a school, she gets a volleyball facility. she is at lsu now, she actually moved their, started there in august. maybe we should look at lsu and see. >> we should probably have some reporters looking at the available facility in baton rouge. ashton pittman has been doing very good reporting, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> that's all in, good evening rachel. >> thank you for saying that i think about my new podcast. >> it is so good, i'm excited to talk to you about it. she is so good at this, she's so good at this. what is in her bag mega tricks. >> what you heard is still the rough draft. -- >> you and all your self loathing staff share your incredible inability to take a compliment, it's not final, it's not final.

>> it's true, there is going to be 400 more drafts between that, what you heard and what is going to the public. >> what i heard is still awesome. >> thank you very, very much. thank you for joining us this hour. happy to have you here. once upon a time, not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, once upon a time the biggest celebrities in america were pilots. do you know how time magazine has person of the year, east we man of the year. time magazine invented that whole idea because of a pilot. they figured they needed to do something because in 1927, the pilot charles lindbergh became the first person to fly nonstop solo across the atlantic ocean. he became the biggest celebrity in the world for doing that. there were parades held for him and international prizes, all kinds of honors. he instantly became the most famous man in the world when he did that in 1927.

that is where time got the whole man of the year thing in the first place. they invented it specifically for him. amelia ehrhardt was the first woman to fly across the atlantic, and the first solo pilot to fly between hawaii and california. amelia airport is remembered mostly for going missing on and around the world flight in 1937. she really was a household name in the united states. she was a huge star. lindberg and her were not the only ones. the between the first and second world war, flying was a huge deal to americans. it was a nationwide craze. pilots would get really, really famous. household name famous for setting new records or flying the routes that had never been flown before, doing aviation tricks in front of audiences. by the mid 1930s, there was a female pilot named laura ingles who was right up there with a merely airport in terms of a national celebrity.

her name was laura angles, that name may be ringing a bell for you. she is not lore angles wilder who wrote little house on the prairie, that was her a cousin or something. she was just more angles. i have to tell you, in her day lore engels was more famous then her distant cousin the author who would also go on to be very famous. laura angles was famous for being a pilot, she was the first woman to ever fly across that united states nonstop from east to west. she was the first woman to ever fly solo from north america to south america. she set the overall record for the fastest flight by anyone from the west coast to the east coast. she set another record flying solo around all of south america. she set the world record for a barrel rules, 714 barrel rolls in a row over this field in st. louis. she set the record for loop the loops, 980 loops all in a row.

i embarking just thinking about it. this is the absolute peak of the golden age of every aviation. americans were crazy for aviation. they were fascinated by it, all the great flyers became great stars. laura angles was famous enough as a double pilot that by 1934 it would literally garner an entire article in the new york times when she got a speeding ticket. she was that big a celebrity. by the following year, 1935, she was so famous that she got an entire article in the new york times because she got a parking ticket. she was a big deal. by 1939, things had gotten a little bit weird for laura angles. in september 1939, she was arrested. after she flew her train, her single engine airplane right over the white house. when she flew over the white house, she dropped out of the plane a whole big load of leaflets, pamphlets arguing

against the u.s. joining the war against the naughty's in germany. this was 1939, she was arrested for violating the airspace over the white house, she was also arrested for dropping objects out of the plane. her defense was that she didn't consider a leaflet to be an object. this was 1939. two years later in 1941, laura engels was arrested again, this time she was indicted for being a paid secret agent and working for the german government. that one may page one of the new york times. the prosecution contended at her trial that engels was a not sea agent. she was being paid by hitler's government, she was enacting a specific technique devised by hill's government to quote, disunite the people of countries that hitler intended to conquer. that is including us. the prosecution also asked her how much she knew about the german official for whom she had been receiving her money and orders.

