good morning, it is sunday july the 23rd, i'm ali velshi, at this point next year, the republican national convention will have just concluded, and the party will have officially chosen its nominee for the 2024 presidential election. if things continue to go the way they are going now, consider this possibility. the next republican nominee could be a twice impeached, at least twice convicted, felon, still awaiting, or in the midst of trial, for other crimes. before the rnc even begins on july 15th of next year, donald trump, the current front-runner for the nomination, by a country mile, will have stood before a judge and jury as a defendant in at least two criminal cases. one involving the hush money payments made to the adult film

star stormy daniels, ostensibly to avoid the bad press of her allegation of an affair with donald trump, which he denies. and the other, regarding the federal case out of florida regarding the classified documents and government records that trump improperly hoarded at mar-a-lago. now, we all know that the disgraced former president appears likely to be criminally indicted for a third time in special counsel jack smith's other federal investigation involving interference in the 2020 elections. and a fourth indictment is possible later this summer, out of fulton county georgia for similar efforts to interfere in that state's elections. according to reporting by nbc news, the target letter that donald trump received from jack smith outlined three statues under which the former president could be charged. deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to defraud the united states, and witness tampering. it's important to hold trump accountable in the hush money payment scheme, and the classified documents matter.

but these election interference cases are in a league of their own, it's not just about trump's attempt to avoid accountability for breaking the law, it's the fact that he tried to steal the election from the american people, and nullify your vote. the victim of this alleged crime is you. and me. and the american people, all of us. because when you break democracy, you don't just break it for biden voters or trump voters, he tried to steal it from every single one of us. liberals, conservatives, libertarians, independents. in trying to undermine the votes not cast for him, he sacrificed our collective trust in the democratic system. the overt message in his monthlong attempt to overturn the 2020 election results is that some votes matter more than other votes. that democracy doesn't matter. donald trump actively and relentlessly tried to undo the choice that the american people collectively made, the decision, that you made, and i made, in

2020. it was undeniable. that's why jack smith and fani willis's cases are so critically important. if trump is the republican nominee next year, then the 2024 election will simply be about one thing, and one thing only. the future of our republic, and whether we can maintain it. two and a half years ago, american democracy came perilously close to succumbing to donald trump's autocratic demands, and if it weren't for one man, vice president mike pence, and his decision to certify the vote for joe biden, refusing to do as his boss ordered him to do, we might be in a very different place right now. for more on this, i'm joined by the man who advised mike pence in this constitutional responsibilities, and duty. judge jay michael luttig. he's a former federal judge in the fourth circuit of appeals, and he's a friend of the show, good morning to you, judge. >> good morning, ali, glad to be here, thank you. >> judge, in response to the news regarding trump and this

target letter, you put out a statement that read -- ent that read -- >> you believe that these are necessary charges, almost independently of donald trump, but really for the preservation of democracy? >> i do. the former president will now, apparently, be indicted and prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and also, for the

attack on the united states capitol on january 6th. these are the greatest offenses against the united states that a president could commit, with the possible exception of treason itself. these offenses, partake of the betrayal of america that is the essence of treason. neither this indictment, nor the indictment of the classified documents case, would have ever come to pass, if the former president had not wanted and forced to jack smith, and the department of justice, to prosecute him. on any given day, over the past two and a half years, donald trump could have avoided and prevented these prosecutions. he didn't want to. he wanted to be indicted, and prosecuted, for his conduct on january 6th. so instead, for two and a half

years, he dared, taunted, and provoked both doj and, eventually, jack smith, to indict him. and finally, jack smith had no choice but to indict the former president, lest he make a mockery out of the constitution and the rule of law. the republicans are as responsible for these indictments as donald trump is himself. their unwavering support for trump, since january 6th, convinced him of his political immortality. and in the meantime, they also convinced him that he could recapture the house in 2024, on their behalf. >> on twitter -- you had some words of caution about one of the statutes that is reportedly cited in the target letter. we, of course, have not seen it

arlette ourselves, so we are relying on other reporting. but it is title 18, section 2:41, and it relates to the deprivation of rights. now, that one came as a bit of a surprise for some analysts and it wasn't one of the charges that was included in the congressional january 6th committee criminal referral. you wrote that we just can't speculate about it. what do you mean by that? what's your concern about this particular statute? title 18, section 2:41. >> this is very sensitive, ali. and i don't know what the department of justice is thinking or jack smith is thinking. and there was a lot of speculation out there about what they were about to do. i tweeted that to make the point that i made, which is we don't know, and we can't even rationally speculate, as to

