grand jury to tell exactly what he said to donald trump, and what donald trump said to have. >> danya perry, matt miller, thank you both. that is all in on this thursday night. i'm gonna be back here this weekend with american voices, at 6 pm eastern. msnbc prime starts right now with mehdi hassan. good evening, mehdi. msnbc prime starts right now. good evening. >> good evening, it feels like a sunday evening. good to see you. >> indeed. i love it. >> have a good night. >> it is thursday, not sunday night. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. we have breaking news about january 6th out just tonight. news about one of the key law enforcement agencies that has been the center of several january 6 hearings so far. tonight we are learning that the u.s. secret service erased text messages, sent by secret service officials, between january 5 and january 6 of last year, of 2021. that's according to a letter sent to congress by the inspector general for the department of homeland security.

a government watchdog that oversees the secret service. importantly, the letter says those text messages were erased after, after they were requested as part of an evaluation of what happened on january 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. it is important to note that the messages were erased only after they had been requested by the inspector general. and the inspector general also points out in this letter that her office has been repeatedly rebuffed while trying to obtain these records. a spokesman for the secret service responded to the release of this letter tonight, saying we take strong issue with these categorically false claims and he will be responding in detail shortly. well, it's been two and a half hours since that tweet and we have not seen a more full statement now from the secret service. you will recall that the secret service played a prominent role

in some of the most gripping testimony we have heard so mar about january -- so far about january 6. secret service agents relayed to her that president trump attacked an agent in the motorcade while trying to get them to drive limb to the capitol with the rest of the mob, something some secret service aepgts tried to deny off the record, after that testimony went public and have yet to come forward and testify about it on the record. and we also know from the testimony of a top aide to former vice president mike pence that the then vice president actually refused to get into a car with members of the secret service during the capitol attack because he thought they might take him away from being able to carry out his duties to count the electoral college votes at the capitol. now we are learning that key records from that time have essentially vanished. under circumstances at least have the appearance of a potential coverup. tonight, the chair of the january 6 committee told axios

that the committee will attempt to reconstruct those 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 tonight. joining us now is the investigative reporter for the "washington post" who has done some of this preeminent reporting on the secret service, the author of "zero fail, the rise and fall of the secret service," carol, thanks for joining us tonight. let me start with the obvious question. what is your reaction to this story, you're somebody who knows the secret service more than most, erasing text messages? >> i have to tell you, my first reaction upon reading the inspector general's letter and our great team at the "washington post" getting a copy of it, too, is oh, my gosh, not again. the secret service has had a history of unpleasant or unflattering records sort of disappearing under cover of night, when they may contain anythings to questions that don't look so good for the service or don't look so good

for the current president at the time. that happened actually in regards to john f. kennedy's assassination. and i'll get to that in a minute. but after i made some calls, after i did some digging, after i began getting on the horn, what i heard was that the secret service has what they view as a completely reasonable explanation for why this valuable evidence did in fact likely disappear into the ether and that is this, if you will permit me just a moment. they had an agency-wide plan for more than several years to begin in january 2021, conveniently, or coincidentally, your choice, that is when they were going to replace outdated cell phones with a new system, a new contract, really. and that was supposed to have 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 general's office requested all of these telephonic documents, all of this communication, regards, and let me be clear, it's only texts that are lost forever. but it was not in the secret service's view after they got the request. they began transferring people to new phones, and staff, while there's a policy to back up your phones, because they contain critical important and must-preserve government communications, a lot of secret service personnel just don't back it up. >> i got a new phone recently and we had trouble backing up our stuff, as you do when you're switching iphones, but i'm no in the secret service and the inspector general does say, but

i'm not in the secret service and the inspector general does say in the letter, there have been attempts to rebuff her attempts to get some of these records. you mentioned that the agency has a history of these kind of, i don't know what we want to call it inconvenient episodes. you mentioned the kennedy era. >> yes, 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, disappeared from the secret service archives, at the same time that a committee that sort of replaced the warren commission if you will, a committee of congress was investigating the very high likelihood in a series of reports, that 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 the building.

and so that they were on alert long before they entered dealy 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 he was actually killed. >> we will have to see if history is repeating itself in terms of erasure of records. i would also note that some of those agents haven't turned up to the committee to rebutt cassidy hutchinson as they said they would. we appreciate you joining us with your latest reporting for the "washington post." thank you so much. >> it's my pleasure.

