the department of justice failed to appear. they have responsibility for the fbi, for the prosecution and for action here. director ray may have run out of adjectives, but the department has not run out of action. they should be answering many of the questions. i am by no means satisfied with what i heard today. >> as somebody who has been in and out of these hearings, i would like to let you know that if the fbi had done anything that was even within their own policies and procedures, or followed any of the laws already in place to protect children, some of these people would not be here as victims, let alone talk about recovery. it seems redundant to me to continue to talk about the things that are going to be put in place when people cannot hear something about violent child sexual abuse, trafficking and being accessories to the fact that larry nasser did what he did, then we are somehow supposed to be answer where the fbi screwed up. there amazing people, good people, but if you do not work with a moral standard and do the v

the department of justice today was a no-show. the department of justice failed to appear. they have responsibility ultimately for the fbi, for the prosecutions, and for action here. and director wray may have run out of adjectives, but the d department of justice hasn't run out of action. they should be answering many of the questions. so i am by no means satisfied with what i heard today. >> as somebody who's been in and out of these rooms since the beginning of this coming forward, i just would like to let you know if the fbi had done anything that was even within their own policies and procedures, or followed any of the laws that are already in place to protect children from sexual abuse, some of these people would not even be here as victims, let alone talk about a recovery. so it seems a little bit redundant to me to continue to talk about the things that are going to be put in place when people cannot hear something about child sexual abuse, violent child sexual abuse, trafficking and being accessories to the fact that larry nassar did what he did and then we're someh

that is the responsibility of the department of justice. as a general matter, the department, the attorney general don't represent the president as a person. they do represent the institution of the presidency but even in that representation, it's got to be consistent with law and has to be consistent with the contusion. >> and what about the strain then it was under with the president of the united states putting pressure on the department and top leaders to overturn the election results. as you heard in drew's earlier report he is toldi the acting a to leave the rest to him and the repub conlican congressman, wha your reaction to that? >> at the beginning of every administration there is a discuss between the department of justice and white house counsel's office limiting and describing the amount of contacts, limited contacts that are to occur between the white house and department of justice because you don't want -- even the appearance that the department of justice is in any way influenced to protect the constitution. in this particula

the department of justice today was a no-show. the department of justice failed to appear. they have responsibility ultimately for the fbi, for the prosecutions and for action here. director wray may have run out of adjectives, but the department of justice has not run out of action, and they should be answering many of the questions. so i am by no means satisfied with what i heard today. >> as somebody who has been in and out of the rooms since the beginning of this coming forward, i would just like to let you know that if the fbi had done anything that was even within their own policies or procedures or followed the laws that are already in place to protect some of the policies to protect children from abuse, some of these people would not be here in recovery, and so it is to me that people cannot be hearing that trafficking and larry nasser to be accessories to what he did, and then we are to answer what the fbi did to screw up. they are amazing people, but if they do not work with the conscious and the moral standards and the very basics of their job, then that cannot ha

it was an honor of a lifetime to the ones at the department of justice is united states attorney for the southern district of i in the bush administration. i never thought i would come back to the department of justice. when i was approached about coming back as us attorney in the morning i said let somebody else do that. it is an important job but i did for 5 and half years, i enjoyed it but i want to do some other things. the administration in 2017 was chugging along it was determined general sessions needed a different chief of staff, some friends told me not only that i should do it but i had to do it so i went back to the department of justice, moved to washington dc and the rest is history. except usually chief of staff don't become the acting attorney general and those who were around at that time, there's a slight controversy when the president put me in as acting attorney general and all i did was the right thing for the right reason every single day until william barr took over in 2019 and i went on and went back to what i was doing, private practice of law, which is been 75

all of the judges ultimately work for the department of justice. and it's an office inside of the department of justice and the ultimate essentially the supreme court of the immigration courts in the united states and so you can take the case as we took several cases especially during general session the tenure and in those cases, maybe jean mccartney here but. [laughter] we took several his case and the attorney general is essential taking it on appeal. on his own volition and write an opinion that in some cases, change the law give you one example. we change the law in private acts of violence so that if you were someone in a third country, maybe where northern triangle. guatemala honduras and el salvador. and you are the victim of this, didn't necessarily, the law qualifies you to seek asylum in the united states. we took that case we reviewed and we said that does not make a lot of sense. obviously if you're being persecuted for your political views, if your country, we put the law essentially back where it was. and i think in every example of t

