state of alabama, that proved to be too much. it actually went too far. so, it's not like the rubber band can stretch forever. the question now, in georgia is, how far can a stretch and that's what we will be watching. jelani cobb, thank you very much. >> thank you. much thank you very much. >> thank you. that is all in on this tuesday night. msnbc prime starts right now. good evening. >> e hey, good evening to you, chris.ni thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. you probably won't hear him talk this way again, but i want to play this for you. this was what the top house republican kevin mccarthy said on live television back on january 6th 2021 as the attack on the capitol was unfolding in realtime. >> i have spoken to the president. i asked him to talk to the nation to tell them to stop this. i told him he needs to talk to the nation. i was very clear with the president when i called him. this hasen to stop and he's goto

go to the american public and tell them to stop this. >> he has to go to the american public and stop this.me kevin mccarthy was not the only republican callings on donald trump to put an end to the violence that day. we learned 11 other republicans congresswe reached out to the white house or made some kind of public statement that day to implore the president to do something, to do anything to stop the violence. in fact, his eldest son, don jr. texted then white house chief of staff mark meadows saying, he's got to condemn this asap. the capitol police tweet is not enough. and he has to lead now.as it has gone too far. and gotten out of hand. three different fox news hosts sean hannity, laura ingram, brian, all of them, all texted meadows saying trump needed to make a statement telling people to leave. that is what we know was

happening outside of the white house during the 187mens from trump's speech on the ellipse urging supporters to fight like hell andel when he finally released a video telling the rioters, quote, go home. we love you. you're very special. what we still don't know is what was happening inside the white house at that time. and we have learned some details about what was going on around the president that day from former white house staffer cassidy hutchinson. but it looks like we are about to learn a whole lot more because on thursday, the january 6th investigation is about to hold its next hearing to discuss what happened inside trump's white house during those crucial 187 minutes. nearly three hours. we learned that benny thompson tested positive for covid, but the committee says thete hearin

will go on without him. the live witnesses of thursday's hearing will be two former white house staffers. sarah matthews and deputy national security adviser matthew pottinger both resigned by thead way from the trump whi house on that day. now, wewh don't know yet exactl what they plan on saying. but we have gotten a preview of what their testimony might look like from depositions played at previous hearings in the committee. in fact, here is what thursday's witnesses told the committee aboutes the key moment when dond decided to ignore the on going and violent attack on the capitol and instead tweeted out about how his vice president, mike pence, quote, didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done. >> we all talked about at that point how it was bad and the situation was getting out of hand. we thought the president needed to tweet something and tweet something immediately. then i remember getting a

notification on my phone. we all got a notification. so, we knew it was a tweet from the president. and we looked down and it was a tweet about mike pence. >> one of my staff brought me a printout of a tweet by the president. and the tweet said something to the effect mike pence, the vice president, didn't have the courage to do what should have been done. i read that tweet and made a decision at that moment to resign. that's where iat knew that i wa leaving that day once i read that tweet. >> all right. are the two witnesses that we will hear from on thursday in what was supposed to be the final january 6th

hearing. i sayas supposed to here to be e final one becauseos the january 6th investigation now appears to be contemplating holding additionalbe hearings. heremp is how politico describe today as new material pours in and a potential second round of hearingsnt gets slated for the fall, this week looks more like a season finale than a series ender. ande today we got new informatn about the unfolding scandal around textth messages sent by e secret service on january 6th. textce messages that were, eras after they were requested by congress and a government watchdog. today was the deadline for the secret service to hand those messages over to the january 6th committee. these j missing text messages which could conceivably shed light on trump's actions and movements that day and either support or rebutte cassidy hutchinson's testimony that trump got in a heated argument with secret service detail and

be demanded he be driven to the capitol. those text messages could also give insight into mike pence's interactions with his security detail and the vice president's refusal to get into his armored limousine and evacuate the capitol. butmo the secret service determined it has no new text messages to turn other to the committee, believe it or not and anything it has not already turned over has in all likelihood been erased following what it described as a routine, pre-scheduled technology upgrade. they were still attempting a forensic search this morning but they were probably not recoverable. the national archives opened its own investigation into this matter and the national archives is investigating the troves of sensitivees white house documen that somehow wound up in trump's florida home after his presidency. the national archives is now also demanding that the secret providing answers