what jack smith and the department of justice are thinking, and thinking about doing. now, in response to all of the traffic in the media and on twitter about the section 2:41 possible charge, i did want to simply make the point, and the only point, that there would be a very serious question, whether donald trump intimidated the voters of america, or intimidated the state election officials, such as the secretaries of state. depriving them of their

constitutional right to vote. there is not a constitutional right to vote. but i just wanted to pose that question for all those who were speculating and, of course, in directly to the department of justice. but i have no earthly idea what the department of justice is thinking. and neither does anyone else, ali. >> last month, judge, you wrote an op-ed for the new york times shortly after trump was federally indicted in the classified documents case. the essay is called, it's not too late for the republican party. in which you have strong words for republicans. you say, quote, in a word you say, quote, in a wor

>> this is -- these are tough words for you, and from you, because you are a conservative. you have been a republican for all of your life. do you think anyone is listening to those words? do you think some relatives are coming around to the idea that they need to be on the right side of this? >> as we said here today, ali, there is no evidence whatsoever that the republican party and the republican politicians, carried one whit about what i said. and nor should they, frankly. they should be thinking about this themselves. neither i, nor anyone else, should have to tell them this. but still today, there is not a

single republican candidate who is running for the republican nomination today, who is running against donald trump except for governor chris christie. at this point, governor chris christie just happens to be the first republican politician of any note, who is challenging donald trump for the presidency of the united states. time will tell. whether any of the other republican candidates for the white house will challenge the former president. i doubt it, at this point. they are all in with donald trump. as a result of their two and a half years of support for him. specifically over his conduct

in and around january 6th, ali. >> we've heard from will hurd and asa hutchison, who also seem to be pushing back on donald trump. but your point is that most of the pack, including the guy running in the third position, a very distant third, but mike pence is sort of third in most of the polling at this point. this is a guy who can help them with somebody who consulted with you, and ended up doing the right thing on january 6th. history will judge that he was on the right side of that issue. and yet, he still seems tentative about pushing back on trump as it relates to these charges and the prosecution of trump for his interference in the 2020 election. does that surprise you? given that he did reach out. >> it -- the vice president, that issue, with respect to the vice president, is not of my concern or my business. he is a former vice president of the united states running for the presidency of the united states today, and he can

manage his campaign perfectly well without any comment from me. >> well said, sir. good to see you, judge, as always we appreciate your time. judge jay michael luttig is a former federal judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit. thank you sir, have a great day. >> thank you, ali. >> breonna taylor, caleb war, to niche anderson, just a few names of the countless black women who have died from police violence and ultimate jump-start the state her name campaign. later i will be joined by professor kimberly crenshaw to discuss her new book memorializing these women, and making sure that we never forget them. plus, as democrats were to retake control of the house, we will take a look at a recent redistricting ruling that could swing power to democratic side of the new york i'll. york i'll

when you smell the amazing scent of new gain flings... time stops. ♪ (music plays) ♪ and you realize you're in love... steve? ...with a laundry detergent. new gain flings. seriously good scent.

meet the team... behind the team. the coach. the manager. and the snack dad. all using chase to keep up with their finances. the coach helps save goals here, because she saved for soccer camp there.

anddd check this out... the manager deposited a check. magic. and the snack dad? he's getting paid back. orange slicesss. because this team all has chase. smart bankers. convenient tools. one bank with the power of both. chase. make more of what's yours.

we moved out of the city so our little sophie chase. could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens?ton. basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. last week at a small college in

new hampshire, voters huddled for a 2024 political town hall. the lengthy discussion delve into pressing butter issues like gun violence, climate change, and the nation's debt. but there were no declared candidates onstage, no official political parties sponsoring the event, and plenty of vocal condemnation of the anger and divisiveness in this country. the town hall was hosted by no labels, a group that has it's a bipartisan organization and advertised itself as a voice for moderation in this polarized world. no labels has some pretty ambitious plans, it wants to run a so-called centrist third party candidate for president in 2024, it says it's offering an insurance plan for americans who don't want to vote for trump or biden, if they end up

