mohyeldin, good evening ayman. hopefully we will continue to move, for it hopefully that is the ratio. hopefully that is th exactly. >> exactly. that ratio is sometimes in question. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. it was may of 2018, the pulitzer prize was announcing the year's awards for outstanding journalism of the year and they delivered this warning. >> on the political front, i think it is clear that the nation is facing the most serious internal attacks on the fundamental values and institutional structures that define a democracy since the pulitzers were introduced a century ago. then precisely to counter-act

problematic authoritarian tendencies throughout the society. >> now, that warning was followed by the announcement of that year's pulitzer prize for national reporting which went to "the new york times"or and the "washington post," for quote relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest on russian interference in the 2016 election,ru and its connectionso the trump campaign, the president-elect transition team, and his eventual administration. now that choice naturally drew the ire of then president donald trump, who did not stop complaining about the decision, even after he left the white house. it actually led the pulitzer board to open two separate independent investigations into the awarding of those prizes. and this week, the pulitzer board has announced the results of those investigations, and here is part of what they said. no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were

discredited by facts that subsequent to the con feral of the prizes. the 2018 pulitzer prize in national reporting stands. >> the pulitzer board stands behind the succession of thoroughly reported stories detailing russia's interference in the 2016 campaign. trump and his campaign's links to russia, trump's efforts to obstruct investigations into both. and this was the headline on one of those award-winning pieces of reporting. it's from "the new york times" dated in april of 2017, quote, comey tried to shield the fbi from politics. then he shaped an election. fbi director jim comey broke with longstanding justice department tradition back in 2016 when he twice, not once, but twice, publicly announced an investigation into hillary clinton's emails. d.o.j. policy that comey broke with was the justice department's rules around what's called election sensitivities.

every four years orca so, the justice department puts out this guidance, limiting what federal investigators can and should say publicly about candidates who are being investigated on the principle that these investigations should not interfere with our democratic process. donald trump was all too happy to seize on jim comey's decision to abandon that policy. during the fbi's investigation into hillary clinton back in 2016. but when the fbi opened its own investigation into donald trump, what did donald trump do? trump fired comey. and as trump sought re-election, his attorney general bill barr in february 2020, decided to issue a new election sensitivities policy, ordering that in addition to the standard rules, any new investigation of a presidential candidate must be cleareden by him. as rachel first reported on monday, attorney general merrick garland has issued his own

election sensitivities memo which continues barr's 2020 policy that the opening of any investigation into presidential candidates must first be cleared by the attorney general. and it comes at a time when garland's justice department is facing serious scrutiny over whether its is being aggressiv enough into the investigation, into january 6th and the broader plot by trump and his allies to overturn our 2020 election. especially as two other investigations into the matter continue to move forward and make new revelations. take for example fulton county georgia. the local district attorney there has sent target letters to 16 people involved in the fake electors plot in that state. today, that investigation advanced even further, because a judgeig there ordered that rudy giuliani will have to appear before a special grand jury. and then there's the investigation that we're all witnessing in realtime. the one by january 6th. the january 6th committee rather which is set to hold its eighth and potentially most dramatic

hearing tomorrow night in prime time. a hearing that will focus on publicly holding trump accountable for his inaction during the january 6th attack. tonight, the "washington post" is reporting that the committee plans to show outtake footage frome a video message recordedy trump the day after the attack, illustrating how trump refused to condemn the violence and wanted to call the rioters patriots. even the senate, the place where good ideas go to die, even they are on the verge of taking new action in response to january 6tith. today, a bipartisan group of senators introduced new legislation to fix the electoral counteract, the law that donald trump sought to exploit in his plot to get vice president mike pence to refuse to certify the official result of the 2020 election, all of this, t all of this leads to the inevitable question, what is the justice

department doing to hold donald trump accountable? we know from reporting in "the new york times" that theun juste department was astonished and jolted by cassidy hutchinson's testimony, recounting her experience inside the white house on that day, january 6th. we know the justice department has also requested access to witness testimony, gathered by the committee. "the wall street journal" is reporting this week that the justice department is now ramping up its resources into the investigation into trump's plot to overturn the election. and today, attorney general merrick garland took questions from reporters. he was asked directly about what the justice department is doing to investigate trump's efforts to overturn the election. listen. >> there is a lot of speculation about what the justice department is doing, what it's not doing, what its duties are, what the duties aren't, and there will continue to be that speculation. that's because a central tenet of the way in which the justice