it makes it clear that both the supremacy clause of the constitution allows the department of justicecally the chances of having an injunction. so to have this response from the department of justice when people are still hurting on the ground, the vice president met with providers in texas today to hear how dire the situation is on the ground. this is a whole new day in the attention and focus and force of trying to get texas back in line with the constitution and to be able to restore the rights to the people of texas. >> look, it's all coming to a head and it's going to be a seminole moment that really shines a light of exactly where we are with women's rights and the equality of the same in our society today. nancy northam, thank you for the very smart take. appreciate you. >> thank you. >>> some good news on the afghanistan front. i know this is touchy politically. it really shouldn't be, okay? everybody should want to get americans and their allies out of afghanistan, and today more of them were able to get out, and a big reason why is that the white house has now approved a par

today, after careful assessment of the facts and the law, the justice department has filed a lawsuit against the state of texas. our position is set out in detail in our complaint, as follows. sp-8 bans nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant and months before a pregnancy is viable. it does so even in cases of rape, sexual abuse, or incest, and it further prohibits aid by doctors to provide abortions for people who seek them. the act is clearly unconstitutional under long-standing supreme court precedent. those precedents hold, and the words of planned parenthood versus casey, that "regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability." texas does not dispute that it statute violates supreme court precedent. instead, the statute includes an unprecedented scheme to, in the chief justice's words, to "insulate the state from responsibility." it does not rely on the state's executive branch

what is really odd about this is that the department of justice is entering as a party. usually the department of justice is a friend of the court. here they're saying we're a party of interest. any time a state law threatens constitutional rights, we have skin in the game. this is not how the department of justice has operated in the past. some courts are going to ask about that. for example, garland said we're going to say that this field is partially or wholly preempted. the supreme court has always recognized that states have a right to legislate in the area of abortion. the question is where to draw the line, this is a major assertion of federal authority and unprecedented one. the problem with that is he may have just created a new point of challenge for pro life litigants. he could have made the situation worse with this filing. he's added robust federalism issue that is quite novel and a lot of courts are likely to be uncomfortable with this in this degree of federal authority. >> martha: very interesting. i have to go but one quick question. the interpretation is

so far at department of justice and at the prison and there have been no incidents so far. no one is bringing a weapon that is part of our crowd. i could assure the police that. >> reporter: that is the hope. however, the reality, could be very different. it only takes one person to cause an enormous problem, to do something outrageous. law enforcement is not taking that chance. that is why you see the fence up. the police chief saying if it all goes well and there is no problems, the fence will come down shortly after september 18th. >> no way to take in any chances. thank you for that. >>> so where are lawmakers going to be, especially the republicans trying to revise the history of january 6. some republican lawmakers are trying to distance themselves from this far-right rally. though some democrats are eagler to hold them accountable for the fallout from january 6. melanie zanona is live in washington with new reporting. melanie, republican leader kevin mccarthy has said that he doesn't believe that any republicans are going to be taending this event. >> reporter: that i

of justices, basically rejecting this. at one in the morning. but at some level, it kind of have to throw everything you have at it legally. after the united states departmentf justice. >> i think texas definitely push the unveil open probably getting this statute, which is when we've never seen the likes of. before i think the department of justice is similarly pushing the avelo pin trying to enforce. i think again, i'm speaking to all of those people over the last week, who've been inquiring the biden administration to do something to step in and intervene, to protect constitutional rights in texas. >> are there other things the department of justice could do? >> the department of justice has some limited years diction here. there's certainly the prospect that they floated earlier, about enforcing more robustly the base act of freedom, to access clinic entrance. act that really isn't the issue here, the issue is not getting into clinics, it's getting into clinics and getting the services that you require. it's also possible for the federal government to withhold federal funding from states that infringe about constitutional rights. that's one avenue. but

judges ultimately for the department of justice. it's an office and the department of justice and the ultimate essentially the supreme court of the immigration course as it turns out to be the united states. so if you could take a case which we took several cases especially during the general session and in those cases, i see that jean has already texted me. so i see i already have to correct something like that but we took several of the cases in the attorney general is able to essentially taken on appeal and, and write an opinion that in some cases change the law will give you one example. when we change the law and private acts of violence so if you or someone in a third country, maybe in the northern triangle, gotta follow honduras el salvador, and you were the victim of spousal abuse. that didn't necessarily, the law didn't necessarily have you seek asylum in united states we took the case reviewed and we said well that doesn't actually make a lot of sense and obviously, if you are being persecuted for your political views in yo