about the troves of deleted text messages from the days around the capitol attack. the archives is giving the secret service 30 days to provide answers about how and why these messages were deleted and notwh backed up. so with new information, new investigationsne popping up almt everyday, the big question is what should we expect to see next? joining us now is politico congressional reporter nicholas wu. thank you so much for joining us. i should note you are one of the reporters byline onld this stor about the national archives demanding answers from the secret service. what can you tell us about that? and what does the national archive hope to get that congress can't? >> the archives, you remember, is the caretaker of all of these records for the federal government. and the fact that they've taken an interest in this particular matter goes to show that they think something is up

potentially with the disappearance of these messages. so that's why as we reported today the archives under federal law notified the secret service that they had 30 days to tell them what happened to these messages if they were improperly deleted to explain how that happened. now, as we reported in that story, the secret service told us that they actually do still have all these phones. despite this earlier reporting about going away as part of a device replacement program. they're going to try to recover them from the phones, but there wasn't a lot of hope they would be able to do so. what has your reporting indicated about the committee's reactions so far to today's news? have they given any kind of reaction behind the scenes to how all of this is playing out? >> committee members are mostly tight lipped about it when we today, em about it although we can expect some kind of response from them in the coming days, especially as they

process this information. we know the committee has taken an interestno in this aspect of the investigation because of what you mentioned earlier, what the secret service might be able to talk to about trump that day, with their protection of the vice president and also the secret service's protection of then vice president kamala harris who you will remember was at the dnc as the pipe bomb threat was discovered and as she was being protected by the secret service. and so, this is all part and parcel of how these january 6th committee is trying to put all of this together. >> one of the interesting points was that early on in this process, nicholas, the committee actually managed to subpoena the phone records directly from phone companies. iss there any reason to believ they could do the same to retrieve these text messages? or are secret service communications on a completely different system that is not subject to these types of subpoenas? >> it's ase little more unlikel

they would be able to get the messages from the phone companies. so, basically early on the subpoenas went out for the phone records from individuals related to the investigation. and the committee stressed in a lot of their litigation related to these subpoenas that they weren't seeking messages. that they solely wanted records. partly becausele of the legal concernss. trying to go over th messages themselves would be. and that's why a lot of the messages that we have seen so far presented in the hearings came from former white house chief of staff mark meadows, for example. and the secret service, it's a famously opaque agency. right? i tried doing a foye ya of the secret service, for example, of documents related to their protection of vice president-elect kamala harris on january 6th. including messages. i got basically none.

>> you and your colleague nicholas cheney reported that the committee, in fact, extended its time line for the investigations. we were under the impression that they wereio trying to wrapt up and you write in part, quote, the only hard deadline they say is january 3rd, 2023 when republicans likely take over thk house. do you expect there will be more hearings to present new evidence? or are we just expecting more hearings later in the year when they release their final report? >> we can definitely expect hearings around the release of the final report. members have talked about that fors some time. whether or not they'll do more in the interim, i think it depends on what kind of evidence forward. the cassidy hutchinson testimony you'll remember was an emergency hearing. so committee members i've talked to have reserved the right basically to do something like that again if evidence of that magnitude were to emerge, if you had another cassidy hutchinson-level witness. >> looking ahead to tomorrow,

two important notes, it's happening in primetime. expect a large audience. that should tell us something. have your sources, nicholas, on the committee given you a sense of what we should expect in thursday's hearing given the platform that it is going to be held in? and what new information might these two witnesses have? >> well, with regard to the witnesses, congress woman elaine gloria, one of the two lawmakers leading tomorrow was asked about theke witnesses today and she sd matthew pottinger, former security official, would be able to talk to how he was someone who really believed in the work that he was doing in the trump white house but he did not believe the election was stolen. as for sarah matthews, she would be able to speak to what was going on in the white house at the time. so we can expect the committee to use them to try to piece together these remaining bits whathe exactly was happening in the white house during those roughly threen hours from