thank you. as we look at these various strands of the investigation into january 6, and what may become of them, it's worth thinking about 18 months ago when joe biden's nomination of merrick garland to be attorney general was being wildly celebrated as a deeply gratifying move, the whole bringing seriousness and stability back to the justice department, if you're into that sort of thing, but also the political and even moral satisfaction that came with the garland nomination, that was palpable, this was the guy republicans had refused a hearing for when president obama nominated him to the supreme court. and the republicans, to steal a supreme court seat. and the republicans, democrats, rubbing it in, and bold move, classy, and some wonder if giving the job of attorney general as a kind of consolation prize to merrick garland wasn't the best move, when what the country needed was an a. g.

ready and willing and able to prosecute and an attack on our democracy, including possibly prosecuting former president of the united states. to be clear, no one isn't disputed that merrick garland isn't an accomplished judge, a brilliant legal thinker and by all accounts a good guy, but as time has gone on, there is little sign that the justice department is preparing to prosecute anyone beyond the foot soldier that carried out the attack itself, the one exception when the deputy attorney general told cnn that the justice department was looking into the fake electors scheme in which donald trump and his allies tried to overturn joe biden's win by submitting fake elector certificates. and federal investigators carried out searches last month of trump attorney john eastman and jeffrey clark, who sought to have state legislators overturn the victories in various swing states. it is a start.

but as recently as yesterday, the chair of the january 6 investigate, investigation team says it is the only part that they have expressed interest in. it is not only me, cable news host, expressing frustration with the pace of the investigations. reportedly president biden is frustrated. he confided to his inner circle that he believed that former president trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted according to two people familiar with the comments. and while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to mr. garland, and he has said privately he wants him to act less like a ponder ous judge and more taking action with regards to january 6th. and it is written this week, that the garland justice department's 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 is also d.o.j. officials from the reagan and george h.w. bush administration going public this week with their insistence that the justice department must prosecute trump. and it is the january 6th committee member and chair of the house intelligence committee democratic congressman adam schiff. >> i certainly think that we have more than enough evidence to begin an investigation of the former president. and and while they ultimately believe that they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, i think it is too early to say but i certainly believe 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" reports this week, the explosive

testimony from cassidy hutchinson jolted top justice officials into discussing donald trump culpability and the january 6th committee has said it referred a case of potential witness tampering who in the wake of cassidy hutchinson's testimony allegedly tried to call white house staff members. there is a lot of talk about how it would be unprecedented of the justice department to charge a former president trump but you know what else is unprecedented, that the former president might be the next president and to drive home that point today, donald trump started heavily, heavily hinning to reporters that he plans to announce another run for president this fall. possibly ahead of the midterm election. which among other things seems like a pretty naked attempt by trump to get the justice department to back off. and trump may be daring biden's justice department to indict a

declared presidential rival to joe biden. there may come a point and some say we have already reached it, when there will be so much evidence pointing to trump's criminal culpability it will simply be untenable for merrick garland to avoid investigating the former president direct limit especially as the list of possible crimes that trump could be charged with keeps growing. former federal prosecutor barbara mcquade has previously laid out a potential prosecution of trump on two charges, conspiracy to defraud the united states, and obstruction of an official proceeding. now, she's raised the possibility of yet another charge. one you might not have thought about. manslaughter. she writes on twitter, quote, i think a strong case could be made that trump committed five counts of manslaughter on january 6th by recklessly causing the unintended deaths of others. and she adds, quote, d.o.j., 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 of the university of michigan law school. it's great to see you. thanks for joining us. like many legal experts, you are of the view that trump should face charges of conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of an official proceeding, all of the election-related offenses, but now you have added five possible charges of manslaughter to that list. that's a pretty big deal. guide us through your trout -- thought process, how would you prosecute trump for manslaughter. >> i will be looking for the next january 6th meeting, the committee said they will focus on this idea of what was occurring at the white house during those three hours. the 187 minutes of inaction. it may be that the justice department is ultimately able to connect trump to the intentional attack on the capitol. but i think a manslaughter charge could be brought even if it was unintentional. even if he was not connected to the mob. you know, there's really three lems to proving a manslaughter

