my third night awake in the hospital, i met a icu doctor, his name was youssef. he told me he had a similar experience. he showed me he was okay. and that meant so much to me. there was so much uncertainty at the time, and just him coming to me, showing that i can live a normal life again, it meant so much to me in the moment. so, i want to give a big thank you to him and the special thank you to everyone on the stage for everything they did for me. and thank you everyone around the country and around the world who prayed for me and hoped for me. the journey will continue. [applause] we are happy to see damar on his feet. we wish him luck as his journey continues. on that positive note, i wish you a good night. i'm ayman mohyeldin, in first of any role this evening. you could kiss my show, a man, from saturday's 8 to 10 on eastern msnbc. and sundays at 9 pm eastern,

also right here on msnbc. from all of our colleagues across the network of nbc news, thank you for staying up late. i'll see you this weekend. ou this weekend. thanks to you at home for joining us this evening, we have some big breaking news, nbc news has now confirmed the former vice president, mike pence has been subpoenaed by special counsel, jack smith. the man who is overseeing the investigation into trump's effort to overturn the results of the 2020. election including the attack on the u.s. capital. the news was first reported by abc news. we don't know exactly what information was sought, in that subpoena, but according to abc it comes after months of negotiations between federal prosecutors and pence's legal team. both the special counsel's office and the spokesman for the former vice president are declining to comment to nbc about this new development. but, this is the first time the former vice president has been

subpoenaed in any matters, related to the 2020 elections. including by the january six house committee. back in november, pence said the reason that he wasn't testifying to the committee despite the fact that he was of course the main witness in the january 6th attack. was because it would set a terrible precedent, due in part, he said, quote the partisan nature of that investigation. pence didn't need to talk to the committee for the public to understand the information that he was in possession. of two of his aides, mark short and greg jacobs testified before the grand jury in the doj investigation, and also publicly testify to the january six committee about the many ways former president trump and his allies pressured pence to disrupt the counting of the electoral college votes. as part of a broader effort to keep trump in power. their testimony was fairly explosive, it was understood expenses sort of way of cooperating with the january

six investigation. until pants wrote an op-ed in the wall street journal. with his account of what went down that day. pence also gave interviews to national news outlets, ones that are now part of the public record. including this one. or pence confirmed telling trump that he indeed lost the election. >> did you ever point blank say that the president, i will not do this, i will not intervene, we lost this election? >> i did. david, many times. >> we know because we learned in testimony since. that it's believed at the presidents was aware that people in that crowd, that some of them might have been armed? and that he then said, we're gonna march to the capitol and send them there anyway. he knew you were at the capitol, that lawmakers were at the capitol, what do you make of that? >> well, the presidents words were reckless. his actions were reckless.

presidents words that day, at the rally, endangered me in my family, and everybody at the capitol building. >> mike pence's name appears 572 times in the final january six report. that same report lists the ways in which pence's life was put at risk on january six, by supporters of president trump, but also how pence despite all that pressure was determined to certify the election for joe biden. from the report, quote, pence was determined that unless there was eminent danger to bodily safety but he wasn't going to abandon the capitol and let the riders have a victory. having made the vice president flee, made it difficult to restart the process later that day. it was an unprecedented scene in american history. the president of the united states had riled up a mob that hunted his own vice president. despite that danger, and despite the multiple reports of trump supporters chanting, hang

mike pence that day, donald trump did not ever try to reach his own vice president while the capital was under siege. according to pence it took trump fridays, after the attack to make any contact. >> january six was a tragic day. it would be some five days after those tragic events that the president asked for an opportunity to speak with me. i walked down to the oval office, i went into the back room where we spent so many hours together. and really forged a close working relationship. obviously, it had not ended well. but when i walked into the back room, the president looked up that we. and first expressed concern about my wife and daughter, who he said he just learned were with me. throughout the day and night of january six and seven. i answer to him sternly, that we were fine. he asked me if i was afraid. i told him, no, mister president i was angry. i was angry about our differences, and i was also