beginning of the attack until trump told the rioters to leave. but moving to the bigger picture, the -- what the committee is likely to do with this hearing is try to get into trump's mind at the time of the attack. committee members stressed how they really want to figure out what exactly was in trump's mind as he, for example, put out his tweet attacking mike pence. what was -- why -- when did the white house- figure out there s violence going on? when did the white house know the capitol was breached. we can expect them to fill in a lot of these blanks tomorrow. >> actually we'll fiend out and i apologize i said tomorrow and you're saying tomorrow but it's actually thursday on primetime. i know the news days are all blending in together these days, nicholas. apologies on that. thank you so much, my friend. good to see you. political congressional reporter nicholas wu, thank you for your time tonight.ch as the house select committee prepares for what could be the most important hearing on the f january 6th attack today, federal t

prosecutors opened their criminal case in the trial of trump's former chief of staff, former chief strategist steve bannon. he was indicted last year on two counts of contempt of congress for defying a subpoena issued by the january 6th committee. doj lawyer amanda vaughn said during her opening statement today that bannon defied the order from congress because he decided he was above the law. thed defendant prevented the government from getting the important information it needed about what happened on january 6th and how to make sure it didn't happen again, she said. that, ladies and gentlemen, ignoring a legal order, a subpoena from the united states government, from congress, that is a crime. bannon's lawyers said his client didn't comply because the dates were subject to negotiation, end quote, flexible. if convicted bannon could face up to one year in prison for

each of the two counts he faces, up to two years. fulton county district attorney fani willis investigating trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 elections in georgia informed all of the 16 republicans who served as fake electors for trump in that state that theyrs are now considered targets of her investigation, meaning they could actually face criminal charges for their actions. now, willis' determination was made clear in a court filing that she introduced contesting h legal effort by the republican state senator who is trying to disqualify her from leading this probe. jones, a fake elector we should note who is currently running for lieutenant governor in georgia is one of the targets. lisa monaco said at a cyber security conference here in new york that the justice department's investigation into efforts by trump and his allies

to toverturn the 2020 election won't be deterred if the former president declares his intention to run again. this is important to emphasize here because this comes really in the wake of some significant and multiple reports suggesting thatip trump might soon declare his intention to run again in 2024 in an attempt to shield himself from prosecution. monaco's remarks also came, of o course, just hours after rachel hear on this show last night presented a copy of a memorandum attorney general mairk garland sent backat in may saying specifically that in essence, no one was allowed to investigate anyone connected to a presidential candidate without his expressed permission. joining us now is former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama and co-host of the sisters in law podcast joyce vance. thank you for beingis here tonight. great to see you again. let me start by getting your

reaction to lisa monaco saying today what a lot of people want hear and know the doj will continue its investigation of trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election whether the former president runs in 2024 or not. how reassuring is that statement? >> so i find it to be very reassuring. i think this is a reaffirment of the speech that the attorney general made on january 5 when he saidge that the justice department would follow the evidence and chase the facts no matter who was implicated, no matter how high up they were. i took that at the time as a clear statement that the department would not flinch if it turned out to be the case that the former president was implicated for criminal conduct. i hear the deputy attorney ar general's statement today as being a reaffirment of that. a commitment that no matter what the former president's status becomes as a candidate, that doj will continue the work it has

begun. >> let me switch gears to the other big news today steve ban non's lawyers arguing today that because they were in contact with the january 6th committee, bannon understood the dates of his subpoena and deposition to be, ofquote, flexible. do you buy that as an argument? what should we make of that? >> so, i think the more important question is whether the jury will buy it? and prosecutors did a great job of setting this up in their opening statements today. they clarified for the jury what this case is about. it's aboutis someone who set himself up above the law and decided he didn't have to comply with the subpoena. prosecutors will show the jury that ecsubpoena. it will be for a date certain. it won't have anything to do with, you know, on going negotiations after the date for testimony has passed and hopefully prosecutors will convince the jury that that subpoena means precisely what it says that mbannon, like any otr witness in front of a grand jurf

or a congressional proceeding, was required to show up when his testimony was called for. >> i feel like i ask you this question every time i speak to youqu but you said today you're hoping to see trumpt face the same kind of justice bannon is facing here. how likely is it that we are goingli to see attorney general merrick garland during his tenure file some kind of charge against donald trump for his role in the 2020 attempt to overturn our election? >> this is the question that we all struggle with. and you and i have talked about this a lot. the problem that we face as a country is the fact that the former president seems to have a real knack for eluding accountability. you know, committing acts of obstruction while he was the president, former business dealings. he seems to be very teflon coated when it seems held accountable seems clear that any other person would be held accountable for. that's why we're all frankly a