department investigates, a central tenet to the rule of law is, that we do not do our investigations in public. this is the most wide-ranging investigation and the most important investigation that the justice department has ever entered into. and we have done so because this effort to upend a legitimate election, transferring power from one administration to another, cuts at the fundamental of american democracy. we have to get this right. >> we have to get this right. what merrick garland says there is absolutely true. federal prosecutors do not conduct their investigations in public, nor should they. but the inevitable part of those investigations do become public. and subpoenas are issued. witnesses are called to testify. reporters get scoops about where investigations stand.

and where they are head. what leads they are following. what we don't know for sure what is happening inside the justice department we do have enough fragments to try to piece together a picture and right now that picture is starting to look like one of a justice department that meticulously tried to avoid politics and as a result of that, it appears to be frantically playing catch-up on mao what merrick garland today himself described as the most important investigation of our time. joining us now are a reporter forin "the wall street journal" covering the justice department, and david road, executive director for the news for the new ecyorker.com. thanks for joining us. sadie, i want to start with you. you cover the justice department every taday. it is not often that the attorney general takes questions like he did today and certainly for the american public to see it inda realtime.li he was clearly prepared to respond to the recent criticism a lot of people have been leveling at the d.o.j., what did

you make of the attorney general's remarks today? >> well, what i saw there, the attorney general had a very forceful response, that didn't offer a lot of new information about the status of the investigation but was sort of intended to offer assurances to the american public that this investigation remains a top priority for the p justice department, even as it has, you know, even as he looks at more public january 6th committee hearings. what we heard today was the attorney generalat insisting th the parallel january 6th committee investigation is not influencing prosecutor's work but it is hard to imagine a situation in which prosecutors hearing much of this testimony for the first time in particular as you mentioned, the testimony of people like cassidy hutchinson who was directly implicating trump in the violence of january 6th, it hard to imaginear that prosecutors c avoid listening to that or are not taking that into account, and as reported last week, the

justice department, in recent weeks, has been ramping up resources, particularly toward a unit that has been focusing on the more complicated aspects of the investigation, the more complex conspiracy cases, and looking in to a little bit more than just the violence of that day.e so we didn't get a lost substantive information from the attorney general today, but i think we did getbs a commitment that the justice department is continuing to investigate anybody and everybody. and a part of the clip that you did not play, the attorney general actually said, there's nothing in the justice department policy that prevents us fromin investigating anybody who, you know, is responsible for criminal conduct. >> i am glad you brought up that point, because david, that leads me to my question to you. the justice department is clearly aware of this criticism to. sadie's point, there what did you make of what garland said and do you think the justice department is wrestling with the

level of whether it is more dangerous to prosecutor trump or not to prosecute trump because of the unprecedented nature of it. >> i think they are wrestling with it and i agree with sadie. yesterday the deputy attorney generald lisa monaco who is usually very cautious and garland very cautious as well, they arell saying very clearly that ifrl donald trump announce that he is running for president again, that will not again, that will not prevent them from investigating him, and they are using this language about follow the evidence wherever it leads, you know, go to the top of the command chain, so those statements are reassuring, but as you said, earlier, there is a problem rhere. the d.o.j. is behind these other investigations. you mentioned the times reporting about federal prosecutors being surprised when cassidy hutchinson testified and i heard the same thing from d.o.j. officials,es that there s tremendous surprise. that there is some frustration. they asked as you mentioned for

all of the transcripts from the january 6 committee. they don't have them. they would like to have them. but garland has adopted this very slow cautious fed.d and i think in the end, if the process would be that, you know, rely on prosecutors, and deputies would recommend an against trump to prosecutor not prosecute and then it comes down to garland, would he override that recommendation. the team that has been on this investigation, will garland defy them or follow them? most people i know who know garlandow say he would go along with that recommendation. but this is all moving very slowly and i'm not sure that will happen any time soon. >> i want to get to the issue of the line prosecutors in just a moment but i want to go back to something you reported over the weekend, that the justice department is actually adding prosecutors and resources to its investigation, perhaps a signal that itur is ramping it up, but the attorney general was asked