the prosecutor asked laura angles, did you know that he was the head of the gestapo in this country? laura angles replied, no, i did not know until i read it quite recently in the newspapers. i was thrilled. the airport manager at her home airport and a doctor she saw in new york testified how startling it was that unprompted she would start praising hitler, saying that she was preparing for the day when hit the bring his new order to america. the doctor testified about how unnerved he was when she came in for surgery and he found that she was wearing a big swastika pendant under her clothes. in the end, laura angles, this incredibly famous aviator, one of the biggest celebrities in the whole country, she was convicted of being an agent of the german government. among the uncomfortable public revelation from her trial was that when she went to her gestapo handler at the german embassy and asked for more missions, more important assignments, she apparently did

just want to promote hitler and nazism in the united states, she also volunteered to spy for the germans, to steal u.s. secrets to help the knots use against us. what emerged in her trial was that when she went to her gestapo handler to ask for more to do, for ask for more assignments, he apparently told her that the most important thing she could do was more of what she had already been doing. specifically, he told her that there is nothing more valuable she could do for the not to cause then keep giving speeches for something called the america first committee. the america first committee was the leading organization at the time in the united states that was opposed to the u.s. joining the war to fight against hitler in the not cities. after getting that instruction from her handler, laura angles indeed stepped up her speech giving for america first. she was advised to do so by the hitler government that was paying her at the time. she became one of america first's most popular nationwide

speakers. alongside their primary national spokesman who was charles lindbergh, the a for mentioned time magazine man of the year, seen here in germany receiving a not seen metal from herman goring, one of the most powerful officials in the not the government. goring eight cyanide at nuremburg to avoid being hanged as a war criminal, we will always have this photo of him pinning a swastika to charles lindbergh. national spokesman for the america first committee. given the history of the america first committee in our country, it is kind of amazing for anyone to decide to bring that back slogan in politics today, right? given the history of america first, you might think twice before you do that. the conservative political action coalition, the influential republican party conference put the hashtag america first on their tweet in support of russian president vladimir putin announcing the

annexation of parts of ukraine. their initial tweet actually showed a waving russian flag, go putin, conquer europe. we should stay out of it, america first. cpac has since deleted the tweet. around the same time that lauren angles was coming under investigation for being a paid not see agent in the early 30s, her husband, charles angers was also implicated in a nationwide plot involving 13 men cells who were all going to finally attack government targets around the country simultaneously. he is coconspirators expected that fdr was going to win reelection in 1940 but they thought americas on the far-right would be upset by that outcome. in order to channel that upset into something much more dangerous, they planned that in the aftermath of fdr winning the election, they would mount hundreds of simultaneous armed attacks on u.s. government targets. in states all across the country, all the same time.

thus, sending off chaos and panic in the united states, galvanizing and radicalizing anti roosevelt americans, culminating in a violent takeover of the united states government and the installation of something much more like a fascist dictatorship. good times. a week from today, next monday, i'm launching a new podcast that is called rachel maddow presents ultra. it is about this time that i'm talking about in american history. this last big round of fights that we had as an american people against our fellow americans on the ultra right who wanted to violently overthrow the government, who decided they were done with elections and done with democratic governance in this country. they were willing to act by any means necessary to get that done. including, in the case of some of these folks, taking support from the hit a government in germany to aid in their cause. the podcast is called ultra because it is about our

experience in this country with the ultra right. but most of the storyline is actually about sedition, about a huge sedition trial that was mounted against more than 200 defendants in 1944. it is about why that trial was sort of impossible and it's about how members of congress were involved in the shenanigans, they were implicated in what was going on. members of congress used their political power in washington to intimidate the justice department and drive the prosecution of course. anyway, the trailer is out today, the podcast launches next week. i will say more about it next week on the show. i knew what i said about working this last year, there was contemporary riddance to the story about american authoritarianism and trying to overflow the government by force. putting people on trial for sedition, i knew there would be residence for what we are going to now, that's why i wanted to do in the first place. i did not know at the time that i pick this topic and is launched a foot podcast that

the actual sedition trial for january 6th would be starting on the day of the podcast being announced. that's what happened today, here we are. today, members of the oath keepers, a pro trump paramilitary group, the oath keepers, they went on trial as of today. in federal court, on charges of seditious conspiracy. that is the largest edition trial since the great sedition trial 1944. there are facing charges that they conspired to use force to stop the peaceful transferal of power to a new president and overthrow the u.s. government. these are the most serious charges brought against any of the january 6th defendants. if convicted of these charges, these guys are looking at 20-year prison sentences. but i have to tell you, sedition charges are really, really hard to prove. getting a sedition conviction, bringing sedition charges is very rare, getting a conviction on sedition charges is a very, very difficult. it is true, not only because