being the nominee is. and while no labels calls itself moderate and balanced, their plan could end up paving the way for an extreme far right candidate like donald trump. historically speaking, a third party candidate typically ends up siphoning moderate votes away from the main candidate. so instead of working to bring, quote, anyone but trump to the white house, no labels might actually be securing his return. the group didn't come out of nowhere. no labels was founded in 2010 after the tea party arrived. its goal was to reorient u.s. politics and, quote, speak truth to partisanship. no labels created the house problem solvers caucus which, in recent years, has done some good work. pushed through the covid relief package during the trump administration, and the infrastructure framework during the biden administration. but while friendly problem solving sounds great on paper, what no labels is doing now at the presidential level is less effective, and it is potentially dangerous. it's one of those groups that vacuums up hefty donations by

claiming that they are policies run straight down the middle on hot button issues. no labels has now made a pretty recognizable name for itself as a third party. what's a little more opaque is where it gets its money from. nbc's vaughn hillyard spoke to the founder, nancy jacobsen, and asked why the source of their funding in such a secret. >> why not reveal your donors? >> because the truth is, about the time in which we live in, you reveal, first of all, we aren't a party. >> but you're registering as a political party. >> that's just language. but we know how the game works in politics these days. it's not that people really want to see the donors, because there's nothing nefarious going on here -- >> why should they trust that though? >> they're going to have to see us through our work. >> when asked about registering as a political party, she said no labels is, quote, want to get, one time. they aren't running up and down the ballot. it may be cold no labels, but

the tagline seems more like no receipts. however -- did obtain a partial list of donors, nbc news has not obtain this ourselves, and no labels did not return mother jones's request for comment. some of the folks on the list have done that to both parties, as many ultra rich donors often do, the report found, quote, generally these no labels supporters appeared to focus conservative candidates. you might recognize the ultra conservative billionaire harlan crow on the list, he's the one who takes supreme justice clarence thomas on those private vacations. there's also -- who regularly don't -- and a natural gas billionaire, who has donated to mitch mcconnell's super pac. to be fair, natural gas billionaires have also donated to west virginia democratic senator joe manchin. he happens to be the very democrat who has been publicly flirting with the idea that he could run as they know labels

candidate. >> are you considering running for president on the no labels third party candidate to get? >> we aren't considering -- >> are you taking it off the table? >> we aren't taking anything off the table. >> remember how i said there were no declared candidate at the nobles town hall last week? senator manchin was the next best thing. he took the stage as a key speaker to declare to the audience that america's political parties have, quote, not delivered, and quote. no, you want miss remembering, this is in fact the same guy who spent the last two and a half years stymieing president biden and his own party's agenda. at that town hall, no label signal that it would prevent a third party president took it by super tuesday. it's the farthest a group has gone to commit itself to moving forward with its unity ticket project. it is, however, a project that could very well backfire on the american people. american people. ars. i served three overseas tours.

i love to give back to the community. i offer what i can when i can. i started noticing my memory was slipping. i saw a prevagen commercial and i did some research on it. i started taking prevagen about three years ago. i feel clearer in my thoughts, my memory has improved and generally just more on point. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription.

you ever try cashbacking? it's earning 3% at drugstores with chase freedom unlimited. so i can save on something special for a first date? wait! that's all for a first date? whoa. alright, c'mon. earn big with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? i was told my small business wouldn't qualify for an erc tax refund. you should get a second opinion from innovation refunds at no upfront cost. sometimes you need a second opinion. all these walls gotta go! ah ah ah! i'd love a second opinion. take the first step to see if your small business qualifies. a new bipartisan organization

called citizens to save our republic is opposing the effort by no labels to run a third party candidate in the 24 race. the former house democratic leader dick jeff heart is working with that group, he joins me now. he is a former minority and majority leader in the house of representatives, he's the president and ceo of the gephardt group. sir, good to see you, thanks for being with us today. >> good to be with you, ali. >> let's talk about this concept. the idea of a third party. the idea of a third candidate. i can entirely understand why reasonable people would think, how could that be harmful? that's got to be a good thing, giving people more choice. it's got something to do with the moment that we are in right now, in which we've got this binary choice between a candidate who is in favor of democracy that we hold dear, no matter what our political party is, and on the other side, you've got donald trump and his