today if the d.o.j. has the necessary resources and he responded that the department could always use more resources, but that it can still accomplish its mission and that the people at d.o.j. are committed to it. how does that square with your own reporting of what is happening behind the scenes? >> well, no matter how you cut it, this is just a massive, massiveou investigation. already, the justice department has brought almost 900, charges against almost 900 people and those are folks who are sort of directly involved in the events of that day. so we expect there to be more arrests. and we expectex there to be, wh looks to be an expanding investigation. the attorney general as you noted today said that the justice department could always use more resources for, this but as recently as march, we saw, you know, a job posting go up, seeking more prosecutors to work on the elements of this investigation, and we know that there has been a prosecutor assigned from maryland, and thomas wyndham, who is sort of

leaving a team of prosecutors focusing on the more complicated conspiracy cases and we know that in recent months, that his team has expanded, it's been given t some more office space, and its mandate has expanded. the justice department official, the top justice department official would dispute that that is in response to any particular event, particularly anything that is playing out on the hill, but it is a sign that you know, the justice department is moving from the violence ofha that day to some of the more complicated elements of the broader crime. >> david, one of the criticisms, if you will, of the department of justice, has been perhaps the element of surprise in which the public is learning that the d.o.j. seems to be surprised by somee of the revelations comin out of the january 6th committee. does that seem normal to you that they are asking for the transcripts at the same time that the american public is viewing them and that they are notme aware of some of these conversationsar or these people who should be interviewed by the d.o.j. on their own, prior to the january 6th investigation?

>> it's very unusual that the letter that was sent asking for the transcripts, usually i don't think they have been public. theresc are often, you know, du investigations, there will be a congressional committee looking into some sort of scandal, and then the justice department looking into a criminal case, so that's what is unusual. mine to the credit of the january 6th committee, and they have an easier job and prove things in court beyond a reasonable doubt but what is different is the january 6th committee has done a job of focusing squarely on donald trump, his corruption, his legal intent, that he knew what he was doing, that he knew he lost the election, that he knewdo the mo would have possible charges for obstructing a proceeding and the committee has done a great job of focusing on trump himself and i believe the department has been slow and trying to catch up. and bennie thompson says they didn't want to release all of

the transcripts immediately. after the hearing on thursday night, the january 6th committee should turn over the transcripts immediately. there is no reason to sit on them. the justice department needs them. and you know, everyone should put down any sort of turf battles and focus on a full investigation of donald trump and his actions. >> sadie gurman, reporter for "the wall street journal," covering the justice department, david, executive editor of news fort new yorker.com. thanks to the both of you for starting us off tonight. greatly appreciate your time. and new details tonight in the investigation into why members of the secret service deleted their text messages from january 6th. turns out they were told multiple times not just once, but multiple times, not to delete them. former fbi official peter strzok knows a thing or two about recovering deleted text messages. he joins us next. covering delet aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan?

yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. messages messages he joins us nextouldn't get cov, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guarad 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) ♪

president trump is a 76-year-old man. he is not an impress nable child. just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices. >> so less than 24 hours from now, the house committee investigating the january 6th attack will return to prime time television to deliver the finale in a series of eight public hearings but hardly, hardly the last we'll see this year. the attention will be on donald trump's 187 minutes of inaction, the time period during which the committee says trump deliberately chose not to

intervene while the capitol was under siege. they want to make the case that this was not a spontaneous attack, but instead a predictable outcome that was fueled by trump. now to complete that picture, aides confirm that in in addition to trump, the committee will also address the conduct of close aides who enabled the president's actions that day, including his former chief of staff mark meadows. the hearing will reportedly also feature new clips of trump, white house counsel pat cipollone, describing his thoughts of trump's inaction and while the committee approaches the final chapter, in this current series of hearings, there remains key important evidence that the committee won't be able to present tomorrow, in part because of this. quote, the secret service erased text messages that could help verify or rebut some of the most stunning testimony about donald trump and his actions during the insurrection of january 6, 2021.

