherent risks, whether real or imagined. but this exact example is nothing but a sleight of hand. these people realize that the focus is on the wrong people. they are focusing on the wrap -- is happening to children in this state, and that they are

not supporting people that are pregnant and not want to be. instead, they're losing -- as a scapegoat. and they're not fooling anyone. >> we will have to leave it there. clinical professor of gynecology at the stanford university school of medicine. thank you for your time, we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> still ahead, how a law passed by republicans in georgia may end up benefiting democrats in november. and president biden made a few promises when he was running for president, but will he hold on to all of them? that story is next. that my daughter had a heart attack really shook me. it brings home how important it is to hold on to the people we love of another heart attack by 31%.

your heart isn't just yours. aspirin is not appropriate for everyone, so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. like pulsing, electric shocks, sharp, stabbing pains, or an intense burning sensation. what is this nightmare? it's how some people describe... shingles. a painful, blistering rash that could interrupt your life for weeks. forget social events and weekend getaways. if you've had chickenpox, the virus that causes shingles is already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. president biden is visiting a

man who is described as a killer and a psychopath. those are not my words, those are the words of a ford or saudi spy chief describing the current saudi crown prince, mohammad bin salman, also known as mbs. >> i am here to sound the alarm. about a psychopath killer in the middle east, with infinite resources who poses a threat to his people, to the americans, and to the planet. >> a threat to his people, the americans, and to the planet. back in 2020, he detained members of his own family who seesaw as potential rivals for his throne. that came a few short years after he locked hundreds of the

most powerful people in -- and subjected them to torture and physical abuse. earlier this year, mbs and his government executed 81 people in a single, day as a show of force. there is of course the beetle -- brutal murder and dismemberment of jamal khashoggi, which u.s. intelligence agencies have concluded was approved directly and personally by mbs. let's not forget the saudi military siege and bombardment of yemen, where mbs has spent years depriving people of food, clean water, and medicine, in his war with the rebels. if all of that is not enough to convince state this guy is a bad guy, take president joe biden's own word for it. here he is at a democratic presidential debate in 2019. >> president trump has not punished senior saudi leaders. would you? >> yes, and i said at the time, jamal khashoggi was murdered

and dismembered, and i believe by the order of the crown prince. i would make it clear, we are not going to sell more weapons to them, we are going to make them pay the price and make them the pariah that they are. >> even by saudi standards, mohammad bin salman is a truly brutal ruler. the worst of the worst. why is president biden heading to saudi arabia tomorrow to hold a bilateral meeting not just with the saudi arabian king, who was reportedly isolated and in ill health. but also the defect -- when asked about the meeting, why would president biden not commit to bringing up his murder in that meeting? and why after explicitly saying during the presidential campaign that he would not sell weapons to saudi arabia? why did it is the biden administration discussing lifting a ban to sell offensive

weapons to the saudis? whatever we get from this meeting, maybe a slight fall in gas purses, is it really selling -- the people of yemen, and our yemen, and our

millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network, with the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction. that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get unlimited data with 5g included for just $30 a line per month when you get 4 lines. georgia's election cycle is on switch to xfinity mobile today.

track to be one of the most expensive in state history, and democrats have an advantage thanks in large part to state republicans and unintended consequences. last, year republicans passed a law that allows leadership committees to fund-raise without limits, in the hopes of getting brian kemp a head start in fund raising for the second term. democrats have been taking advantage of this quite successfully. this week, democratic senator warnock disclose that he raised 17 point $2 million in the last three months. more than double the hall of his republican challenger, herschel walker. as the democratic nominee for governor stacey abrams raises 22 million in two months, well ahead of brian kemp.

challenges in secretary of state, state attorney general, are also raising incumbents. democratic candidates are the only ones with working with bigger budgets in the election cycle. this week, a group of black clergy in georgia unveiled faith works, a project with an initial budget of 2. 6 -- more than 1000 charges statewide. it is their response to the new voting law that restricts absentee ballots in dropbox is, and other provisions that usually affect voters of color. the initiative gives small grants to churches to give existing efforts like souls to the polls, and phone banking. they also hope to hold social media campaigns to help people navigate the challenges created by georgia's new voting law. it is a new look for an old fights, that black churches have taken on before. these leaders, who have dubbed themselves the faith adventures, acknowledge that it has gone that much harder. here is why bishop reginald

jackson told the new york times. quote, faith leaders across the state worked ourselves to a frenzy to make sure that we got out the vote in 2020. we have to work doubly hard to overcome the barriers put in place now for the 2022 election. bishop jackson joins me now. in the state of georgia, and as i mentioned, a founding leader of faith works. black churches have a long history tied to mobilizing around voter rights. what made faith works decide to take it in this direction with fundraising, and an operation center? >> the fact of the matter is that following the 2020 election, they had a way to punish blacks because of a large turnout, in georgia and other states. a similar registration to make it harder for blacks and people of color to vote. in response, we found a way to

make sure our papal got informed and mobilized, and organized to vote. that is what this seems to be about. this is a historic time in our nation, when our democracy is at risk. in these times, it demands unprecedented actions, that's what faith works is. >> bishop, georgia saw a record turnout for its primary elections in may. a lot of people argued that, see, voting restrictions, and the new voting law is not stopping people from turning. out how do you stop that argument? >> the fact of the matter, there was a record turnout in early voting not because of, but in spite of s b 202. we worked extremely hard to make sure that we got people out to vote during early voting. we wanted to send a message that blacks are resilient people.

the more that you tell us about where we can't do, we will try to make it -- the more determined that we are going to be to do it. and so those who say that this demonstration was not as damaging as it was said, that is absolutely not true. the fact of the matter is, we had to work ahead to get the vote out, and additionally, see what happens in november of this year. >> quick last question, we've got 30 seconds left. the times reports that your group held a call with the adjusted ag for civil rights. what's supporter you getting from the doj, if any? >> our concern was that the justice department had to look at actors publicly known by the rnc, to target democratic and minority voting areas indifferent states across the six or seven targeted battleground states. we want to make sure that there is no inappropriate legal

action to make sure it is harder to vote. >> bishop reginald jackson, one of the founding leaders of faith works, thank you so much for joining us tonight. we appreciate it. >> that does it for us tonight, we will see you again tomorrow, and i will see you on my show over on peacock and unsigned a nights on msnbc. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. we watching sunday night. thank you, i appreciated. the breaking news of the night, the news is that the secret service has destroyed evidence that is essential to the investigation of the january 6th attack on the capitol. let me repeat that. yes, the secret service has deliberately destroyed evidence involving the january 6th attack on the capitol. that was revealed by the