infuriated -- that day. people ransacking the capitol. and breaking glass and assaulting law enforcement officers. >> trump has not seized his attacks against pants, instead he's asked over and over that pence didn't do the right thing. that he failed, that he was a coward. and he has said much, much worse. and now it appears that mike pence will finally be asked to tell his side of the story. under oath. joining us now to help understand how all of this works, and what's gonna happen next, is former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, barb mcquade, and caroline, national republican or at the washington post. thank you for being here tonight. you are wonderful sources to help explain what's gonna happen next year. and barb, i want to start with you. we know this is a subpoena, but we're also being told that it comes after months or at least several weeks of negotiating between the vice president and former vice presidents legal

dame. and the doj. is this a friendly subpoena, it's such a thing exists, in other words the sesame into provide mike pence coverage and cooperate for the doj investigation do you think? >>, while we don't know. but it's absolutely a possibility, alex. it's not unusual for the prosecutors to reach out to witnesses and if they will come and willingly, voluntarily, to bring them in without a subpoena. sometimes witnesses refused to come. without a subpoena. you need to compel them to come. get a court order. and other times witnesses say, i'm willing to come but i need a subpoena so that i can explain to others that i didn't come voluntarily. it wasn't my idea to share information against someone who used to be an ally. or all of his political followers. i am only responding to the subpoena because you are making me. and so i have seen that happen. that people sometimes request to subpoena so that they can say, and simply complying with the law, it's not my idea here, but i have no choice. >> i want to ask both of you,

what you asked mike pence? we do know a fair amount given the interviews he sat for, or the op-eds he's --, in the book he's written. carol leonnig, what's the question, when you're leading questions, what are your top of my questions for the vice president if you were an investigator with the doj? >> you're right. you're so right, alex. so much of what pence experienced that day has been recorded in the pages of my newspaper, in various books. but to me it seems really critical that the special counsel, jack smith, wants pence in an interview room to get more deeply into what the president said to him. what the president said, what words they exchange, and that goes to ultimately former president donald trump's state of mind as he was pulling all of these different levers, increasingly desperately trying to hold on to the power, and try to block it overturn the election results. for, example i want to ask pants, what did donald trump

say to you about those in losing the election? what did he say in terms of acknowledging whether or not he thought he'd lost? i'd also get at, vice president pence, do you remember what the president said to you about his strategy for holding on to power? what did he say about the electors, what did he say to you about whether or not he believed the claim that was given that pence would have this incredible power to basically reject the certification of the vote. which actually, as you know, and i know barbara knows, the lawyer who propose that donald trump would later acknowledge that there was nowhere that what, work he didn't even think it was feasible. barbara, let's follow on with carole is saying in terms of the state of mind. how does it factor into the potential charges here? what are the legal repercussions if they can establish a state of mind via the president and isn't intentionality in terms of inciting an insurrection? >> i've always thought, alex,

the best charge available here is not so much inciting the insurrection. which i think he has some challenges under the first amendment. but instead, the charge of conspiracy to defraud the united states. that, is i knew i lost this election, and i try to steal it back anyway. mike pence is a critical component of that. it was trying to persuade mike pence, publicly, privately, on twitter and at the rally to thwart the counting of the votes. to abuse his power, i think all of those questions that carole just said go to donald trump's knowledge of fraud, and intent to persuade mike pence to abuse his power. if that could be proven, you need not even prove that donald trump incited the insurrection. i think that's gonna stand or fall based on some of the facts that are already known. i think the committee did something really interesting with regard to that theory. which is not so much the speed -- of the ellipse. but the failure to do anything for three hours. and making the tweet that says, mike pence didn't have the

courage to do what was necessary. we demand answers. which fuels on the fire, and renewed the vigor of the protesters and causing them to start shopping, hang mike pence. the things that donald trump said to mike pence, that could reveal whether he knew he actually lost the election. and that what he was doing was an improper effort to retain office. there's conversations that -- could provide detail on. but there's also conversations where mike pence was alone with donald trump. and that's why think it's critically important that we hear directly from mike pence about those conversations. >> to follow a, nappies this is the import of this testimony is so significant. what can trump do to stop pants? there is conflicting reports about whether this is being set up for a fight over executive privilege do you think that's the case? what levers are there for trump