little jaded as we look at the investigation that it's increasingly clear that the justice department is conducting the evidence that the january 6th committee is presenting on an on going, on a rolling basis, makes it more and more incumbent upon the justice department to act. although none ofep us knows whe doj will land and what the future holds, it seems to me we're watching them amp up their presence, amp up the sort of information they're gathering and this evidence increasingly leads to only one conclusion, and that's that the former president engaged in criminal conduct around the big lie and january 6th. l it's doj's job to hold him accountable. i have to believe that we still live in a country where that's possible. >> last night i'm sure you saw rachel showed a copy of an election s sensitivities memo tt garland sent to doj employees back in may pretty much saying no one is allowed to investigate anyone connected to a

presidential candidate without his permission. i know you have cid thoughts on this. what might they be? >> so i think it's really understandable that seeing a bar memo being carried over into thisei administration would rai alarm, butto i don't have that level of concern around this memo. careerce prosecutors know that you want to open any investigation of this nature, you've alreadyny got to go throh somethingot called the public integrity unit up in main justice in washington, d.c. for prior permission and approval. and that's not just to check the box kind of approval. prosecutors t for and the folks in main justice to have a back and forth, to talk about the b evidence to make su that allegations are really providing a strong basis for opening a case. so, what this memo does is it's actually more protective of candidates and campaigns. there's no political bias in this memo. it simply adds to those already

existing requirements. the requirement that the attorney general be in the loop and that he or she as well have to look over the evidence and at the point where a case is being opened, that they're involved in that decision-making process. it seems to me that this is more restoration of rule of law and doj is back to business as usual than anything else. i've heard folks say that, well, this sortea of memo could be us by a future attorney general who is not as scrupulous as merrick garland in a really bad malicious way. that's true, if we have an attorney general in the future who is inclined to behave that way, whether thiswh memo is in place or not, they'll certainly do whatever it is that they're intent upon doing. for now, this signals to me as someone who has been involved in over 25on years at doj with thi sort of on going election work that the commitment remains in place that doj's job is not to interfere with elections. doj conducts its investigations

in a way that's respectful of american voter's right to determine the outcome of elections. and you'll remember, one of the real problem at the end of the trumpe administration was trum trying to corrupt doj and going to the acting attorney general rosen who told him persistently there is no fraud here. trump said just say there's corruption and i'll take it from there. don't worry if there's really evidence. you just say it and i'll keep going. this is the kind of memo that keeps a president from corrupting doj in that sense. it keeps the president from going to some sort of rogue actors. this is, i think, ultimately good but doj has a lot of work to do when it comes to helping the public regain confidence in their operations and explaining the processes that they go through so that we can have that confidence. >> former u.s. attorney for the northern district of alabama and co-host of "the sister's in law

podcast" joyce vance, always a pleasure. thank you so much. democrats in congress today went on the offensive and forced republicans to go on the record with their stance opposing the majority of t american's views key issues. oh, and in a related story, more than a a dozen members of congrs were arrested today. we'll tell you about that next. . we'll tell you about that next

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! 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) ♪ 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. our body. >> our choice. >> our body. >> our choice. >> can i have your attention, please b advised you are currently participating in illegal demonstration activity. cease and desist or you will be arrested. >> earlier today more than a dozen members of congress you saw there marched from the u.s. capitol building to the supreme court joining a crowd of demonstrators protesting against the abortion ban states are

enforcing since the supreme court overturned roe last month. after officers warned the protesters, as you heard in that video, including members of congress, to cease and desist, those lawmakers they sat down the middle of the street chanting we won't go back. and at that point police began to make arrests. they arrested a total of 35 protesters, including 17 members of congress. democrats like congresswoman barbara lee, maloney, ilhan omar and more than a dozen others were escorted out one by one. this demonstration really comes just days after the house passed two bills aimed at protecting women's autonomy and the right toon abortion. one bill codified roe into law and the other protected the right to interstate travel to seek an abortion. the bills, though, are not expected to pass the evenly-split senate. but despite all of the legislative roadblocks, democrats are trying in the