secret service officials say they wiped messages. the wiped messages were part of a prescheduled reset of their phones. crucial information about january 6th gone. and now that the secret service says it can't recover the data, there are questions about what to do next. the committee subpoenaed the agency last week, but one member of the panel told msnbc yesterday that they only received one text message and now today, nbc reports that these messages were deleted despite the secret service having referred multiple warnings in writing not to do so, including from congress itself. the january 6th panel released a statement today, laying out its concerns about all of this. writing in part, quote, four house committees had already sought these critical records from the department of homeland security, before the records were apparently lost. the procedure for preserving content prior to this appears to have been contrary to federal

records retention requirements and may represent a possible violation of the federal records act. joining us now is peter strzok, former fbi counter-intelligence offer and author of "compromise, counter-intelligence and the threat of donald j. trump," we should note he has ample experience in the matter of analyzing data, he led the investigation of hillary clinton's alleged use of a personal email server and saw some of his own missing text messages recovered as part of a d.o.j. investigation. thank you very much for being here. nbc news is reporting here that the secret service deleted these text messages that were sent before and during january 6th, despite having received multiple warnings in writing not to do so, including from congress. let's just start at that point. what is your interpretation here. negligence or something more sinister? >> well, that's a great question. and the fact of the matter is we don't know right now. let's take a step back and explain why this is important. it is not just the events of

january 6th. it's everything that led up to and proceeded after that. everything from warnings from potential violence, to the vice president that were discussed on the evening of january 5th, the now famous potential fight between the presidential motorcade where trump is trying to get to the capitol and also extraordinarily important the decision of mike pence not to get into his vehicle, not to leave the capitol, all of these event, the secret service played an absolutely critical role to every one of those events and so the question is, what those texts might have and where those texts might still live or exist, to be gathered by the committee, are absolutely critical. for the committee, for the department of justice's work investigating these incidents, that they are a unique source of information and the fact that they were deleted, appear to be deleted, despite all of these requests to be preserved, the story gets more and more concerning rather than getting better as time goes on. >> given your own personal professional experience, do you believe as the secret service is saying that they don't have a

way to recover these messages, one would just think logically there may be on a server, on a cloud keviner of some sort, automatically cloud server of some sort, automatically backed up on a hard drive migrated from one device to another. the fact is i've been investigating dozens of federal agencies and each agency tends to do operations differently. the baseline software that they might put on their devices to monitor and record texts and email, the operating systems, even the type of device, whether it is an android-based system or an iphone or an ios-based, whether or not they maintained servers for texts inhouse or outside vendors or a backbone verizon or at&t, there are so many different variables that are involved here. but certainly, you know, i've worked with the secret service agents who do cyber investigations, their confidence is extraordinary, they are very good at cyber crime, and they apply themselves to it. so it really stretches my belief that there is no way, not only

on the devices, not residing within the cellular company that provided the service to the secret service and not the backup data that the secret service might maintain, not in the form of other people who might have been sent the texts from the accounts that they can't find, i don't think that there is an, you know, a list where some data doesn't exist out there, it's just a question of going out there and finding it, and then that brings up a very important question of is this something the secret service should be seeking, or is this something that the department of homeland security and inspector general, who if you think about others, that is the purpose of the inspector general, to go out and do these sort of independent investigations, but there has to be a very thorough job to fine this information because it is so critical not only the last few years but in fact our nation's history in the scope of what january 6th represented. >> a lot of questions still around the secret service and its handling of these text messages.

steeter strzok, former fbi count -- peter strzok, former fbi counter-intelligence officer, thanks for joining us tonight. election deniers across the country are running for office and winning their primaries often with thanks to support from democrats who running against themselves in november but is that a dangerous strategy that could backfire? that's next. a dangerous strategy i wish that shaq was my real life big brother. that could backfire? that could backfire? that's next.r nearly 60 years. for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- go with the general.

flowers are fighters. and nearly 60 years of quality coverage- that's why the alzheimer's association walk to end alzheimer's is full of them. because flowers find a way to break through. just like we will. join the fight at alz.org/walk

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.