the department of justice today was a no show, the department of justice failed to appear. r the f.b.i., for the prosecution and for action here. director wray may have ran out of adjectives but the department of justice hasn't run out of action and they should be answering many of the questions. so i am by no means satisfied with what i heard today. >> as somebody who has been in and out of that's rooms since the beginning of this coming forward, i would like to let you know, if the fbi had done anything that was even within their own policies and procedures or followed any of the laws already in place to protect children from sexual abuse, some people would not be here as victims let alone talk about recovery. so it seems a little redundant to talk about things put in place when people cannot hear something about child sexual abuse, violent child sexual abuse, trafficking and being accessory to the fact larry nassar did what he did and then we're somehow supposed to be able to answer where the f.b.i. screwed up, you know, they are amazing people, good people, but if people

and that's where the department of justice coming in today is just enornls. ely. right now because of the supreme court's action last week we are stuck in our case in the fifth circuit on a non-expedited basis. the department of justice coming in i assume quite shortly they'll be seeking an injunction and it is put before the same district court that our case is in as a related case. so i think they have a very -- it's a very strong complaint. it makes it clear that both the supremacy clause of the constitution allows the department of justice to sue, and that this is a clear violation of roe versus wade. and so i think it does increase dramatically the chances of having an injunction. and you know, so to have this response from the department of justice when people are still hurting on the ground, the vice president met with providers in tech texas today to hear how dire the situation is on the ground. so this is a whole new day in the attention and focus and force of trying to get texas back in line with the constitution and to be able to restore the rights

that is a department of justice unction. what we are doing in terms of tools, the department justice has the capacity and ability and to exercise it under their current statutory framework. what we're going to get our tools that allow us to take more definitive action when we see unfair and is coming to tory practices. we don't have that power now. -- when we see unfair and discriminatory practices. we are going to aggressively move forward. reporter: [indiscernible] >> the fact that we have put $500 million on the table and begun a process of reaching out for states, farm organizations, philanthropic organizations to say what could you do with this resource that could significantly increase the processing capacity in this country where we know there is a need where there are not competitive markets. the reaction to this has been quite favorable. i would expect the $500 billion would leverage additional resources and we will find out that maybe we are onto something. that we are looking at numbers north of $500 million. i am

>> well, it's a very strong case that the department of justice has. they have directly sued texas for violating the constitutional rights of texans. this is a clear violation of the constitution. you cannot ban abortion at six weeks. we have as the department of justice papers made clear 48 years of unbroken precedent about the right of people to make these decisions for themselves. so it's a strong case and they filed their motion for preliminary injunction yesterday full of what's actually happened on the ground. i mean, when all of us sued texas, you know, back earlier this year, it was before the law went into effect, and we said these were going to be the effects if it happened. now the department of justice has the actual testimony about what has happened in the two weeks and they are just heartbreaking stories. it is disappointing that the judge is not going to hear this until the 1st of october because, as you pointed out, that is going to be a whole month that texans have been deprived of their constitutional rights. the harm on the ground is

one of those high ranking officials, jeffrey clark, he's a real villain in this story. he was donald trump's tool in the justice departmente exact opposite of what the justice department ought to be about, which is truth, integrity and independence. he tried to get the justice department to send out a fraudulent letter saying we have identified significant concerns that impact the outcome of the election. that's a lie. that's a fraud. there is no evidence for that. now, thankfully other officials at doj refuse to go along. but if jeffrey clark had gotten his way, it would have turned things ugly and thrown us into absolute chaos. >> you are absolutely right. michael, trump convinced his supporters that voter fraud remains a threat to this country. are republicans in power doing enough right now to make sure the wounds he has inflicted are healed? >> well, hell no. absolutely not they haven't. and they're afraid to step out on this issue. i think the vast majority of them, the office holders know that these charges of a theft are bogus. but they're scared to death of the base where your membership in the party demands feel