keyword here is trying to find ways to do something to protect the fundamental rights that are under threat and also put republicans on record opposing them. in response to the concurring opinion justice clarence thomas wrote last month calling into question the right to same sex marriage. congress voted today to codify the right to same sex marriage and interracial marriage with the respect for marriage act. the bill passed with bipartisan support, 47 republicans joined all democrats in voting yes. and despite that broad support and the very clear language in justice thomas' concurring opinion, some republicans, like congressman mike johnson and jim jordan, they called the bill unnecessary and sue per flew wous, one of the cosponsors of the marriage bill responded. >> and to mr. jordan's suggestion that this is not necessary, tell that to the millions of lgbtq families worried about the supreme

court's intention to rip away more freedoms. they have taken away the freedom to reproductive care, hinted at taking away contraception and justice thomas look at marriage equality. this is real for families. >> and there is more coming tomorrow. the house judiciary committee will mark up a bill ban assault weapons for the first time since the federal assault weapons ban expired back in 2004. if that bill passes committee, it can go to the house floor. so, in this moment, with many items on the democratic agenda stymied in congress, there are plenty of questions about what dems can do and should do with the limited power they have to get things passed. and this week we're seeing democrats in congress pushing to do something. one of the leading democrats involved in putting these bills on the floor and putting republicans on the record on these key issues joins me next. g republicans on the record on these key issues joins me next

and this week we're seeing and this week we're seeing

this is xfinity rewards. our way of showing our appreciation. with rewards of all shapes and sizes. [ cheers ] are we actually going? yes!! and once in a lifetime moments. two tickets to nascar! yes! find rewards like these and so many more in the xfinity app.

so tomorrow the house judiciary committee will consider the first assault weapons ban put before congress in decades. and this bill would ban the sale, the transfer, the import and manufacture, manufacture several models of semiautomatic weapons and has a real chance of actually making its way to the house floor. joining us now is the congressman who cosponsored that bill, congressman david sis leeny, democrat on rhode island chairs the congressional lgbtq plus equality caucus.

congressman, thank you so much for joining us tonight. you're taking a step towards getting an assault weapons ban passed in the house tomorrow for the first time in decades and that should be commended. democrats in the house have been very busy passing other legislation to protect the rights to things like marriage and abortion. my question to you tonight, sir, what do you say to people who might claim the legislative work that the democrats are doing in the house is symbolically important but is not enough considering the inability to actually pass the legislation in the senate? >> well, thank you for having me on tonight. look, the house is going to continue to do its work and we have been very focussed on a whole range of issues driving down the costs for working families, addressing a climate issues, addressing the surge of gun violence, making sure people have rights to marry and contraception. so we have a lot of legislation which is pending in the senate. and we're always challenged by the rules of the senate that

require ten republicans to join us in this work. but the house democrats will continue to do what we do and that is deliver for the american people, bring the priorities to the american people before the congress vote and pass excellent bills and get them to the senate. we're responsible for our work. they're responsible for their's. and if the standard only going to pass things we know the senate will pass, many of us who feel we could go home because we have so many great pieces of legislation that are languishing in the senate, but we're going to continue to respond to the urgent priorities of the american people, get our work done, pass good appropriations bills, good infrastructure bills, gun safety bills and we'll expect the senate to do their work as well. >> yeah. and that's fair enough. i think that's a very valid point that the vision of labor between the house and the senate but even if the senate does not have the votes to pass the bills that the house is passing, is it important, do you think it is important to proceed and put the votes on the record? >> oh, absolutely. look, these votes matter because

we are fighting to protect our constituents from gun violence. we're fighting to protect our constituent's ability to marry the people they love to have access to full reproductive healthcare including abortions services, to have access to contraceptives. so these are really important issues. we're going to continue to focus on the important priorities of the american people, to help rebuild the economy to recover from the devastation of the pandemic, to defeat ultimately the pandemic so people can resume their normal lives. we're doing a lot of things simultaneously. all of them are important. and i think in some of these situations it's important for the american people to see who is fighting to protect their freedoms, who is fighting to take away those freedoms who is fighting to preserve reproductive health care who is against it so that in november people will have a clear choice and know where people stand. we hope the senate will take up all these bills and pass them. it will make a real difference in the lives of the american people. we don't have control over that. we're going to keep doing the