to prevent pants from divulging the secrets that he's fought so hard to keep and glow -- ? >> donald trump blizzard executive privilege and try to stop this i think he will fail. it's a grand jury subpoena which is a little different from some of the january six subpoenas we. saw its votes to be secret. we know about it because there's a report about. it -- but the witness himself is permitted to disclose granberry material. mike pence could in good conscience, say that there is a potential executive privilege -- sharing it with the former president. and casey wants to assert a privilege, donald trump will assert a privilege. under the president of the united states versus nixon, when the supreme court said that the grand jury's entitled to everyone's evidence. and that in certain situations, although there is executive privilege it must yield when there is an interest of paramount importance. and -- courts have held that within regards to the january six committee, when it came to white house documents, that were subpoenaed from a national archives. they expect that same result here. i think trump will try, he'll fail. >>, carole at the risk of reading too much into the presidents prolific use of social media. he spent a long time as your while aware, vilifying mike pence. calling him all manner of names. but, recently with and i think the last several weeks. he sent out a conciliatory kind of message about my pants vis-à-vis the classified documents that were found at mike pence's residence. and, that in certain situations, although there is executive privileges, it must feel where

there is paramount importance. and, of course we've already held back, with voting to the january six -- when it came to white house documents, that were subpoenaed from the national archives,, i expect that same result here. so, i think trump will try and he will fill. >> carol, at the risk of reading too much into the presidents prolific use of [inaudible] >> he has spent a long time, as you're well aware, vilifying mike pence, and calling him all manner of names but recently, with a, i think the last several weeks he sent out a conciliatory kind of message about mike pence, vis-à-vis the classified documents that were found at mike pence's residence. and, effectively, said leave mike pence alone. he is a good man. now, anytime the former president decides to play nice with someone he has spent almost a career of making fun of, otherwise chastising or diminishing, i think it's worth trying to understand why. and i wonder, if at all, you think that can be a preemptive move to potentially curry favor

with mike pence, ahead of what could be fairly damaging testimony that mike pence might make to a grand jury. i know that's a lot of ifs, i know that's a lot of supposition. i just wonder, if you think that there's any chance in the scenario that mike pence is in treated by any of the words of donald trump? >> okay, those were three great questions built in there, alex. i'll try to take them quickly. let's go backwards, mike pence, i don't think is going to be influenced by anything donald trump says at this point, i mean i reported on what pence's day is like at the capitol on january six, huddling with his wife, his daughter her husband, his aides in a basement trying to stay safe. but also trying to remain in the capital, so that he could finish the job that donald trump didn't want him to do. he is pretty much broken a relationship, and, what donald trump because he believed donald trump out there to him and his family in such a great danger for what reason is

obvious. second, you asked, is it possible, pence is trying, trump is trying to win over pence? it's always possible. but, i think your first theory has a little more strength. which is, donald trump is worried about his classified records, exposure right now. this is a case that is probably causing the former president the most sleepless nights because it's the easiest case to establish that he was engaged in potential obstruction of a subpoena. seeking classified records, remember, his team asserted to the department of justice that they've done a diligent surge and all the records have been returned. and then the fbi agents coming at the department of justice's best, and one bullet hole, they find a lot of classified records. , so i think donald trump, who is often focus on donald trump it's mostly excited to say, look, pence had them to. he's a good guy. he didn't do anything wrong,

seen here. >> silly me. i thought it could be long gone for the january 6th investigations. but, of course, i think you are right, carol leonnig, it's the most obvious answer, which is he's just trying to mitigate the potential damage from the looming, potential looming criminal indictment at his front door. barbara mcquade and carol leonnig, thank you for joining us tonight as we try to deal with this breaking news and trying to understand where it's all heading. thanks for your time. >> thanks, alex. >> we have a lot to get to tonight including a vastly under covered story about one judges decision that could affect the lives of millions of americans as soon as tomorrow. plus, the first hearing of a new republican-led subcommittee examining the weaponization of the federal government. well the fireworks that republicans are trying to, set off actually end up burning their own thinkers? that is not a rhetorical question. and that is next. d that is next