this is republican state senator doug mastriano the republican ahead in the polls

for governor, he wants to outlaw abortion, it's mastriano who wrote the heartbeat bill in pennsylvania and one of donald trump's strongest supporters. he wants to end vote for mail and led the audit of the 2020 election. if he wins, it is a win for what donald trump stands for. is that what we want in pennsylvania? >> that ad that you saw there, that was paid for by josh shapiro's campaign, the democratic nominee for governor in pennsylvania. it ran ads in the republican primary race back in may and as it turned out dog mastriano won that primary and it seems like the money democrats spent on the attack ad actually, it might have actually helped mastriano win that race perhaps some republican voters wanted a win for what donald trump stands for. and now, mastriano, a far right candidate has a real shot at governor's office, now polling

within the margin of error of the democratic nominee josh shapiro and busy courting gop donors. democrats are rung the same play book in maryland with one democratic group spending more than a million of advertising that elevated republican candidate for governor dan cox, promoting his ties to trump and pro life and second amendment stance. apparently a lot of maryland republicans were into that description, yesterday, dan cox won the republican primary for governor of maryland, defeating the current republican governor's protege by a 16 point margin. here's a little background on mr. cox for you. he is an election denier. not only did he attend the white house ellipse rally on january 6th he helped send buses of protesters to attend that rally. he also called mike pence the vice president of the united states a traitor, and argued that president biden was quote installed in the white house. he promised to do a forensic

audit of the 2020 election, and to ban abortion among other things if he wins office. he is also a bit of a nuisance for governor hogan for years now, he has most recently tried to impeach the governor over the covid-19 public health measures. as for cox's ally in the maryland attorney general race, wait for this one. michael perotka, won the republican nomination, a christian nationalist who ran on opposing abortion and protecting gun rights and prosecuting officials who have violated the god given liberties of marylanders to. sharpen this image of christian nationalists for you a little bit more, this is a guy who founded the institute on the constitution which believed that again i'm quoting here, there is a god, our rights come from him, the purpose of civil government is to secure and protect our god-given rights. that is the kind of candidate who is now on the ballot for state office in the great state

of maryland. and perhaps thanks in part to some well-funded democratic ads, he's in good company. joining us now is michael steele, former rnc chairman, former maryland lieutenant governor and msnbc political analyst. couldn't think of anyone better to talk to about maryland politics than you. thanks for joining us. you certainly know more about it than i do. and the republican party, do you think these far right republican nominees for state office have a real shot at winning your state in the fall? >> no, they don't. and largely because the numbers work against republicans in the main. we're outnumbered two to one in democratic versus republican registration. what you saw happen at the time i ran in 2002 and what larry hogan started in 2014 was to

create a narrative that began to appeal to central right democrats and independent voters who typically and traditionally voted democratic. gave them a choice to consider. what dan cox has done ostensibly is by defeating kelly, take that choice away from those voters. so the likelihood that they're going to, in the first instance, first blush, vote for someone who believes that joe biden was installed in the white house, bussed people to january 6th, called the vice president, then vice president pens a traitor, that these are going to be, these are larry hogan voters. no, they're not going to vote for dan cox in that regard. so this is going to be a very difficult struggle for the gop, to hold the government's mansion, coming this november.

>> give me your political sense here for a moment, what should democrats do to more effectively oppose these candidates? and i wanted to be careful in the way we characterize those ads because democrats are paying for them, but they are really running, and they are leading the republican field and in every campaign, candidates attack one another, are the democrats, you know, who are running these ads during the primaries, are they galvanizing trump supporters to the republican voters to the advantage of those far right candidates or should they just simply ignore them until they get to the general election? what's the smart play here for democrats? >> i think, what you have to look at, is on a state by state basis, there have been a few states where the democrats have played that card, and they failed. the trump candidate lost. and did not win. and so that now has created a very competitive environment for democrats in those particular states. then you have states like pennsylvania and maryland, where the ads worked. and so the question certainly

now, if you showed the poll on pennsylvania, where the candidate who is supposed to scare the hell out of pennsylvanians is within four points of the democrat. so you're sitting there going did someone see that coming? and here's, and the rub is, the difference between pennsylvania and maryland is going to be that voter registration. what you will likely see in a place like maryland is the concern about cox becoming governor will draw out democrats who ordinarily probably would not vote in this election because hay democrats run the state or they like the republican candidate and they are fine with that person winning but what dan cox represents is an opportunity for those candidates to come out, which may hurt down-ballot republicans, for county executive and other races, who would otherwise stand a good chance of winning. similarly, in pennsylvania, with