important work of the house sending it to the senate and giving the american people an understanding that we're fighting for them. >> let me ask you if i can for a moment about the actual assault weapons ban. there have been -- there has been excuse me some question about whether democrats actually have enough votes in the full house to pass the assault weapons ban. what is your understanding this evening? do democrats, in fact, have the votes in the full house? >> well, look, we'll mark up the bill tomorrow the first time in almost 30 years we have taken up the assaults weapons ban, weapons of war designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible to be used in military combat. they don't belong in the neighborhoods of our cities. the last four mass shootings included these -- the legal purchase of assault rifle. so we know when we had the assaults weapon ban in effect there was a 25% decline in gun massacres and 40% decline in fatalities. we know the assault weapon ban

works. so i am confident that after it passes out of the judiciary committee, when it comes to the house floor we will have the votes to pass it and send it to the senate. it's going to make a real difference in the lives of the american people. we have a gun violence epidemic. this is the gun of choice for mass shooters. they're particularly lethal because they're military-style weapon. we have got to do something to stop the use of these weapons massacring kids in schools and people in grocery stores and people at theaters and places where people congregate. >> rhode island democratic congressman david cicilline, sir, thank you for your time. i really appreciate it. britain had its hottest day ever today. that story and what it means for us here in the u.s. is next. whr us here in the u.s. is next.

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. you see the light gray rectangle here that those construction guys are filling in? that is the spot on the tarmac at london airport in london that literally melted and had to be repaired yesterday because of how hot it was. today was actually even hotter. this is footage of what the mayor of london called a huge surge in fires today as the uk had its hottest day ever recorded. and this was the view out of the window of a passenger train traveling northwest from madrid, spain, yesterday. you can see the fire caused by europe's intense heat wave is on both sides of the tracks as the train passed through. much of western europe has been

literally scorched for a week now with record-breaking temperatures. tens of thousands have been forced to evacuate their homes and terrifyingly this is part of a larger global extreme heat phenomena, baking essentially the entire globe in a wave that might no longer be correct to describe as a wave. it's more like the new normal for summers. and perhaps the most devastating part is the impact it is having on our health, on human health. the uk meteorological office for the first time ever issued what is known as a red alert for exceptional heat this week. that means even otherwise healthy people could be susceptible to illness and death from this heat. in spain and portugal alone, health officials linked more than 1,700 deaths to the overwhelming heat, which makes it all the more notable in a country like france, suffered the same heat wave, zero heat wave deaths have been reported. after suffering thousands of deaths back in 2003, france has

gotten really serious and proactive about combatting heat. parks stay open 24/7 and have misting mountains set up to help cool down the government. the government checks in on the elderly and the vulnerable and have public air-conditioning or cooling rooms. an app shows you where you can find one. free access to swimming pools which are open everyday until 10:00 p.m. now obviously none of those solutions alone are a silver bullet to our climate crisis, cities in the u.s. do a lot of those things here on their own, but clearly being proactive and using the power of the government helps to save lives. which is why this is so infuriating. during president biden's first week in office he signed an executive order directing the establishment of office of climate changes and health equity to look at how climate change impacts human health and suggest ideas for mitigating that impact daily.

the whole office was slated to only cost the federal government a grand total of, wait for it, $3 million to run. which compared to the federal government's overall spending is basically like normal person spending a penny quite honestly. and yet a year and a half after biden's executive order congress still, still till this day despite everything that is happening has not funded that office at all. they have zero funding and zero permanent staff. today we got some conflicting reports about whether or not biden may declare a national emergency on climate change. maybe biden will do that. maybe he won't. here in the u.s. more than 68 million people live in areas where there were dangerous levels of heat. so with the climate crisis here and congress refusing to act, what can, what should president biden do? joining us now is leah stokes, professor of political science and environmental science at the

university of california santa barbara and adviser to the climate activist's group and rewiring america and host of climate podcast a matter of degrees. leah, thank you for joining us tonight. i'll start with looking ahead to tomorrow. president biden is reportedly going to announce some sort of executive action on climate change. we don't necessarily know what that will look like. if you were in his shoes, if you could advise him, what would you announce? what should he be doing? >> well, look, when we say that congress won't act, that's not exactly true. it's senator manchin, it's within democrat, as well as, of course, 50 other senators from the republican party who are refusing to act on climate change. that's really what we are talking about. we have hundreds of representatives from the democratic party in the house willing to act and 49 senators from democratic party in the senate willing to act. so that's the situation we find ourselves in. and president biden needs to use the full force of his executive authority. there's one thing that i think