♪ limu emu & doug ♪ hey, man. nice pace! clearly, you're a safe driver. you could save hundreds for safe driving with liberty mutual. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! [sfx: limu squawks] whoo! we gotta go again. ♪ ♪ ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

>> there were a lot of shocking images on january six. images of violence, vandalism and destruction of our nation's capital. but one of the most iconic and jarring images from that day may have been this one. it's a rioter proudly carrying the confederate flag through the halls of congress. today that rioter, who carry carried that flag into the capitol, 53-year-old kevin siegfried. was sentenced to three years behind bars for his role in that attack. as kevin siegfried what is being handed that three-year sentence, just a few blocks the way, republicans were holding their first hearing for the new subcommittee on what they call, the weaponization of the federal government. they called as one of air first witnesses, senator ron johnson. who told the committee that their investigation should focus on whether or not rioters

like kevin siegfried where being treated unfairly. and whether january six was really the justice department's fault to begin with. >> serious questions regarding instances of unequal application of justice and violation of january six defendants due process rights remain unanswered. how many federal agents informants were in the crowd? >> that's with the representation committee plans to focus on according to ron johnson. justice for january six rioters and the baseless conspiracy that the fbi planted provocateurs in the crowd to rile up innocent trump supporters. it's not all january six conspiracy though. they are also going to focus on covid as well. >> federal health officials denied patients early treatment, and to this day they refuse to acknowledge the extent of significant injuries caused by the covid vaccines. have emails also revealed

fauci's attempts to hide his agency's role in funding dangerous research that might have led to the creation of the deadly coronavirus? it's also becoming obvious that the world health organization has been captured by the chinese government, that global institutions have been in general captured by the left, and that some charitable foundations are exerting far more power over public policy than should be allowed. >> did you get all of that? senator johnson says that the committee should really take a look at the safety of coronavirus vaccines, which new studies estimate save more than 3 million lives and kept another 18 million people out of the hospital. he wants them to investigate the unhinged conspiracy that dr. anthony fauci was somehow responsible for causing coronavirus in the first place. and he wants congress to use its resources to look into whether china and the left, are somehow taking over global institutions. now, because democrats made the wise decision to participate in

these hearings, they were able to call the very own witnesses today, and democrats chose congressman and former january sixth impeachment manager jamie raskin to be there first witness. amid his ongoing battle with cancer, congressman raskin laid bare exactly what is at the heart of this new committee's mission. >> millions of americans already fear that weaponization is the right name for the special subcommittee. it's not because weaponization of the government is its target. but because weaponization of the government is its purpose. the odd name of the weaponization subcommittee constitutes a case of pure psychological projection. when former president donald trump and his followers accuse you of doing something, they're usually telling you exactly what their own plans are. now, of course, a serious bipartisan committee focused on weaponization of the government would zero in quickly on the

trump administration itself. trump and his obliging sycophantic attorney general like jeff sessions and bill barr pressured career prosecutors to go hard or go soft on particular cases. always seeking to reward trump 's friends, or to punish the enemies. if weaponization of the department of justice has any meaning, this is it. >> so, that's the state of play here. and if this is how it all starts, where does it go from here? joining us now is mckay coppins, staff writer at the atlantic, and author of the upcoming book, romney, a reckoning. -- very shortly. mckay, thanks for joining me tonight. i want to get right to the numbers here. we have talked a lot about these strange rabbit hole of paranoia that certain factions of the gop have plunged into. but the american public does not seem to be buying, it if you look at the polling. washington post abc poll finds that a margin of 56 to 36% of

americans think the committee is just an attempt to score political points, and only 11% of respondents believe that government agencies are biased against liberals. what do you think is the pure political calculation of having this weaponization committee people by the people, the we see on deck here, asking the questions they're asking? >> yeah, i think, like so much of the republican party today, the whole spectacle is targeting at the base. the small percentage -- the relatively small percentage of americans who are fully immersed in these narratives. the thing about the hearing that struck me was not that they were trying to go turn a congressional hearing into what is essentially fox news primetime, but that most of the talking points they were laying out were almost, i think, difficult to understand for the average american.