ilk who don't seem to share that view. it's about now, as opposed to generally, right? >> that's correct. i've been a sub border for no labels, i'm especially a supporter for the problem solvers in congress for the reasons you just said. but these are not normal times. we miss having a broken election in 2020 by a whisker. and the person who tried to overthrow the government, and that election, is a candidate for president in 2024. as liz cheney said, we can never allow donald trump near the white house again. so this no labels effort to put a third party presidential ticket in all 50 states, i believe, and the people that are with me on this believe, and all of our research shows, that this effort could very

well reelect donald trump, take the country back to and authoritarian model, which we've been off of since 1789. >> tell me this, then. what argument do you use when people say they would take voters away from potentially either candidate? or they would attract voters who are not going to cast a ballot for joe biden, or donald trump? i have seen some research to what you've said, that says this will probably help donald trump. but there are some people who don't believe that. give me your best argument as to why this could endanger us by giving trump the election? >> three weeks ago, we commissioned our own poll, i personally paid for it. it's a national poll, and a poll in the six or seven swing states. and what it indicates is that the election, if it were held today, and the candidates were

biden and trump and this third party ticket, donald trump would be reelected. if you don't have a third party ticket, then joe biden squeaks by, again, as he did in 2020. look, we aren't getting involved in this to protect joe biden. to protect any party. or anything. we are just worried about one thing. donald trump coming back to the white house. no labels says, it has two goals. and i think they are in conflict. this is the first goal is to get people a choice, in case the candidates are biden and trump. okay. but then they -- buy the next word out of their mouths, they will do nothing to reelect donald trump. so why don't they just say now that if the republican candidate is donald trump, they aren't going to put this third party ticket on the ballot? >> this is not hard for you, as

a democrat, but there are a whole lot of republicans on this show who say, i love the party, i want there to be a real republican party one day, this is not the moment for it. so in fact, the only way to keep him out of office, it's supporting biden. i'm puzzled why, in 2023, people are having trouble with the fact that right now, politics in america as distasteful as it is, is binary. >> you got it. we are where we are. i don't like it anymore than anybody else. there's a lot of things that have to be done to try to pull the american people back together again. but having a third party in this situation is not a good idea. it's a risky idea, that we should not go into. if people, like joe manchin, want to run for president, he has every right to run on the democratic ballot against joe biden. we've got eight or nine candidates running on the

republican side. if republicans want to run for president, they should run in the republican primary. and one last thing, who's going to pick the notable ticket? what kind of a process are they going to have? we have the people in primaries picking the democratic and the republican candidate, but i don't know who's going to pick -- they aren't planning to have a primary, to the best of my knowledge. so this is an undemocratic process that they are engaging in, and again, it will elect donald trump. >> good to see you, sir, thank you for being with us this morning. a former missouri congressman dick get part is the president and ceo of the gephardt group. still ahead, how a major redistricting case in new york state could mean that democrats take control of the house in 2024. e in 2024 hen we metamorphosize into our new evolved form, we carry that spirit with us.

because you can take alfa romeo out of italy. but you best believe, you can't take the italy out of an alfa romeo. 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

this is spring semester at over 13,000 us school districts, which have become top targets for ransomware attacks. but there's never been a reported ransomware attack on a chromebook. which is why thousands of schools like the fairfield-suisun unified school district switched to google tools for education. so they can focus on teaching and 22,000 students can focus on learning, knowing that their data is secure. ( ♪♪ ) every day, more dog people are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door.

it's smarter, healthier pet food. hey all, so i just downloaded the experian app because i wanted to check my fico® score, but it does so much more. this thing shows you your fico® score, you can get your credit card recommendations, and it shows you ways to save money. do so much more than get your fico® score. download the experian app now. just between us, you know what's better than mopping? anything! ugh. well, i switched to swiffer wetjet, and it's awesome. it's an all-in-one, that absorbs dirt and grime deep inside. and it helps prevent streaks and haze. wetjet is so worth it. love it, or your money back. with 2024 faster poaching, all