case. one is an actual omission. the second is causation. and the third is the requisite intent. and under the washington, d.c. district of columbia statute, it is really undue care. so it is really a gross negligence standard. and so during the time that donald 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 television 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 tennis didn't have the courage to do what -- mike pence didn't have the to your knowledge to do what he needed to do. and i think all of those things together could put together the elements of a manslaughter case. it has the tidiness of being a simple charge, easy to understand, it doesn't have all of the complexity of intent, people died and he could have stopped it and he failed to do that. that's a manslaughter case. >> i'm just going to pause for a moment there. it's a thursday night. and we're saying on live tv, discussing that the former president trump could be

prosecuted for manslaughter. what have we come to as a country? it's astonishing. let me ask you this though. the department of justice you made clear, have made clear in other shows, moving far too slowly. what do you think the d.o.j. should be doing? if you were the a. g., what would you be doing right now? >> well, i don't want to suggest that i know what's going on inside. there and it may 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 members of the oathkeepers and the proud boys, trying to connect up roger stone, donald trump and the others to the physical attack on the capitol. i think that is useful. i would think, after prosecuting and convicting steve bannon, i would put in the grand jury. there, if he tries his shenanigans of pretending he doesn't know, he can show up, or asserting executive privilege, he can be jailed for refusing to comply. he can be given use immunity. so he's not exempt from prosecution.

but he is exempt from having his statements used against him. but he would 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 they're not. i think they're smart. i think they're diligent. and i am hopeful that what we can't see doesn't mean it is not occurring. >> a good mix of praise and advice there for d.o.j. prosecutors. i do hope they're watching tonight and listening to you. thank you for taking time out. >> thank you. much more ahead here tonight, in just a moment, we will be joined by one of the members of the january 6 committee who will be leading the next public hearing. stay with us. e leading th e next public hearing. stay with us

i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too.

if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

did you see a ufo in that cloud? nope.

run! ♪ ♪ [ droning sound ] 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 those who will have a key part of the january 6th saga that we have not heard yet, what donald trump did and didn't do during the 187 minutes from when the mob stormed the capitol when he told them, go home, we love you, you're very special. elan luria will be co-leading the next hearing. thanks for joining us tonight. i want to start by getting your reaction to the breaking news we had tonight about the secret

service allegedly deleting text messages set on january 5th and 6th. and viewers hearing the story might think, it sounds like a coverup. >> well, i will say this, 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 6 the committee. it's critical that we have all of the government records, including these types of records that document 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 some time. >> 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 capitol, where you're standing right now, was being attacked? >> well, as you mentioned, we're going to focus on that 18 7 minutes so it is from the time 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 were in attendance thought he was going himself until the time at 4:17 p.m., which is the time that he be grudgingly went into the rose garden and gave an address to the nation. we look at that, and truly a dereliction of duty, he and the commander in chief, the only person whose duty in the constitution is clearly outlined to ensure that the laws of the nation are faithfully executed. he didn't to do that on that, he didn't do that on that day. and serving in the national guard, the fact, the oath that we take, to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, it is really significant. and coming from that perspective, and understanding, you know, what someone who is essentially in charge has a responsibility in this case, to ensure the safety of our nation, to ensure our laws are

implemented. he did nothing. he did not act. even at the urging of so many people around him. so we will go into a lot of detail about that time line. >> and your fellow committee member, congressman kinzinger says the committee has not ruled out attempting to get testimony from the former president and the former vice president. is that your understanding as well? and how would the committee if so go about trying to get that testimony, getting donald trump under oath, to be cross-examined by liz cheney, i would pay good money to watch video of that. >> well, i will reiterate two things that the committee has said all along. first, we don't talk specifically about future witnesses or people who have spoken to the committee and the second i woil will iterate what chairman thompson said at the very beginning, to go where the committee will go to get to the bottom and that hasn't changed since a year and a half ago when

the committee was formed. >> congresswoman, my last guest, i'm not sure i heard you, former prosecutor barbara mcquade was potentially making the case that donald trump could be charged with manslaughter with january 6th. what do you make of that? >> well, what i would say of her assessment, it is chilling that it could be, we could be even having that conversation with that type of allegation against someone who is formally a president of the united states. i'm not a lawyer. and she is. and i think she's studied this carefully. but what i would say is the bottom line about this is no one is above the law. so our investigation is putting the information out there, that we have found through our investigative work, a thousand witness, and you know, that information we know will be by the committee to prevent something like in the future and make recommendations but also merrick garland told us the department of justice is listening and so i hope they