mastriano, the problem you have there is because the margins between democrats and republicans are a lot closer, and independents play a bigger role, if they like mastriano, suddenly now as the polls reflect, the race becomes a bit more competitive, because the margins don't allow you the wiggle room that you have in the state like maryland. >> we've got about 30 seconds left. i want to ask you big picture, speaking of down ballots, trump keeps teasing that he will announce a bid for president in 2024, sometime soon, perhaps to avoid potential criminal prosecution, who knows but according to some recent reporting he might do it before november. if he does announce on that time line, before the midterms, what do you anticipate? what kind of impact do you think he will have on the midterms. >> definitely will have an impact, those democrats and independent voters and some republicans voters who are going to be concerned about giving power back to republicans, this november, so that that sets up trump for 2024, they are going

to come out and they're not voting republican. they're just not. and so they already run the risk with other issues, the supreme court put on the table for example, so it is a very dicey fall for republicans. >> my friend, michael steele, former rnc chairman and former lieutenant governor, and msnbc political analyst, good to see you, thank you very much. >> take care. up next, how abortions are putting people in life-threatening situations and blocking doctors from doing their jobs. stay with us. blocking doctors fro m doing their jobs stay with us . 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.

♪ ♪ away suitcases come in many colors. so you can find your color. colors. choices. happiness. away. ♪ ♪

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! away. 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) ♪

a texas woman was pregnant with twins, 15 weeks one was delivered stillborn and the other had a risk of infection that she was denied by the hospital and "the new york times" reports today, the woman returned to the hospital about two weeks later feeling sick. her pregnancy was terminated out of concern for her health. but she had to be admitted to the intensive care unit for sepsis and acute kidney injury. and quote life-threatening conditions. and that letter goes into ex krurk, excruciating detail about abortion procedures and significant medical problems and given the state of abortion bans in georgia, stories like that have been tragically increasingly common and that is certainly the case in louisiana, where an abortion ban in that

state is on hold while a legal challenge plays out in court. louisiana's abortion ban would make exceptions for the mother's health as we're seeing elsewhere across the country, the law's language, extremely vague, and that complicates matters, and in the case challenging the state's trigger ban, a doctor wrote in an affidavit that she had a patient who is 16 weeks pregnant when her water broke. the pregnancy was not viable and continuing the pregnancy could be life-threatening to her. the patient requested an abortion. but citing louisiana's new abortion ban that the doctor's attorney advised against it, and according to the affidavit, the doctor wrote that the patient was forced to go through a painful, hours-long labor to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes and best medical advice from doctors. she hemorrhaged. she lost nearly a liter of blood. and in another affidavit in the case, the former louisiana

health secretary expressed her profound concerns regarding life-saving treatment for women saying in part if doctors are not comfortable or able to anticipate the legal implications of their medical care or how they may be prosecuted for providing that health care, then they may not act according to their best medical judgment and training. fear of punishment aligned with lack of clarity on how this law will be enforced can lead to devastating consequences for louisiana women as well as moral distress for the clinicians who care for them and have taken the hypocratic oath to do no harm. joining us is dr. rebecca gee, a practicing gynecologist and former louisiana department of health secretary and the ceo and founder of net health. thanks for joining us this evening. can you tell us more about what prompted you to write that affidavit in support of the case to block louisiana's trigger ban? how did you get involved?

>> i spent my whole life, my adult professional life, taking care of women. i am an ob-gyn, eight years in medical school and residency learning how to take care of women, and to see the case, where we cannot do what's right for our patients and where we have to watch women, as dr. williams so well described, during this time that the ban was in place, we watched a woman less nearly a liter of blood, women coming in with infections that we would normally be able to take care of it. is just unconscionable and i'm the mother of three girls, i have 9-year-old twins and in my affidavit i wrote about the case of a 10-year-old girl who was raped, you know, there was a case in ohio, that we have heard about, and folks who are victims of incest or rape and are going to be required to carry children in their bodies, creating a