eyes have been on the presidential race, and a potential second showdown between joe biden and donald trump. a recent ruling by a new york state court has not made the battle for control of the house much more interesting. it's possibly the most consequential redistricting case being liberated right now, and appeals courts in albany side with democrats in their effort to redo the states congressional map, and it could mean that new york just might hand democrats control of the house in 2024. let's go back, so i can explain. before 20.2 buttermilk should seize, and democrats in the new york state legislature regrouped and redrew congressional maps, as is customary every ten years went up to that census data becomes available. the maps drawn by the democrats were, in fact, gerrymandered. they tilted the districts so heavily in their favor, that a state court throughout the maps and put a neutral expert in charge of fixing it. that person reach of districts so differently that republicans in new york flipped for

congressional seat in 2022, which helped hand the republicans the majority in the house and kevin mccarthy the speakership. democrats argued the maps used in the 22 election should not be used again, and about a week ago, a state court threw them out, allowing for yet new maps to be drawn from scratch. if this ruling stands, the democratic party has a very solid chance of retaking control of the house in 2024 and since i'm a numbers guy, let me show you the numbers. for either party to have a majority in the house, they need 219 seats. right now republicans control 222 seats. democrats have 212. this new ruling in new york would likely give democrats clear advantages in seven districts that are currently held by the gop. seven, plus 212, democrats get right past that magic number of 2:18 for the majority. join me now to discuss, is jerry gold fedor, he's an attorney specializing in election and campaign finance law, he previously served as

the chair to the new york city's bar association committee on election law. he's currently the director of the fordham -- jerry, good to see you. >> good to be with you. >> i think i should just warn our viewers who don't follow new york policy very closely. i have wildly over simplified what happened in new york. i was trying to lay it out for them. fundamentally, what's the reason why the court agreed with the democrats. because the democrats had sort of messed this up in the first place, so why did they went in saying that they are redrawing the maps? >> first of all, let me just say that i think maybe your premiers might be a little off base. i think whether the lines are redrawn or we are stuck with the lines that we had in 2022, i think there's going to be a tremendously robust campaign by the democrats, headed by joe biden on the ticket in 2024, that we are going to see the democrats taking control of

those seats again in new york. but let's talk about the legal issue here. many states have the legislature draw the lines. new york and some states have independent redistricting commissions. we have a hybrid. we have a redistricting commission that draws the lines, they sent it to the legislature, and if it legislator doesn't like, it the redistricting commission does it again. they do it twice and then if the legislature wants, it can draw the lines. that's what happened last time. those were challenged by a republican, they brought a case in upstate new york before a republican judge, and that judge was upheld in declaring that there was a gerrymander, that the seats -- the lines were too partisan. the high court sent the issue to a special master, who came from pittsburgh, appointed by this republican judge, who had

no connection to new york. he drew the lines that were very unsatisfactory, and actually, much more partisan than the original alliance. so those were the congressional lines that we used in 2022. the democrats have now argued that that was fine for 2022, but we really need to go back to the redistricting commission. and that's what the court agreed with. this intermediate -- intermediary upheld court. it was a split court, so it's going to go to the highest court in new york state, the new york court of appeals. and they will have the final word. the issue is whether or not the redistricting commission should draw new lines for 2024 and the cost of the decade. if they say that the redistricting commission should do that, they will draw lines, it will go to the legislature and the legislature will either approve or draw their own

lines. and then we are back to square one. because those who don't like those lines, and the democrats control the legislature in new york, so presumably if republicans don't like those new lines, they can go to court again. the clock is ticking. >> what's a way to solve this, though? again, this sounds a little circular. it sounds like one could get stuck in this whole process. what could solve this, such that lines are drawn in a way that makes sense? >> well, either the redistricting commission or the legislature can draw lines that, in consultation with republicans, are relatively satisfactory for both sides. i'm not sure that's going to occur. i'm not sure it can occur. because we live in a very partisan atmosphere. but that would do the trick. that would get us out of this, what you call, circular

reasoning. either redistricting commission, or the legislature -- republican counterparts and produced a set of lines that were satisfactory. we have the lines in place, candidates can't position to get on the ballots starting in late february of 2024, and the primaries are held next june. however, if any republican has a problem with those lines, they can go to court and they can get a stay on those lines, and then we are stuck. and we are stuck with the lines that we already have. so we do have some real issues in front of us, as to whether or not we are going to have new lines in 2024. but as i say, i think that in either case, we have a very strong united states senate candidate, who is the incumbent, kirsten gillibrand, she's working very closely with