he really should do is he should block a permit for a pipeline that runs through west virginia, that senator manchin really wants to be approved. he won't do the right thing for the planet and own grandchildren, he should not get that permit for that pipeline. >> no, fair enough. that's a very good way to look at it. you bring up senator joe manchin. he has yet begun some democratic efforts to pass meaningful climate action in congress. this is maybe the fourth or fifth time he has putted the lucy from charlie brown and pulled the football back just before democrats can kick it. can you help us understand why prolonging this is a pro problem in and of itself? >> absolutely. senate manchin keeps saying he wants to do something on climate change, yet it never materializes. what senator schumer did, the majority leader, he gave him

last week every that manchin wanted and he walked away. senator schumer called his bluff. you're not serious on doing this on climate change. that's why president biden has been so delayed on the actions we desperately needs him to do on climate change. i think we'll see him acting in the coming days and weeks. >> you ended an op-ed saying the climate crisis is getting worse and congress is one vote short of saving us. we have to save ourselves. what do you mean by that? what do you mean we have to save ourselves? >> well, i think it's two things. first of all, in our daily lives we should all be looking at the things we own that run on fossil fuels, our cars, stoves, furnaces and asking ourselves how can we get an electric vehicle or electric bike, an induction stove or heat pump, there are things that each of us can be doing to reduce our

dependence on fossil fuels. that makes a lot sense because it's a lot cheaper when you're not dealing with all the inflation that's happening around fossil fuels. the second thing is we also need to be working as a community to keep ourselves cool. there's actually 100 million americans today who are under extreme heat. and there are 60 million americans under extreme drought, the worst in a millennium. all need to push our politicians at the state level, the local level and still keeping on when it comes to president biden and congress that, you know what, we must act on climate change. >> leah stokes, professor at the university of california santa barbara and adviser to the climate activist group evergreen action. thank you so much for your time and warning. one of biggest stories last week turned out to be blatantly, provably wrong if not out right false. now it is looking like at least one conservative who was pushing that fake story could face

consequences. we'll tell you about that next. e e consequences just like we will. join the fight at alz.org/walk we'll tell you about that nextt. ah, my toes! turns out, it is hard walking a mile in someone else's shoes. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. i gotta go, ah. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage, go with the general. do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.

we have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report. so, we're gathering the information. we're gathering the evidence as we speak. and we're going to fight this to the end. looking at her licensure. if she failed to report, in indiana it's a crime to intentionally not report. >> that was indiana's republican attorney general threatening to criminally charge the indianapolis doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old girl who traveled across state lines to end a pregnancy that was the result of a rape. now for the record, abortion is currently legal in indiana, few red states can seek an abortion. the abortion performed for that little girl was totally legal.

the crime here, attorney general alleges is that the doctor may have failed to file the necessary paperwork. various news outlets showed dr. bernard did indeed report the abortion to the necessary agencies and despite this the website has a statement pushing his baseless claims. today the dr. bernard took the first step towards potentially suing the indiana attorney general for defamation, a notice filed climbs he knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the statements. dr. bernard's lawyer adds given the current political atmosphere in the united states, his comments were intended to heighten public condemnation of dr. bernard who legally provided legitimate medical care. today he has 90 days to investigate or settle claims made against dr. bernard but if he fails to do so, he could face

a defamation lawsuit and potentially have to pay dr. bernard for security costs, legal fees, reputational harm and emotional distress. 90 days. tick tock, tick tock. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire coming up next. ♪♪ >> whether they were destroyed because of negligence or willfully we have yet to determine. but there's a very strong conflict what we're hearing from the department of homeland security, inspector general and what the secret service is telling the public. an extremely disappointing development for the january 6th committee. it will not get the new text messages from the secret service from the days leading up to and the day after the january 6th capitol attack. and now the agency's explanation for the lost data sounds more suspicious based on a new timeline presented from lawmakers. also,