the department of justice, federal department of justice is stepping in.rent: remind us how restrictive this law in texas is. >> it is the most restrictive law in the entire united states. the problem many people see or many observers or pro abortion organizations see as other states will jump on this. those south, those states are likely already rumored or reported to checkout and to try to figure out if they can go along with similar laws. that is very restrictive. it is something which i think many women have not believed possible in the united states of america in 2021 but here we are. it is targeting unfortunately or willingly specifically poor, disenfranchised women who cannot afford to jump on a plane and go to new york and get an abortion there. the problem if you will, if you are rich and have enough money and you need an abortion, you can go anywhere and get it rated legal. if you are poor and cannot afford a bus ticket, you cannot. brent: it seems here the supreme court by not acting to block this law, they have in effect overturned the 1973 roe

and crucially, what is the department of justice going to do about it? ney general of the department of justice under president barack obama. she is now associate director of institutional accountability at the rockefeller family funding. the department of justice came out the other day and said, look, this is a constitutionally enshrined right as supreme court jurisprudence firmly establishes, and our job is to protect constitutional rights. that was sort of about it. i think the question is, well, what are the options for doj action here? >> well, chris, i think that the department coming out with a statement that they're interested in protecting the constitutional rights of women is wonderful, but they need a statute and they need to figure out what statute might apply. this is kind of uncharted territory in many ways because of the structure of the texas law and because this is just a very challenging -- it's very challenging to figure out what's the right fit. for example, there's something called the freedom of access to clinic entrances act that wa

then -- >> today, after careful assessment of the facts and the law, the justice department has filed a lawsuit against the state of texas. >> what the new doj lawsuit against texas means for reproductive rights in america. and congressman jamie raskin on where the january 6th investigation stands on the first deadline day for document production. when "all in" starts right now. >>> good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. just a few hours ago president joe biden announced a sweeping new vaccine mandate, or a set of mandates that could get as many as 100 million workers vaccinated as part of a new initiative to curb the delta variant. >> my job as president is to protect all americans. so tonight i'm announcing that the department of labor is developing an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees that together employ over 80 million workers to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week. some of the biggest companies are already requiring this. united airlines. disney. tyson's food. and even fox news. the bott

i understand it's a long-standing department policy not to comment on decisions and not prosecute but robust oversight of the department of justice is a core responsibility of this committee. i am committed to ensuring that committee members have an opportunity to question the department of justice about this issue at an oversight hearing in the fall. the fbi's handling of the nasser case is a stain on the bureau. as chairman of the judiciary committee, i'm working to ensure the failures of the fbi, the gross failures in this case will never be repeated. i recognize ranking member grassley. >> thank you chairman durbin for a very strong and appropriate statement that you just made. thank you for holding this hearing. thank you for involving me and others in this hearing as well. as the former chairman of this committee, i convened a hearing in 2017 on the importance of protecting young athletes against abuse. it took place before larry nasser, the now disgraced teen test team doctor was convicted. our committee heard them from other gymnasts about a culture in competitive sports that made it difficult for many girls to come forwa

garland announced a review of the department's use of monitors who oversee concept decrees which can allow police departments from admitting wrongdoing. the department of justice use of no knock entries and choke holds by federal law enforcement officers except in cases where deadly force is authorized. last, the department announced a review to ensure that its grant programs to law enforcement comply with the civil rights act of 1964 which forbids the provision of federal funds to programs engaged in racial discrimination. that was all this week. joining me now to help put that list into context, katie benner, pulitzer prize winner for "the new york times" covering the justice department, also msbc contributor. and host of the podcast and former member of president barack obama's 21st century policing task force. katie, was this expected? how significant is it? what is the department of justice trying to tell us through these actions? >> several measures were expected. they're results of reviews after merrick garland became the attorney general. so the associate is the number three position at the justice department that oversees key programs like grand makin

s. department of justice. it's father law against the say to texas stuff, the deeming the states controversial abortion failed to be unconstitutional. ah, well can we what cannot he to nationalists monday morning just going to the clock in moscow. now the f. b, i has released a previously classified document on its investigation into the 911 attacks victims, families have long demanded. such records be made public with many calling for more focus on allegations of science involvement. however, it's not clear whether the latest disclosure really says anything you is to meet you power. now reports the latest report declassified by the f. b i. pertaining to the 911 terror attack was hoped by many to finally shed light on the role of saudi arabia. and the plot, some of the families suing the saudi government for its alleged involvement. wanted this report to be a smoking gun, but is it? well, frankly not really. the report is heavily redacted. a meeting, many names, titles and other information, but more important