they are very serious charges, but it is almost structurally true, it's almost biden missed -- it is hard to prove a sedition case. if you think about it, sedition is a charge of trying to overthrow the u.s. government by force. if you succeeded in that effort, you would be in charge now. there won't be a u.s. government anymore. if you are now charged with sedition, by definition you plotted work. you may have tried it, but the u.s. government still stands and has put you on trial for sedition. by definition, if you are on trial for sedition your seditious plot did not work. that means, whatever your plot against the government was, it can now easily be minimized as improbable, fantastical, no grave threat. in the end, it didn't work. it is almost a structural problem with this kind of charge. but there has to be some kind of charge like this for people who attempt to overthrow the

government eye force. it can't be that you get to try that and if you succeed you get to be -- if you fail, nothing happens. that can be the decision tree. not in a country with this many guns. the government today at the opening of the oath keepers sedition trial played tape of the oath keepers leader telling a meeting after january 6th quote, my only regret is that they should have brought rifles, we could've fixed it right then and there. meaning, my only regret is that they should've brought rifles to the capitol on january 6th. they also play tape of him for the jury, him at a meeting with his followers telling them that they would use the idea of trump invoking the insurrection act as a legal cover for what they were doing, bringing guns to the capitol. also saying, with or without an instruction announcement, there are still going to do it. they are going to rely on this defense in court, they've got the chief proponent of that

theory admitting that that was a fig leaf that he didn't really mean it, they were using that as a pretext. prosecutors today also introduced evidence that in addition to the thousand rounds of ammunition for the attack on the capitol, they also brought ham grenades. we learned that in court the first time, that's nice. rned that in couprosecutors alsn they moved to arrest these defendants after january 6th, because they believe the group was planning a second armed attack to stop the transfer of power after january 6th didn't work. that second armed attack aimed at biden's inauguration. prosecutors said in their opening statement today that the oath keepers, quote, planned to continue waging that war, to stop the transfer of power. thankfully, those plans were foiled. on january 17th, the fbi began arresting these conspirators. you might remember the footage from january 6th itself, members of the oath keepers and

military style gear, using the ranger stack formation, each one with her hand on the shoulder of the person in front of them, moving up to the front of the crowd, up the steps of the capital, leading the breach of the capitol building. today, prosecutors said that the oath keepers who did, that has -- then divided into two groups. one was led by an oath keeper guy who has now pled guilty, and is cooperating with prosecutors. the other is led by one of today's defendants. according to prosecutors today, his group split off inside the capitol with one specific mission, to go find house speaker nancy pelosi. the leader of that group, that unit of oath keepers that went hunting for pelosi, he had texted his family on election day, saying he was ready to go, quote, on a killing spree, and that when he did, quote, pelosi would be first. he was the one leading the group of oath keepers who went hunting for nancy pelosi that day inside the capitol. they did not find her. so, that trial started today,

it's expected to go on all month and probably into next month as well, a second round of oath keepers defendants is gonna go on trial on similar charges after this. the leader of the oath keepers, a man name stewart rhodes, who is one of the five defendants on trial today. he is a former ron paul staffer, he worked for the father of republican senator rand paul, when is that ron paul was a republican congressman from texas. it seems to me that that doesn't come up nearly enough when covering this historic trial. we're just -- whether the democrats or the republicans will have control of congress, and the senate. the new york times reporting today that that if the republicans to take over the house, at least eight congressional committees are due to be chaired by members of congress who voted to not certify the election results, voted to overturn the election