it wasn't that they were biased, or that they were right-wing talking points. it's that unless you are swimming in the water of conservative media, it is very difficult to even follow the narratives that they are kind of laying out. i think that what has happened over the last several years in the republican party, is that as they have focused more and more on their core supporters, they have kind of lost the plot, lost the ability to make a popular, persuasive argument to the majority of americans. >> yeah, that's such a good point. they are using the shorthand of those that where the tinfoil hat. basically ignoring the rest of the american public. the strategy they are employing is the opposite for example of the january six committee. which tried to bring the american public in -- it was very television will. there wasn't inside jargon. this is all -- about even sarah huckabee's sanders response to the state of the union was about crt,

latinx, these terms that if you weren't deeply enmeshed in the paranoid world of fox news, he would not know what they were talking about. it seems a foregone conclusion that this is the path they have charted, and they're going to continue to go down it. do you think that anybody who is outside the fringes that are at the center of the republican power in congress these days can have a word with them? i want to get to mitt romney. because i just wonder if the establishment -- or, those who are still of sound mind and body within the gop, can talk to them about this? >> yeah. i think i can say with some confidence that there are still republicans who are trying to reason with what you call the fringe of their party, which is actually now, increasingly, the mainstream of their party. but they're having a very difficult time making the case. what you've seen is that the mitt romney's and the john mccain's and the liz cheney's of the party over the last five years were turned into pariahs. these were people that were

once the leaders of the establishment, the kind of faces of the party. they are now on the fringe themselves of their party. so, they don't have a ton of sway. they don't listen to in caucus lunches. they don't get invited into fox news, to make their case to the average conservative voter. they don't have the influence they once did. i don't think that they have given up. i just don't think the average maga republican or the average person who is -- that committee feels any need to listen to them. >> i wonder if that's -- if they have been given enough of a chance to scold the erratic, paranoid conspiracy theorists among them. i want to focus on this moment that happened at the state of the union, when mitt romney effectively cow's george santos. and santos comes out looking like a loser, i think, it is interaction, right? the force of statesman's words,

the force of the elders of the party matters when those words are delivered forcefully. and i wonder if you think that we're gonna hear more of that. is mitt romney, for lack of a better term, unleashed at this stage of the game, when he sees what is becoming of the party? u.s. special access to the man. you are writing a book about him. just how animated is he by this? >> i think that what struck me about that moment with george santos is, that it does illustrate where mitt romney is at this moment. it also illustrates the fact that's what mitt romney is saying to george santos is not an out on a limb opinion. if you talk to the average establishment republican, whatever that means -- if you talk to the average, normal republican in congress, they would agree with what he said. but they don't say it. and they certainly don't say it in that way. and they don't confront george

santos the way that mitt romney did. they don't confront the wing nets in their party ever. what mitt romney does -- at this moment is not that he has some extremely original insight. it's that he is willing to say what most republicans are not willing to say without stepping on -- its coming in october -- i think you will hear a lot more from him, lines like that. i don't think that was an isolated incident. >> and potentially, -- here, what role romney may have played in empowering the forces within the gop? i'm just going to leave it there. >> yeah. let's leave it there. >> the book -- i assume you finished writing it. so, you know what is in there. we are going to read it and have you back. mckay coppins, my friend, always good to see you. >> you too. >> we have still more to come tonight, including a potential bombshell decision expected out

of the federal court in texas, when that could upend the lives of millions as soon as tomorrow. you don't want to miss that story. and turmoil at the supreme court has put a spotlight on the fact that the justices themselves are not bound by any particular code of ethics. we will talk to someone who has a plan to fix all that. that's coming up next. coming up next. 's right for me. ♪ ♪ i've got a plan to which i'm sticking. ♪ ♪ my doc wrote me the script. ♪ ♪ box came by mail. ♪ ♪ showed up on friday. ♪ ♪ i screened with cologuard and did it my way! ♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ (group) i did it my way! ♪ i want my daughter riley to know about her ancestors and how important it is to know who you are and to know where you came from. we're discovering together... it's been an amazing gift.