>> look, what i expect is we've made 14 criminal referrals to the department of justice. i expect every one of those to be looked into. for god's sake the american people, the taxpayers pay for us to do this work. we don't have gun guns in congress. we can't go out and arrest people. we can do an exhaustive investigation which we've done despite being stonewalled by the department of justice and the fbi for years so we've done our job and now we expect durham to do his job which i think he is doing and like i said the american people, every republican senator beings every republican congressman, better be saying the same thing when they're having conversations especially the ones who are in positions of power in this town to tell garland, durham better finish this investigation, and it's for a number of reasons i've outlined in the last few minutes. maria: and i know some of those referrals had to do with conspiracy, so we'll be watching that. >> that's right. maria: congressman i want to take a short break. you've got breaking news you sent a letter this morning to joe bi

the people who have to answer here are the department of justice in a large degree. they declined the prosecution. they are not here today. they were invited. we urge them to appear. so, i hope both of you agree that they should be witnesses to answer many of the questions we have asked you and you rightly have said have to be answered by them. would you agree? director wray: look, as an independent -- mr. horowitz: look, as an independent director -- inspector general, i will not speak for the department. i am happy to have further discussions on ethics issues. one of the thing that is apparent from this case and many others is 18 usc 208 the criminal ethics statute you are familiar with is a very challenging statute. it could be made a lot clearer and clarify what is illegal and what is not. we have faced this challenge on many occasions in our ethics related work. i would be happy to chat further with you about that. director wray: i answer is similar. i really want to be careful not to speak to -- for the department or the committee in its oversight responsibility

. >> the department of justice and u.s. rney's office have released results of an investigation into san jose state university. it involves the college's handling of sexual harassment by former female swimmers. dustin dorsey is on the story. >> for more than a decade, 17 former san jose state female swimmers say their calls for help amid sexual harassment by their trainer were not heard. the department of justice found san jose state university violated title ix rules, and will have to pay $1.6 million to the former athletes harassed. a win in the eyes of the attorney for 10 former athletes. >> the feeling is one of vindication. >> they found san jose failed to respond to claims of harassment, including unwelcome sexual touching. the department found they retaliated against two employees who try to alert the school about the behavior. >> for over a decade, clients were led to believe the conduct they suffered was ok. seeing the department of justice come forward with the findings, words cannot express that feeling. >> the un

and crucially, what is the department of justice going to do about it? z is formally deputy assistant attorney general under barack obama. she is now associate director of the institutional accountability of individual liberty at the rocket from rockefeller family fun. julie, the department of justice came out saying this is a constitutional right. our job is to protect constitutional rights. that was about it. and i think the question is, will are the options for doj action here? for doj action here? >> chris, i think the department coming up with a statement that they're instructed in protecting the constitutional rights of guff women's wonderful. and the but they need a statue. this is uncharted territory in many ways because of the structure of the texas law, and because this is just a very challenging to figure out what it's the right fit. for example, there's something called the freedom of access to clinic entrances act, that was enacted in the 19 nineties. the idea was try to have a way to have the department stop the often violent and often super

of texas has gone in effect. last week the u.s. justice department sued texas saying it's a violation to the constitutional right to get an abortion no matter which of the 50 states you live in. file filing that lawsuit could result in a judge knocking down the texas abortion ban, the filing of that lawsuit does nothing in the short term to put the texas law on pause, to try to stop it while it's litigated in court. now that's changed. in an emergency motion filed shortly before midnight last night the justice department has now asked the judge in this case to temporarily block the enforcement of texas' abortion ban. not later at the end of the day when the lawsuit ultimately is resolved b now while the challenges to it are pending. and the doj's filing is filled with these stories about women who had to drive for hours and sell their stuff to try to get an abortion out of state now that it's illegal to get one in the state where they live. the judge tonight scheduled a hearing to decide whether he is going to act on this emergency motion to stop the