lifetime of mental health and physical consequences, it's not what we should be doing in the free world. this is on the wrong side of history. it's on the wrong side of science. and the politicians who wrote these bills do not understand the nuance of what happens in pregnancy. they have never had to sit at the bedside of one of these patients, watching them bleed, watching their infections arise, and it's unacceptable and so i'm doing everything i can to try to make this a more reasonable situation for doctors and their patients. >> from your experience, and from where you sit in the doctor, and the doctors you speak, to can you tell us more about the consequences of louisiana's abortion ban in terms of providing life-saving health care to pregnant women. >> it is chilling. so you know, the health care workers work in teams, so with physicians, we have nurses and we have anesthesiologists who help us provide the care for

patients, so say a case of sepsis, when you have a woman who comes in, her water is broken, she is infected and started to become febrile and we start to see the sepsis continuing, her organs start to shut down, at what point is she nearly dead enough under this bill that we could intervene? it's not clear. and if we make the wrong decision, that's for all of us, ten years in jail, and $100,000 fine. so those of white house have spent our whole lives trying to care for people are putting our lives, our livelihoods on the line to do what we feel is right. and what about the anesthesiologist? who is going to be willing to do that procedure given that there isn't clarity in these laws? given that the legislature hasn't protected the decision-making that happens when seeing a doctor and for the patient? and this has a chilling effect. it already has a chilling effect. this is to protect the life of the mother. what is the life of the mother?

what about the kidneys. what if she loses consciousness. is she still alive? what these laws forget is you have to have a living mother to have a living baby. and you know, we unfortunately prioritized, regardless of whether you think abortions to be a right, which i do, you should, where these laws should do a much better job protecting patients and i don't think anyone should want a 10-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term and i don't think everybody should be dieing in preg pregnancy and have a long way to go to protect women and this is a step backwards. >> dr. rebekah gee, practicing gynecologist and former louisiana department of health secretary. thank you for your time. thank you for sharing your insights with us. i greatly appreciate it.

>> thank you. with about a third of the country under heat-related advisories tonight, president biden took executive action on climate change today, but not the action many want him to take. we'll tell you about that next. take we'll tell you about that next

this is the power plant in somerset, massachusetts, being demolished in 2019, the former coal plant used to be one of the largest power plants in all of new england. but today, it is where president biden addressed a dire climate emergency we are facing. and while it might seem like an odd spot to address the climate crisis, in many ways it

exemplifies one of the biggest clean energy wins of the biden presidency. this is a rendering of the mayfield wind offshore wind farm. what you are seeing is not exactly what it will look like but close to it, built 30 miles south of martha's vineyard and when it is done, it will generate enough clean energy to power nearly 800,000 homes and where biden gave the address, that is where the wind farm will connect to the mainland power grid and manufacture the massive undersea cables to make that happen and expected to generate about 14,000 well-paying jobs that will last at least 20 to 25 years. and that is just one wind farm. last fall, president biden used his executive power to get the department of the interior to open up nearly all federal waters for leasing for offshore wind farms. think about that. it allows the expansion of clean energy projects like this one anywhere in federal waters. so that is the good news.

but what senator joe manchin sinking what is left of the hope of congressional action on climate, and using the address to declare the crisis on climate a national emergency and using executive power to do it and redirect spending from military bases to renewable energy investment. you know, along the lines of what president trump did to build his wall on the southern border that mexico is supposed to pay for. biden has been pushed to halt crude oil exports and offshore drilling and hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment in fossil fuel projects abroad. instead president biden announced much more modest measures including money for fema to help states build cooling centers, and now he also issued an update on the progress of using federal waters for offshore winds, announcing plans for new offshore wind projects in the gulf of mexico. that matters. let's be clear about that. that's not nothing. but it is nowhere near the scale

of the problem that we are facing. it is important to remember that biden has used his executive power to do big bold things on climate before, but that's also a lesson for how much more he could and should still do. that does it for us tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. the january 6th committee will bring more evidence to a prime time audience tonight. in what could be the final hearing for months. what we're learning about tonight's testimony and the possibility of some never-before-seen video. plus, attorney general merrick garland gets defensive when pressed about the justice department's response of the attack on the capitol, we will show you his answer to a question about prosecuting former president trump. and concerns about future elections have the senate taking rare bipartisan action. there's promise and progress on a bill to prevent future coup