results and keep donald trump in power despite the vote. all members of congress who took that vote after the capitol attack on january 6th, they will be running eight of the most important committees in the u.s. congress. and also, this is the supreme court term in which the new conservative super majority on the supreme court has gone out of the way to put a case before themselves on something called the independent state legislature doctrine, which i thing is i swear to you, well and truly boring, the more you read about it, the more software i think you will feel. it's just boring, particularly if you're not a lawyer. however, what the independent state legislature doctrine could do. what this state case could do, now that the supreme court justices have asked to hear a case about it, is it effectively could give republicans in state legislatures, the power to do what trump demanded that they do in 2020, it could give

republican-controlled state legislatures, the power to decide what the election results will be from that state, regardless of how the people of that state voted, which is what trump demanded of republican state legislators after 2020. the supreme court case, that is before the court for this term, could potentially legalize, the illegal unconstitutional scheme that trump was demanding of republicans who supported him, to hand him the electors from states that he, in fact, lost. this is quite a moment, at a time when we have the biggest sedition trial in 80 year is underway in washington. i'm doing a podcast about the last submission threat like this from the late 30s and early 40s, in order to find the closest president what we're facing today. well that is happening in washington, as of today, we're not just closing in on an election, or people who deny that we should have real election results anymore or trying to take over.

we are also, today, starting a new supreme court session, with a court that has never had a lower level of respect for the american people, in the entire time the pollsters have been asking the american people about their level of respect for the court. with the new conservative super majority on the supreme court, they are reaching way out this term, way out of their way to take cases that are expected to serve as a vehicle for them to let state legislatures change election results. to get rid of affirmative action programs in education. to get rid of antidiscrimination civil rights lives and protected people, and to once and for all get rid of the crown jewel achievement of the united states civil rights movement, which is the voting rights -- act now in the case again here tomorrow, they're gonna pave the way to hollowed all the rest of it to. a case again here tomorrow, is a case out of alabama, alabama has a population that's more

than a quarter african american. the republican who controls the state legislature, -- tell the majority black electorate. under the voting rights act, even a very conservative court, to trump appointed judges told alabama that they can do that. that's an illegal infringement on the voting rights for black voters. you can't have more than a quarter of your population be african american, and then have six of your seven congressional seats be in majority white districts. the voting rights act, even hollow dak out as it is, prevents you from doing something not extreme. that is the court ruling that is controlling in that case right now. but the supreme court has nevertheless chosen to weigh in. with the expectation being that they're gonna tell alabama, and rest of the country, to go ahead and do what you want, no need to worry about that pesky voting rights act anymore. and if you think that is too radical thing, to imagine i'm doing, i mean this is the court

that just overruled roe v. wade, right? a recent gallup poll shows that the american people who say that their trust in the court has dropped 20 points, just since 2020, just in the past two years. another similar poll from marquette law school, shows his drop 26 points in the past two years. if the perception of the court keeps dropping like that, you might think the court will start getting worried that american soon will not respect the court enough to follow its rulings anymore. which i know would be a disaster for the country, that would literally be the end of the rule of law, in a very fundamental way. because there's one thing we can be sure of, is that we're playing with the fundamentals, and lots of ways is days. pushing ourselves right up to the edge, and occasionally over it, and we all know enough history to know that we have pushed ourselves very far in the past as well.

they don't win themselves, the constitution isn't a self healing document. prosecutions for this kind of stuff, even when they happen, they're hard to win and they are not the end all be all for our country. whether you are volunteering for a candidate, or maybe you are running for office yourself, or you are even carrying as a poll worker, or you are door knocking for the pro democracy initiative where you live. whatever you are doing right now, particularly over these next six weeks, you are part of what will decide what happens next in our country. the outcome is not at all certain at this point. we are in the middle of all of it. good luck to us all. good luck to us all. customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! (limu squawks) he's a natural. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ vicks vapostick. strong soothing... vapors..