will continue to pay close attention through this next hearing as well. >> so you mentioned merrick garland, that is the big question, where oh, where is merrick garland. adam schiff has repeatedly gone on camera to say we have given enough material to start a criminal investigation of the president himself. "the new york times" reported earlier this week that the d.o.j. is playing catch-up, they were shocked by the cassidy hutchinson testimony. they don't really talk about donald trump in their internal meetings. what do you make of the d.o.j.'s performance so far, if i can put it that way, the slowness that a lot of people in your party seem upset with? >> what i would say is that we don't, as a kms committee, have a lot of insight into where the department of justice is in the current investigation. it seems like it is ratcheting up in terms of going after these people, the domestic violence extremists who are charged now with seditious conspiracy, and we flow that they're listening, we know that they're watching and as an american i will have

faith in the fact that they will take the information that we are putting out there as a committee and act on it. no one is above the law. >> do you agree with congressman schiff that your committee has given the d.o.j. more than enough material to start the criminal investigation? >> i think, so and i have been asked a lot of times, what is the future prospect, some sort of criminal referral of the committee and i won't speak on behalf of the committee, we haven't decided whether we will do something personally like that and from my personal opinion, i think we have a duty with crimes to be committed, that we pass that on to the appropriate people. >> last quick question, we're out of time but i got to ask, is next week's hearing that is believed to be happening thursday night prime time is, that going to be last public hearing from the committee? there is talk of another one later in the summer. >> what i'll say the prospects of the hearings are not over until our investigation is complete, and it is certainly not complete. you see the short notice

scheduled hearing of cassidy hutchinson. people are still coming forward and we have been hearing from more people every day and we had a framework for the first series of hearings and there is certainly the possibility we will have information to present in the form of a hearing again after the one next week. >> congresswoman elaine luria, member of the january 6th committee. thank you for your time tonight. thank you. up next after trying to discredit a horrific story that turned out to be true, republicans are now revealing the truth where they really stand on abortion. stay with us. g the truth where they reall y stand on abortion. stay with us

80% of couples sleep too hot or too cold. because quality sleep is vital, the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, so you both stay cool. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. save 40% on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed queen now only $1,499.

i know there's conflicting information about dupuytren's contracture. i thought i couldn't get treatment yet? well, people may think that their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't. if you can't lay your hand flat on the table, talk to a hand specialist. but what if i don't want surgery? well, then you should find a hand specialist certified to offer nonsurgical treatments. what's the next step? visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started.

tomorrow marks three weeks since the supreme court handed down the decision in the case that overturned roe v. wade. on that evening, on jun 24th, a federal judge ruled ohio agency six week abortion ban which had been enjoined for 30 years could go into effect now that roe is overturned and with a stroke of pen abortion became illegal in the state of ohio. tough love if you want an abortion. and then a 10-year-old rape victim in a doctor's office, the child was six weeks and three days pregnant, and three days too late to get an abortion. in ohio, there is no exception for rape. so a 10-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 for her patient and that doctor said she could help and the young girl travelled to neighboring indiana and received the health care she needed. the 10-year-old's story made national headlines when the doctor in indiana who performed the abortion came forward to tell the 10-year-old story. she went on the record to share what happens when abortion is outlawed and the gut wrenching story caught the attention of president biden and he highlighted the case when signing an executive order aimed at protecting reproductive rights. like clock work, republicans and conservatives threw their arms in the air and declared it's not true. "the wall street journal's" editorial board published an op sed titled an abortion story too good to confirm. and the 10-year-old rape victim abortion leaves a number of glaring questions. republican congressman jim jordan of ohio tweeted, another

lie, anyone surprised? republican south dakota governor christie noem says it was literal fake news from the liberal media. republicans ran with the story. they were obsessed with it. as they declared this is just some made-up liberal talking point. but to republicans' great surprise, the terrible story turns out to be true. a 27-year-old man confessed to raping the child. and at least two occasions and 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, republicans want, this is what it looks like when you overturn roe v. wade, a 10-year-old rape victim will be forced to carry baby to term, without an abortion. and republicans know that to be true. they know it. and congressman democratic congressman eric swalwell drove

that point home in a house judiciary committee hearing on abortion today, questioning the republican anti-abortion witness. >> do you think a 10-year-old would choose to carry? >> in a 10-year-old case, first of all -- >> my question is, would a 10-year-old choose to carry a babe qui? focus on the baby. would a 10-year-old choose to carry a baby? >> i cannot -- >> do you think a 10-year-old could choose to carry a baby? >> i believe it would probably impact her life and so therefore it would fall under any exception that would not be an abortion. >> wait, it would not be an abortion if a 10-year-old with her parents made a decision not to have a baby that was a 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, so it would not fall under any