hakeem jeffries and the democratic congressional delegation. we have a robust democratic party. i think this is going to be a lot of money put into winning the house seats, so hakeem jeffries can become speaker next time. and after all, the 2024 election, whatever the lines are, the top of the ticket is going to be headed by joe biden. i think we are going to see turnout that's going to be spectacularly high, and we may even reach a blowout in new york comparable to what lyndon johnson did in 1964. this is a binary choice. i think that the democrats are in good position, whatever the new lines are, however -- to deal with this. >> as long as people understand this is not a binary choice. i would like nothing more for it -- >> you are talking about it every day, and i think people

really do understand. >> thank you serve, jerry, good to see you. an election law attorney. say her name. three words that will forever stick in our minds. a movement that has come to the fore to shed light on the countless black women killed at the hands of a police. up next, i will speak with the founder of the movement, kimberlé crenshaw, about where it stands today, and her new book, chronicling at all. ronicling at all living with metastatic breast cancer means i cherish my memories. but i don't just look back on them, i look forward

to the chance to make new ones every day with verzenio. verzenio is proven to help you live significantly longer when taken with fulvestrant. verzenio + fulvestrant is for hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after hormone therapy. diarrhea is common, may be severe, or cause dehydration or infection. at the first sign, call your doctor, start an antidiarrheal, and drink fluids. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor about any fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. life-threatening lung inflammation can occur. tell your doctor about any new or worsening trouble breathing, cough, or chest pain. serious liver problems can happen. symptoms include fatigue, appetite loss, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising. blood clots that can lead to death have occurred. tell your doctor if you have pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain and rapid breathing or heart rate or if you are nursing, pregnant, or plan to be. i'm making future memories every day with verzenio. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio. say her name.

three words that became seared into the national consciousness several years ago, calling attention to a group of often overlooked victims of police brutality. black women and girls. the say her name movement gained prominence after the death of sandra bland in 2015, she was a black woman who was stopped by texas state troopers after failing to signal a lame change. after a heated encounter she was arrested and taken into custody. three days later, bland was found dead in her prison cell. years later, the movement saw a resurgence following the killing of 26-year-old breonna taylor, who was fatally shot in her own home by kentucky police in march of 2020. taylor's death became a national rallying cry, demanding we bear witness to the experiences that black women, not just men, have had at the experience of police. the movement itself was named after the popular hash take and social campaign launched in 2014 by the scholar and activist kimberlé crenshaw who sought to amplify the stories

of black women and shed light on the broader issues of racial injustice and gender inequality. an incredible history of this move it is now chronicled in a brand book titled say her name, black women's stories of state violence and public silence. coauthored by crenshaw, the book memorializes 177 black women killed between 1975 and 2022, and it's specifically features nine poignant stories as told by their loved ones. for crenshaw, bringing visibility to the experiences of black women in america means centering their stories as part of a larger historical reckoning, one that meticulously traces and connects the present day exploitation of black women's bodies to slavery. in the book she writes, quote, since their arrival on american shores, black women have lived lives on the whims of others. whims of others

the book is full of stuff like that. they say her name movement, through its powerful protests and advocacy efforts, has undeniably become an integral part of the ongoing struggle for police reform and racial equality. after the break, kimberlé crenshaw joins me right here, live in studio, to discuss her new work and how it fits into the greater context of american history. history.

meet the future. a chef. a designer. and, ooh, an engineer. all learning to save and spend their money with chase. the chef's cooking up firsts with her new debit card. hungry? -uhuh. the designer's eyeing sequins. uh no plaid. while mom is eyeing his spending. nice. and the engineer? she's taking control with her own account for college. three futures, all with chase. freedom for kids. control for parents. one bank for both. chase. make more of what's yours. just between us, you know what's better than mopping? anything! ugh. well, i switched to swiffer wetjet, and it's awesome.