help comfort your loved ones. for chest, neck, and back. it goes on clear. no mess. just soothing comfort. try vicks vapostick. ( ♪♪ ) (snorting) (clattering) (frustrated grunt) i need some sleep. (groaning) (growling) (silence) (sigh, chuckle) if you struggle with cpap, you should check out inspire. inspire. sleep apnea innovation. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. test test test test test test test

today the first time the united states supreme court has let the public inside for oral arguments since the start of the pandemic in march 2020. it was also the first day on the bench for the newest kid in class, supreme court justice ketanji brown jackson. the start of the new extremity term is typically typically an exciting moment, but this feels less likely kind of exciting you get for the first day of school and more like the kind of excitement you get when you're trying to take a picture of a scenic this day at the top of a very perilous cruelest and the railing that you're leaning on brakes while you're taking the picture, you fall in the abyss this year feels exciting that way. public trust in the united

states supreme court, to make their decisions, to do its job, has never been lower. in a savory from gala, the only group that trusts the federer -- republicans, democrats, they are below 50%. a new poll by this law school shows that the american public's approval of the supreme court specifically has dropped 26 points in two years. this isn't a popularity contest, this is just a sad tale about people not liking the court. this is a story of our country. if americans do wholesale lose face in the court, what is the consequence of that? how long before we are at risk of this unspeakable thing? in which the american people no longer consent to follow the courts rulings. if we are not going to follow them, what we follow instead? what is the law if courtroom is no longer holds sway because the courts are no longer seen

as legitimate. this is all happening in the wake of the decision to overturn roe v. wade, and unimaginable benchmark which has passed. we're living with now. for the term that starts today, the supermajority has not a cases that could continue reshaping life in terms as fundamental. a form of action, gay rights, voting rights, whether state -- . tomorrow the court will hill hear voting rights out of alabama where more than a quarter of the population is african american, but they are majority white. this case that the court's hearing tomorrow has the potential to undo congressional districts with black or brown lawmakers in every state in the union. everyin her new book, lady jus, which is really good. my favorite court watcher in

all of the land, dolly outlets like, writes about how women in particular are on tenterhooks right now, fully aware of how much is at risk, and the radicalism of the moment we're facing. delay little gracing the conclusion of her book, quote, we are in a truly frightening moment, election deniers are laying the tracks to set aside the 2024 election in the supreme court has, for the first time in history, reversed president in order to take away freedom rather than expand it. the court works ever harder to limit voting rights. states punish lgbtq families, and banned books and schools. the supreme court will hear a case, giving state legislatures the right to determine election how it comes, to try to set aside the 2020 contest. this will not be reversed in a year, or even a decade. she says, quote, i don't believe women sleep through backsliding, any more than they sleep through -- we hear things, we see things, we are awake. joining us now is dahlia

lithwick, the senior editor at slate. she's the author of lady justice, women, the law, and the battle to save america. dahlia, it's good to see you,. >> or off lead cheerful, the two of us. >> sorry, you want to hear some more not stories? i'm sorry. >> it usually on the depressive of the two of us. but you really set the bar low. >> the point is, that we should not see our current challenges as unprecedented challenges. that we have had very difficult moments, including unconstitutional fundamentals in the past. -- it takes not just jail for bad guys to fix these things, and i feel like an lady justice and the way you're approaching this current court, you are sort of telling a little bit of the same story, which is it that there's work to do and no silver bullet. >> and telling exactly the same story that you just told which is that if you think that

winning lawsuits is gonna get you there it's not enough, you can win a lot of lawsuits, and this book is about a lot of amazing lawsuits. but the last third of the book is about exactly what you are talking about. organizing, registering voters, structural democracy reform. senate has to be reforms, the electoral college has to be reforms, we have to think about massive reform to the supreme court. -- they're not gonna get fixed in 2024, assuming the 2024 election plays out the way we hope it does. -- how many going to make sure that the secretary of state raised in my state is essential. and that's the thing we lose track of, but that's the structural democratic fix that is absolutely essential for everybody pain attention. >> this is sort of the time if you are concerned about democracy, if you are concerned about what's happening in your state.

now, today's the day, where we are far enough in the election, where you still have time to ask yourself -- what am i gonna say i did? what was my role in helping? how did i participate in trying to hold up this thing that i say a value. >> one of the things that i'm scared about, is that one of the things we tell each other, about how to make changes to vote, i'm very worried about the voting rights act, and what they will be hearing tomorrow. what are your expectations in terms of the dilution of voting rights for minorities, and threats to the court this year. >> i mean, it's existential, and i think what you said initially was exactly correct, which is this is not the beginning of a process, this is a process that began with shelby county. it began with citizens united. it began with brnovich, two years ago, when section two of the voting rights act was circumscribed. so this is really what's left of the voting rights act, that has been it is rated by this court.