abortion restriction in our nation. >> you are familiar with disinformation? >> yes, i am. >> did you just hear some disinformation? >> yes, i heard some very significant disinformation. >> why don't you tell me about it. >> an abortion, it is a procedure, a medical procedure, that individuals undergo for a wide range of circumstances, including because they have been sexually assaulted, raped in the case of a 10-year-old, it doesn't matter whether or not there's statutory exemption, there 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 exception for the life or the health of the mother in the ohio law. that's why that 10-year-old had to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion. >> they may be trying to deny that a 10-year-old child being denied health care after being raped and getting an abortion, we know that is not true, because in essence this is the gop position now.

we are okay forcing a 10-year-old child to give birth after being raped. the attorney general said he is now looking into potentially prosecuting the doctor who provided the abortion and gathering evidence. joining us is an adjunct clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the stanford university of medicine. and we have been hearing argues by anti-abortion advocates that an abortion doesn't count as an abortion in certain circumstances, we heard that exchange where an activist tried to claim that in the case of a 10-year-old pregnant rape victim the pregnancy would probably impact her life and therefore it would fall under an exception and would not be an abortion. what do you make of this decision to redefine abortion in this way? >> well, thank you for having me on. i think i've watched and rewatched that clip countless times today, because the mental gymnastics that these people are

doing in their head in order to justify what is and isn't an abortion is just insane. and i can tell you, as an abortion provider, as someone who cares for people needing an abortion, that story out of ohio is not one of a kind. young people, children, need abortions sometimes, so that they can keep on being children. and you know, they may try to deny it but it happens because all of the different ways that we systematically fail people in this country. i, like many of my colleagues, were trained in complex family planning has seen young people seeking abortions and we would provide the same care this child was provided in ohio, unlike some legislators we don't cherry pick who we help. >> the ohio abortion ban that reportedly prompted the 10-year-old girl from ohio to travel for an abortion to indiana, it makes exceptions for the life of the mother in very narrow cases like pre-eclampsia,

diabetes, an inevitable miscarriage and other comparable medical darj dangers. the law does not make exceptions for rape or incest and given the narrow exception under that law, how could anyone argue that the law does not outlaw abortions for 10-year-old rape victims? >> again, i think the nuances that people think are protected in these laws are absurd. this is why abortion restrictions are harmful and this is why exceptions for abortion bans are meaning the, because let's take this example. if you are the parent of a 10-year-old who has just been raped and impregnate and heard that your state does not allow abortions after six weeks, you don't have time to dig through the weeds of the fine print exception and your energy and your focus is finding the person who did this to your child and getting her the fastest help

possible. >> one last question. the indiana attorney general told fox yesterday that he's going to investigate the doctor who provided the 10-year-old rape victim from ohio with an abortion. he suggested that doctor did not properly report the terminated pregnancy of a minor. we know she did report it to the indiana department of health 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 the procedures still? >> i think if you are in the realm of taking on the inherent risks, whether real or imagined, but this example is nothing but a sleight of hand. these people realize that they're focusing on the wrong theme here, they're focusing on the fact that rape is happening to children in their state and they are not helping people who are pregnant and don't want to be, and they are using this

case, this case as an example, and they're not fooling anyone. >> we'll have to leave it there. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. >> thank you. still ahead, how a law passed by republicans in georgia may end up benefitting democrats in november. and president biden made a few promises when he was running for president, and would he hold on to all of them? that story is next. on to all of them that story is next (woman) oh. oh! hi there.

you're jonathan, right?e 99! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage.

your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪

why is president biden going to visit a plan described as a killer and a psychopath? those are not my words by the way, the words of a former saudi spy chief describing muhammad bin sal man. >> 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, mbs detained members of his own family who he perceived as potential rivals to his throne, and that came a few short years after mbs locked hundreds of powerful saudi arabians in the ritz carlton and

subjected, them to abuse. and executed 800 people in a single day, in a show of force and the brutal dismemberment and murder of "washington post" reporter khashoggi which u.s. intelligence agencies has shown has been approved by mbs. and in yemen, mbs has spent years depriving many of food and clean water and medicine. if all of that is not enough to convince you that this guy is a bad guy, take president joe biden's own words. here he is as a democratic presidential debate in 2019. >> president trump has not punished senior saudi leaders. would you? >> yes, and i said at the time, khashoggi was in fact murdered and dismembered. and i believe in the order of the crown prince and i will make