my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> unlike all other federal judges, there's no ethics code and there are no standards for supreme court justices. the washington post reports today that the justices have been discussing establishing rules for themselves for four years now. but they could not come to an agreement. so, they just aren't going to give themselves any rules, which is wild. it's particularly wild for an institution in which public confidence is at a historic low. it's an institution that has truly too many controversies to count at this point. whether or not you care about the leak of the draft opinion of the court's decision to overturn roe v. wade, which was authored by justice samuel alito, the courts investigation into that leak has been incredibly tallying telling. all rank and file supreme court employees were required to sign affidavits swearing they did not like the decision. but the justices themselves were not. that investigation led to a whistleblower coming forward alleging that way back in 2014, he received an early heads up

about the landmark hobby lobby contraception decision. it's another decision offered by justice alito. justice alito denied disclosing the decision. and that seems to be how that story ends, with no one actually pressing the justices. last year, justice clarence thomas was the lone dissent against a supreme court decision to let the house january 6th committee obtained trump's presidential record records. months later, the washington post -- thomas's wife, ginni thomas, had texted trump trump's chief of staff, mark meadows, in the lead up to january 6th, urging trump to overturn the election results. any lower court judge would be forced to recuse. clarence thomas? the lone dissent. none of this is, shall we say, a good look. nor is it normal for our country's justice system. and that is why today, democratic senator chris murphy and democratic congressman hank johnson introduced bills to make ethics rules for the highest court in this land. joining us now is the man

himself, chris murphy, senator from the great state of connecticut. senator murphy, thank you for being here with us tonight. can you tell me what you want to do in this bill? >> what we want to do is very simple. we want to make sure that every judge who sits on a federal bench has a code of conduct that the american people can see that applies to them. as you mentioned, right now, there are only nine justices that have no code of conduct. that's outrageous, especially at a moment where we are seeing this rather outlandish and transparent integration between the conservative justices on the court and the broader conservative movement. you mentioned this case in which there is a really serious allegation that justice alito or one of his family members told conservative activists ahead of time about a contraception decision. the court said, well, there is no evidence that there was unethical standard breached.

what ethical standard? there is no set of standards that supplies applies to the supreme court. they are exempt. we're calling for here is an independent body that already exists, the judicial conference, to set up a code of conduct that will look very much like the appellate court judges, district court judges are held to. so, at the very least, we know what rules apply, what rules don't apply to the supreme court. i just think we are at a moment of a real crisis of legitimacy when it comes to the court. i think the court would be helped by having this code of conduct everyone can see. >> so, if someone on the court violates the code of ethics, is there a punishment? what kind of enforcement mechanism do you see here? >> this is the real problem. it is probably beyond the bounds of the legislative branch to provide an enforcement mechanism. in our bill, we would establish a form of independent counsel who could undertake investigations. but sanction would ultimately have to be up to the supreme

court itself, just like sanction of members of congress is ultimately up to congress. but we have a code of ethics. we have a process by which investigation is done on a member of congress. that is simply what we want to have happen here. have a binding code. have a process of investigation. and then, when that investigation is done, and the american public can see it, that will provide pressure on the justices to take action if the code has been violated. >> what kind of intel do you have on the courts argument against something like this? >> here is a theory of the case. because we have had this remarkable -- in which the supreme court has apparently been talking about developing a code for four years. so, clearly, there is a group of justices who think this is a good idea, and a group of justices who think this is not a good idea. just as justice roberts, justice alito, they've testified before congress in the past about their disdain, or their skepticism about this code. my worry is, that the