i think if they do what i suspect they're gonna do tomorrow, and we hear about it in the spring, it's gonna be almost impossible to effectuate the rights they were protected, as you said, under section two of the voting rights act, which was the crown jewel of how we were going to get to fair voting. and so i think that, if you put that in tandem with the more case that you are talking about, the independent state legislature case. what you are really looking at isn't temps to do, and black robes, what donald trump and john eastman tried to do in the 2020 election, which is say we are going to give state legislatures almost unfettered power to do what they will with elections, to do what they will with gerrymandering, to do it they will without suppression, up to an including election denialism, that is the harper case. and i think once you are there, and it's an reviewable, if it turns out that isn't reviewable by state courts, under state

constitutions, you are essentially green-lighting the thing that didn't happen in 2020, just because it was too soon. >> if the court, in terms of court legitimacy, which is a term that i think it's thrown around a lot without people knowing what it means. if court legitimacy continues to be in flux, the way it is now, it feels like it's in free fall now, more than influx. do you think the justices themselves and i'm starting to worry about people following their orders, and following the rulings, are they conscious that threat? >> a year ago, i would've said yes. sb8, the shadow docket, all the ethics stuff that we saw around clarence thomas's wife being involved, at least tangentially in january 6th, and him failing to recuse himself for a case squarely about january 6th. and any point in that process, up to and including the dogs lead, i would've said this is a court that is in trouble, the

wheels are coming off, they understand there is no plan b for the rule of law, once it's gone it's gone for decades. i no longer have any confidence that that is bothering them, and i'd go so far as to say, i think when justice alito and chief justice roberts or scolding us for having conversations about legitimacy, rather than asking themselves what they could have done differently, i think it's just evidence, to me, a, of gaslighting, but be, evidence that they don't care. >> dolly olympic is the author of lady justice, women, the law, and the battle to save america. and by nature, a very cheery person. >> thank you so much. >> it's good to see you. much more ahead tonight, stay with us. with us. announcer: type 2 diabetes? discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone.

in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®.

ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

don't mind me. i'm just the flu. i'm quite harmless, really. and when people ask, “but aren't you linked to dangerous flu complications, like pneumonia, heart attack, and hospitalizations?” i just say, “but, i'm just the flu.” it's him! who? i'm just the flu! fight the flu with sanofi flu vaccines, which help prevent flu in older adults. they've even been shown to provide better protection from flu-related complications compared to standard dose flu shots. don't get fluzone high-dose quadrivalent if you've had a severe allergic reaction to its components, including egg products, or after previous dose of flu vaccine. don't get flublok quadrivalent if you've had a severe allergic reaction to its components. tell your healthcare professional if you've had severe muscle weakness after a flu shot. people with weakened immune systems may have a lower vaccine response. this flu season, you do have a choice.

choose the protection of a sanofi flu vaccine. ask your pharmacist or doctor which sanofi flu vaccine is right for you. prop 27 sends 90% of profits to out-of-state corporations in places like new york and boston. no wonder it's so popular... out there. yeah! i can't believe those idiots are going to fall for this. 90%! hey mark, did you know california is sending us all their money? suckers. -those idiots! [ laughter ] imagine that, a whole state made up of suckers. vote no on 27. it's a terrible deal for california. in this edition trial got we win. you lose.