it's an all-in-one, that absorbs dirt and grime deep inside. and it helps prevent streaks and haze. wetjet is so worth it. love it, or your money back. i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder on my phone. on the top of the pile! oh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪

new dove men bodywash gives you 24 hours of nourishing micromoisture. that means your skin still feels healthy and smooth now... now... ...and now too. get healthier, smoother feeling skin all day. >> before the break, i told you

about a groundbreaking new book details the powerful story behind the say her name movement, through the individual stories of lived experiences and lives of black women who have fallen victim to state violence. i want to welcome a great friend of our show, the pioneering scholar kimberlé crenshaw, she is the executive director of the african american policy forum, she is the coauthor of the brand new book titled say her name, she's

somebody i've spoken to so many times about so many important moments of our time. but i think we have to do honor to what you've written. you have written this book to remember, and to honor, these women, and these girls. let's talk about that today, even though we have 1 million things to talk about. say her name. what was the point? what was the thing you are trying to get out there? we were in a moment in which people were remembering the names of people who were victims of police brutality, but you had a sense that somehow there were women in this thing being forgotten. >> the impetus for say her name was the rally, the march, that many of us here in new york went on when the no bill came down against the person who killed eric garner. we were all there, marching, chanting, shut it down for mike brown, who have been killed a little bit earlier. and we also -- and by we, i mean the african

american policy form, we had a banner -- there's a picture of it in the book. the names and images of many black women who were killed by police. we would put their names in the chant as well. and we noticed some people gave us the thumbs up, other people were disturbed. they were disturbed that they didn't know -- >> whose names -- >> who are these people? it told us the reality that a lot of people didn't understand that anti black police violence extended to women and girls, girls as young as seven, great grandmother's as old as 93. this was a vulnerability that stretched across black women, across class, across age, sexuality, gender expression, no one was safe from this form of anti black violence. but people didn't know about it. so it created will be called the loss of the loss, first the families lose these women, and these girls, and then the fact that they've lost them becomes

lost to their communities, becomes lost to history, becomes lost to the movement. say her name is, quite frankly, the imperative, it's the embodiment of the imperative, that we have to bear witness, by saying their name, that is the way in which we can address the one thing that we can, the obscurity. >> in the case of breonna taylor, it was actually meaningful, because there had been so many people killed by police at that point, that it was important to remember all of it. but one of the complexities, vaughn talked to you, because you do so many things that are so important, is this idea that this goes all the way back through history. the quote that i used. this goes back to the foundation of this country. black women and their experiences, their negative experiences and they're positive ones, there is a remarkable way in which we've erased that. one could argue we've also erased some experience of white women in the country, but women get erased. and you are trying to remedy that right now. >> absolutely. and if we are actually seen the

consequences of that erasure even in the recent debate about the florida black history standards, that tries to, in some, white vallance enslavement with the fact that they learned skills -- >> and just to be clear, for anyone who missed this, they are trying to suggest that enslavement was some kind of vocational training, and it brought skills to black people. >> at the end of the day -- >> they learned how to be -- >> this still learn something. my great great-grandmother was and enslaved woman, she was also a person who helped people in labor. i cannot imagine that this woman, who had more than one dozen children, many of whom she never was able to raise on her own, would say, well, on one hand, i was a -- i lost my children, on the other hand, at least i learned how to be a midwife. that's outrageous. it's insulting, and it's also telling us that the ideology that supported enslavement, the neo-confederate idea that it was good for black people and

civilized them, still has a hold on our country. that's the only reason why anyone can reasonably think that they can talk about enslavement as basically a skill building experience for african americans. >> bringing together all of these issues that you talk about, you tweeted after that overhaul of florida's anti african american history standards discussion, you said, no one should be shocked that the whitewashing of our history has been the goal of anti wokeism from the beginning. it was never about crt or indoctrination, but about racing these oracle predicate for anti racist policies and knowledge. we must fight back. this is all part of your life's work, the idea that -- you are the brains behind crt, everyone says it's why we are banning books, but it's not. >> it never has been about crt, or trying to protect children from insults and assault on the classroom, this is about the

effort to erase the history of the country so it's contemporary consequences cannot be addressed, or named. there is no remedy for something that really wasn't that much of a problem, and in that case, it was a long time ago. i'm talking about my great great-grandmother, it was not that long ago. so finally -- i mean, i'm satisfied that people will now see this for what it is. i hope that we take the lesson, that there is no appeasing this, there is no pivoting, there is no running away. this is what the gop is going to run on, and unless we learn how to fight this on its own terms, we are going to see more and more of this desantis nonsense. which means people say, not saying something isn't crt or don't worry about it, understanding that this is what they are saying crt is, now go glanced it. go and say why you can't censor history and keep it away from our children. discomfort, as we say in our banned book club, it's not wa