conservative justices on the court don't really think they are judges. they don't really think they should be bound by the same code of conduct as every other federal judge is. their policy makers, not judge. as they're making -- not interpreting law -- the new justices, gorsuch, kavanaugh, coney barrett, they ran campaigns for the supreme court. that's just like we run campaigns for elected office in the legislature. my worry is that they don't believe that they should be bound by the code that every other justice is bound by, because they think they aren't judges, they believe their policy makers. >> i think there are probably people in the gop that enjoy that they are making law. there are effectively the functioning branch of the republican party in a lot of ways. the republicans in the legislature are busy having hearings about covid coming from mars or whatever. and the republicans -- the conservative justices on the court -- are actually crafting law. i would imagine that either the republican caucus is probably

loathed to do anything that would curb their ability to do something like that. do you have a sense that there is any kind of bipartisan support for what you are proposing the year? >> this has been the very clear strategy from the beginning. just to underscore your point, what republicans want for america is deeply unpopular, whether it be the invalidation of the affordable care act, or a ban on abortion, these are things you can't get passed through unelected legislature. the only way you can impose that on the country's through an unelected body like the supreme court. so, yes, of course the whole strategy is to put the whole policy makers on the supreme court. because the policies are unpopular. they can't move through the elected branch. i think republicans should have cared about this as well. there are smaller bits of evidence that the more progressive justices are sometimes attending these political conferences that the conservative justices more often go to. but it's just bad for the ultimate legitimacy of

democracy. and that's if everybody thinks the fix is into the supreme court. lindsey graham has expressed some interest in proposals like this and will continue to try to find some partners across the aisle. but right now as you said, republicans -- the fact that policymaking, without much oversight is happening on the supreme court. >> senator chris murphy, we wish you luck in your bid to restore some integrity to an institution that could use some of it right now. thanks for your time tonight. and good luck. when we come back, the story i have been promising you, when that is going to make you look for your doctor's phone number. that is next. that is next ♪new downy rinse and refresh?♪ it helps remove odors 3x better than detergent alone it worked guys! ♪yeahhhh!♪ new downy rinse and refresh get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything,

and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv >> method for stone, better

known as are you for 86, maybe the most controversial drug the fda has ever approved. >> medical advances should go through a rigorous scientific process but they should not have to go through the kind of political process that mifepristone has had to deal with. >> the fda approved the drug in september 2000, more than 22 years ago. it's been you safely ever sets by millions of people. it's called mifepristone and it stops the production of a hormone necessary for pregnancy. it's one of two drugs typically used in medication abortions. as of 2022, more than 54% abortions in the u.s. happen with these pills, not surgery. that percentage has likely

increased in the months since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. perhaps for that reason, conservative groups have been targeting mifepristone since the dobbs decision last summer. that's a little pale, which is barely bigger than an aspirin, is the new frontier of the fight over abortion access in this country. already, 18 states have established restrictions on the pills, with some trying to cut off mail access to the drug. and others threatening the pharmacists who provide medication. but as soon as tomorrow, the a federal judge in texas, one appointed by donald trump, could make a decision that would up and access to mifepristone nationwide. that includes blue states, like california and new york. it includes states that have recently enshrined access to abortion in their states constitution, like michigan and vermont. no matter where you live, this could impact you. a conservative group called alliance defending freedom, which, by the way, the southern poverty law center considers a

hate group -- that group brought a case against the fda, november, to challenge the approval of mifepristone, which, again, happened 20 years ago. the group claims the fda lacked the authority to approve the drug and didn't adequately study its safety and efficacy. the alliance defending freedom once the judge to issue an injunction blocking effectively all access to mifepristone. -- and revoke the fda's approval of a. tomorrow is a deadline for brief from the plaintiff adding to the fda, once those briefs are in, the judge could block access to -- if judge cause merrick cosmerick. -- even then, this case is rapidly expected to work its way up to a conservative, roe v. wade ending supreme court. joining me now is nancy northrup, president and ceo of