it very clear, we were not going to in fact sell more weapons to them. we were going to in fact make them pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are. >> look, even by saudi standards, mbs a truly brutal ruler, the worst of the worst, why oh, why is president biden heading to saudi arabia to hold a bilateral meeting with the saudi arabian king who is said to be isolated and in ill felgt and the defacto ruler, his son. why when asked about the meeting by reporters, why would president biden not committee to bringing up khashoggi's meeting in that meeting? and why after explicitly saying during that presidential campaign that he would not sell weapons to saudi arabia, why is the biden administration discussing a ban on the u.s. selling offensive weapons to the saudis? whatever we are getting from this meeting, maybe, maybe a short fall in gas prices, is it really worth selling out the

family of jamal khashoggi, the people of yemen, and moral authority and values? is it? and moral authority and values is it?

georgia's election cycle is on track to be one of the most expensive in state history and democrats have an advantage based in large part due to state republicans and unintended consequences. last year, republicans passed a law that allowed leadership committees to fundraise without limits in hopes of giving the incumbent gop governor brian kemp a head start of fundraising for a second term but democrats have been taking advantage of this apparatus quite successfully. democratic senator rafael warnock said he raised $17.2 million in the last two months, and more than double herschel walker. as for democratic dom knee for governor, stacy -- nominee for governor stacey abrams, $22 million over the last two months, well ahead of brian kemp's coffers and secretary of

state and secretary general are outraising incumbents. working with bigger budges in this election cycle. this week a group of black clergy unveiled faith works, a project with a $2.6 million budget with a goal of coordinating get out the vote operations of more than a thousand churches statewide. it is their response to georgia's new voting law that restricting absentee ballots in drop boxes and averagely affects those of color, and it will give small grants to churches to help fund existing efforts like souls to the polls and they plan to have education programs and social media advertising campaigns, it is a new look for an old fight that black churches have taken on before, but these leaders who have dubbed themselves the faith avengers acknowledge that it has got than much harder. hear is what the bishop reginald jackson told "the new york times."

faith leaders across the state worked ourselves to a frenzy to make sure 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, ahead clergyman, overseeing churches in the state of georgia and a founding leader of faith works. bishop jackson, thank you for taking time for us tonight. black churches have had a long history trying to mobilize voting rights. and what made faith works decide to take it in this direction with fundraising, with an operation center? >> well, the fact of the matter, following the 2020 election, blacks were punished because of the large turnout, and sb-202 was passed in georgia and other states, with similar legislation, to try to make it harder for blacks and people of color to vote, and in response, we had to find a way to make sure that we bring our people to

be informed, mobilized and number three, organized. and that's what faith works seeks to be about. this is an historic time in our nation, when our very democracy is at risk. and these times, these times demand unprecedented action and that's what faith works is. >> so bishop, georgia saw record turnout for the primary election in may. and a lot of people just argued well, see, voting restrictions, the new voting laws, it is not stopping people from turning out. how do you respond to that argument, especially from the right? >> well the fact of the matter, there was record turnout in the early voting, not because of, but in spite of sb-202. faith leaders in georgia again, 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 and the more you tell us what we can't do, to try to make it harder for us to do, the more

determined we are going to be to do it. and so those who say this demonstrated that sb-202 was not as damaging as was said, that is absolutely not true. the fact of the matter is we have worked like heck to get the vote out, and additionally, we still have to see what happens in november of this year. >> quick last question. we've got 30 seconds left. the call with the agency for civil rights, what support are you getting from the d.o.j., if any? >> the justice department was asked to look at efforts publicly made by the rnc to target democratic and minority voting areas in different states across six or seven targeted battleground states. we want to make sure that there is no action to try to make it

harder to vote. >> bishop 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'll see you again tomorrow. and i'll see you on my show over on peacock, on sunday nights here on msnbc. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. palestinians and israelis deserve equal measure of freedom and security and dignity. and access to health care. when you need it is essential to living a life of dignity for all of us. >> that's president biden speaking from an east jerusalem hospital just moments ago after announcing new funding to support the palestinian people. he's now meeting with the president of the palestinian authority, and is set to deliver remarks just a short time from now. we'll be watching that, and we'll bring