underway today in washington d.c., the biggest sedition trial in american 80 years, the five members of the right-wing pro trump paramilitary group, the oath keepers, including their leader. there's not much in dispute about the facts of the case, the oath keepers did descend on d.c. on january 6th, they brought guns and ammo and even hand grenades with them. today prosecutors played an audio recording of the group's leaders say that he didn't bring the guns to the capital of self. we play the recording of him saying, my only regret is we should have fixed it right there and then. oath keepers and their little fake military uniform, they definitely did go into the capitol military formation. one side, they did split up

into two teams, fanning out to go on down individual lawmakers. and after january 6th, the group's leader did definitely keep buying weapons, and messaging fellow oath keepers about continuing to block president biden from taking office. none of that is really in dispute in this trial. new york times reporter alan foyer, was in the courthouse as the sedition trial kicked off today, he put it this way. he said, quote, because of the government's wealth of evidence, the trial is less likely to focus on disputes over what the group did in the days and weeks leading up to january six, as it is to hinge on the question of why they did it. joining us now is allen foyer, who's covering the trial for new york times. appreciate you being here, thanks for ten. >> thanks for having me, rachel, . >> can you spend that last point, that the disputed in the courtroom is gonna be less about what they, did and more about why they didn't. >> so it's going to get down to a question of intent, right, there's tons of evidence that after the elections stewart

rhodes the leader of the oath keepers was very vocal about not wanting to let joe biden get into office. the government says that is evidence that they have conspiracy afoot, -- they said that's more of a free speech issue, the why of it, the government, no one disputes that the oath keepers had this armed, quick reaction force, stationed in hotel rooms station across the potomac river in virginia, kind of at the ready should things go wrong on january six, and the government says hey, that's evidence that they had this plot afoot, to stop the transfer of power again. the defense says no, that had nothing to do with that. those armed oath keepers were stationed in those hotel rooms, awaiting orders from president trump to invoke a revolutionary era law called the insurrection

acts, that would've given them the legal standing, as a militia, to come to trump's aide. again, it's a question of intent. >> in terms of that insurrection act argument, sometimes the way these things go in federal trials, i know, is that the judge will rule in advance. about essentially the admissibility of a particular argument, in addition to the admissibility of particular evidence. sometimes a judge will rule, yes you can make that kind of argument, no you can't make that kind of argument. is this issue of the insurrection act potentially sort of legalizing there otherwise illegal actions, is that something that is been litigated thus far in the trial? where is this essentially them trying it for the first-time, in front of the jury, and nobody quite knows if it's gonna fly. >> it was absolutely litigated beforehand. the judge set kind of specific limits on how those defense could be raised -- there is a defense called a

public authority defense, where someone charged with a crime says hey, i thought i was following the law, when i was doing this crime, i thought i was acting under the authority of a government official. and that's a sort of closely related, but separate thing. when the oath keepers are saying here is, they believed. in their minds, they believed that it would have been legal for them to bring their weapons over the river, and come to the aid of their compatriots at the capitol, had trump invoked the insurrection act. and what's interesting about, that aside from the sort of novel, and very risky, frankly, defense the raising is, you mentioned before, there have been sedition cases in the past, going back to civil war cases, through the wall believes, the radical unionists, and warmer sisters. enough to islamic terrorists. nobody, and none of it charged

with seditious conspiracy has ever tried to ally themselves with the chief executive of the government, while charged with seeking to use force against the government. that's the weird new thing here. >> new york times criminal justice reporter allen foyer, thanks for explaining that so well, there's your time tonight. we will be right back, stay with us. with us. supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients. so if you have this... consider adding this. call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. ♪

for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis who are positive for acetylcholine receptor antibodies, it may feel like the world is moving without you.

but the picture is changing, with vyvgart. in a clinical trial, participants achieved improved daily abilities with vyvgart added to their current treatment. and vyvgart helped clinical trial participants achieve reduced muscle weakness. vyvgart may increase the risk of infection. in a clinical study, the most common infections were urinary tract and respiratory tract infections. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections or if you have symptoms of an infection. vyvgart can cause allergic reactions. the most common side effects include respiratory tract infection, headache, and urinary tract infection. picture your life in motion with vyvgart. a treatment designed using a fragment of an antibody. ask your neurologist if vyvgart could be right for you. in the state of kansas, the