the center for reproductive rights. thank you for joining us tonight. >> following thank you for following this all-important story. >> this is literally a five alarm fire if you care about women's reproductive freedoms. the fact that it's applicable nationwide -- we are talking about the form of abortion that most women choose could be not available to people all over this country. how likely do you think it has that will get a ruling on this tomorrow? and what is your level of optimism here? >> let's just start by -- i'm sure your listeners are saying, how it is even possible that this could ban medication abortion native nationwide? it's because, as you pointed out in your opening, they've said that the fda approval back over 22 years ago was not correct. and, of course, that's fundamentally wrong. the science and the facts supported. so, it's a baseless lawsuit. but why are we on high alert? why are you on high alert? because, before -- before a judge, they shop the forum, in amarillo,, texas who

has a very anti abortion, anti contraception record. so, the concern is that he could well rule that the fda -- although, again, baseless -- that the fda should not approved's, which would mean he might enjoying its use across the nation. we are of heightened concern about that. but again, your listeners she had no, that medication abortion is safe, effective, 22 years plus. over 5 million women in the united states have used medication abortion. as you pointed out, it's the method of choice for most people in the united states. >> what's the recourse here? the biden administration is likely to file an appeal. but if there's not a stay on the injunction, this freezes access to mifepristone across the country. there could be women who need abortions in the next days and weeks. what recourse they have in a moment like this? >> well, right. first of all, it would create

chaos. of course, clinics across the nation, they are following this. and they are thinking about what their options are and looking at that. we will have to see what the ruling will be. but, of course, it would create more crisis on top of crisis that's already happening. because many people are accessing medication abortion. the fda has also found to be safe and effective by telemedicine. so, of all the sudden clinics need to switch on people getting telemedicine, medication abortion, safe and effective at-home. then having to come in for surgical abortion -- that changes entirely the access framework. it's hugely problematic. again, it shows that the ultimate goal was never as a the supreme court said, roe v. wade is overturned, we're sending it back to the states to decide. no, no. the ultimate goal is to ban it for everyone nationwide. >> what should women do -- or, people who need abortions -- and think that they live in a state where they can't gain access to a surgical abortion? what did they do right now?

what do you advise people who are alarmed -- they are just finding this out -- today call their doctors? >> yes. the first thing, no matter what the court rules, if people have an abortion scheduled, if they have a telehealth visit scheduled, if they were going to get medication abortion, call your clinic first. find out first what is happening. don't assume that you know. don't assume that because you saw a new show that maybe you are ready to take action when you are not. go ahead and look at it. and then also look at other credible resources, all the nonprofit organizations, the planned parenthood, and independent clinics, abortion funds, and all the places that you can get information. the new york attorney general has information on her website. all those reliable places -- but try to get the information first. don't just assume. >> it's very hard. because, i think, not enough attention has been paid to this issue, it's hard to fathom what could be on our doorstep. literally, in the next 24 hours. and the chaos as you say,

layered on top, what's already an unacceptable situation as far as women's access to reproductive freedoms. nancy, thank you for coming here. thank you for doing the work you're doing. please keep us posted as this case makes its way through the courts. >> absolutely. ending where, we don't know. we'll be right back. we'll be right back. subaru. when it comes to longevity, who has the highest percentage of its vehicles still on the road after ten years? subaru. and when it comes to value, which popular brand has the lowest cost of ownership? lower than toyota, honda, or hyundai? subaru. it's easy to love a car you can trust. it's easy to love a subaru. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? >> vo: for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. we went to safelite.com. there's no one else we'd trust. their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our car's advanced safety system. they focus on our safety...

so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to 60% a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. >> that is the show for comcast business. powering possibilities.

tonight. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> thanks, alex. it's a pena night here at msnbc, with mike pence making a -- vice presidential history. >> it is we. should never lose fact of the site that the vice president is getting a subpoena to talk about the actions on the part of his own president as it relates to, potentially, fomenting a insurrection at the capitol to undermine democracy. the gravity of all they should not be lost on all this as we talk about the ins and outs of the legalities. >> yes. yet another unique entry in the mike pence