republican candidate for governor this year, is this guy derek schmidt. before becoming an elective official himself, he's currently an ag in the state, he worked as a staffer for a number of different elected republicans in kansas. he worked in the office of kansas republican governor bill graves, he was a staffer for former kansas republican u.s. senator nancy qasem. the reason that's important to know that now, is because former kansas republican governor bill graves, who was derek schmidt's boss, all those years, ago has now decided to endorse his democratic opponent, board kelly in that race for governor. that happened last month, now this week the same thing is happening again. this time it's former republican u.s. senator nancy cabin, who also used to be derek schmidt spots, she too has ed the democrat in the case rates, nor kelly, over her fellow republican, and her former employee. and derek shipments to republican bosses are not alone

in this. the democratic governor of kansas, has wrapped up more than 100 endorsements, from prominent kansas republicans, all around the state, even though she's a democrat. and this is a phenomenon that's not just happening any chances here, in michigan there's over 150 prominent republicans from around the state, who have crossed over to endorse the go democratic governor, gretchen whitmer, against a republican opponent. in pennsylvania, we're seeing the same thing, headline after headline about prominent pennsylvania republicans, endorsing the democrat, josh shapiro, over their party's candidate republican doug mastriano. part of the reason we're seeing this trend is just because the republican candidates in those races are out there. so much so that, even other republicans can't bring themselves to support the candidate from their own party. tomorrow, wisconsin's democratic governor tony evers, is planning to release a new app, highlighting his republican opponents position

on abortion. the aim of this ad is pretty clear, to try to put his republican opponent in that same boat, as the republicans who are hemorrhaging even republican support now, in pennsylvania, michigan, and kansas. tonight, we've obtained an exclusive preview of this ad, it's gonna go up in wisconsin tomorrow, it is quite something. watches. >> a 12-year-old girl can't legally drive a car, at 12 she can even vote, but if this little girl were tragically raped, where a victim of incest, and became pregnant, radical tim michaels would force her to deliver the baby. he said it's, quote, not unreasonable, for the state government to mandate rape victims to give birth. would it be unreasonable if you are forcing this on you? let him know. on election day. >> let him know on election day. again, an exclusive preview of that ad that will go up on the

air tomorrow in wisconsin. election day, five weeks from tomorrow. watch this space. [interpreter] [interpreter stomizes your home insurance, here's a pool party. ♪ good times. insurance! ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ so, you're 45. that's the perfect age to see some old friends, explore new worlds, and to start screening for colon cancer. yep. with colon cancer rising in adults under 50, the american cancer society recommends starting to screen earlier, at age 45. i'm cologuard, a noninvasive way to screen at home, on your schedule. and i find 92% of colon cancers. i'm for people 45+ at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you.

♪♪ here goes nothing. hey greg. uhh...hello? it's me, your heart! really? yes! recording an ekg in 30 seconds. tada! wow, that was fast. you know it! kardia offers the only personal ekgs that detect six of the most common arrhythmias in just 30 seconds. so you can manage your heart health from home, or on the go. your heart rhythm is normal. no arrhythmias in sight. i wonder what my doctor would say. ooh! let's find out! with kardia, you can email your ekg directly to them or send it to a cardiologist for review. kardia can do all that? all that and then some, greg! kardia also gives you access to heart health reports and automatic ekg sharing. what next? let's get some fresh air. been cooped up for too long. yeah... ♪♪ kardia mobile card is available for just $99.

get yours at kardia.com or amazon. before we go tonight, i want to

say thank you and bon voyage to a member about right greg maddow show -- he's been a camera operator on this show, for anything but 95% of the time we've been on the

air, since the dawn of time. that's a lot of shows, that michael has been behind the camera for. michael, you are so good at what you, do you're such a joy to work with every single day. retiring tonight after more than 24 years here with us at emmett's nbc, the grading good michael young. god bless you, my friend, we are really going to miss you. you are everybody's favorite coworker. all right, that's gonna do it for us tonight, alice is gonna be here tomorrow, i'll see you again on monday. now it's time for the last word, with jonathan kaye part, filling in for lawrence tonight. hi rachel, it's great to see, you let me just add to your praise of michael young. i'm so sad to see him go, i'm thrilled that he is retiring and going off to do things he really wants to do, he's a great photographer, i don't know if you know this, but he did a photo shoot with me, and one of his shots was so beautiful, then i use it for my head shot for at least five years. so i'm so glad that you gave