now as was pointed out, a number of times, if you like the department of justice to the investigators, to the inspector general, anyone else would expect to be prosecuted. and yet the department of justice has declined to prosecute the f b i. agents involved in the cover up at the very least. and one of the survivors said, of the prescott shortly afterwards. well, you know about says, i've says basically the department, justice and child abuse is okay as far as they're concerned, it just, it's a part of a system which is simply not responsive to the issues that we're discussing at the moment. i mean, issues, obviously, that go beyond this case and go beyond the united states and this case has had worldwide attention get the sense of the athletes want accountability that goes well beyond the f b i i think you will also interesting was again towards the end of the hearing, we have a i'm just pulling pulling stories of abuse and misconduct and indifference. but then some of the survivors, they were pretty, pretty clear about what they want now. because all very well, and i'm following th

department of just t. an independent department of justice. this is a law enforcement matter.s it relates to specifically the had away -- huawei official who was released, this is a legal matter. i would note that the president and every member of our administration, national security officials who have con-- have had contact with chinese officials over the past nine months have made clear that they want to see the release of the two michaels, and of course any american who is not able to leave china. reporter: was the white house involved in the bringing of the two michaels? jen: we make the case consistently at every level. we have for some time now, including in the president's call with president gee -- xi. reporter: the action here when should the release of the two -- doesn't that create a infrastructure that would give china more reason to do this sort of thing again? jen: i think it's important to note and be very clear about this. there is no link. it's not -- we have an independent justice department. we can't determine how the chinese or others manage their business

so far at the department of justice and the prison and there have been to incidents so far. no one is going to be bringing a weapon that is part of our crowd. coy assure the police that. >> witty wild joining us live from washington. so we do know security has been increased ahead in advance of this weekend. they're not giving saul of the details for obvious reasons. but we can see some of it out there. >> reporter: well that is right, erica. so we're here at constitution and delaware northeast, right outside of the capitol. here is this fencing, that familiar sight here in washington, d.c. after the insurrection on january 6. in addition to the fencing there is a security camera up here on the corner. even though rally organizers say this is going to be a peaceful event and there have been no issues in the past i think it is important to note that law enforcement has noted in an intelligence assessments, they know the past events surrounding this justice for january 6 issue, have been peaceful, they are not taking the risk. so they've asked local law enforcement to be on sta

reporter: and perhaps most dangerous of all, president trump even tried to use the united states department of justice to pull off his attempted coup. in the notes of a december 27 phone call now handed over to congressional investigators, trump told his acting attorney general jeffrey rosen and his deputy richard donohue just say that the election was corrupt, leave the rest to me and the r congressman. both men refused trump's request and both have testified before the senate judiciary committee chair by senator dick during ban. >> what was the most shocking to you? >> how involved the president was and the pressure he was putting on jeffrey rosen. it was real, very real and very specific. >> reporter: trump tried to pressure rose ton file a lawsuit in the supreme court to declare that the electoral college votes cast cannot be counted. his chief of staff was repeatedly emailing top doj officials at least five times asking they investigate conspiracy theories about voter fraud. >> it's an attempt to use the department of justice in order to influence the election that's run at the state and i caloca

can you explain to me what the department of justice is saying about the fact that the federal government in our case has opined on the legality of an abortion, what does the department of justice want done about this? >> doj is relying on constitutional principles that say that when the federal government has occupied the space, occupied this area as they allege they have in this complaint with the 14th amendment and the roe v. wade guarantee to women of abortion rights that the state can't interfere with those rights, that that would violate the supremacy clause. there's really good case law that supports this, ali. it goes back to the 1940s and the 1950s where there were covenants that prohibited people who were african americans from purchasing homes and ultimately when private residents sued to try to enforce those clauses, the supreme court said that's too much. states you can't use private citizens, in this case, it was missouri, you can't use your private citizens to try to enforce these unconstitutional aims. so doj will draw a straight line from that well-established body of cas

so we think the department of justice can do this. we have urged them to do it. diciary committee are clear this is what the department of justice need to do. >> so mathew, the thing that you are seeing is that i don't know why texas republicans thought they could just sign this in a room of mostly full of men cheer for it and keep it moving but now they find themselves in a position of trying to characterize rape. right, as if texas doesn't have the most rapes in the united states statistically, nair number one. they're now trying to argue backwards and say, no, no, no, no, no, rain is already legal. i think if you are arguing rape is illegal. no kidding. we're going to stop rape. you are losing the argument. do you get the sense that they overplayed their hand and they will start to see a backlash that is real and potentially politically damaging? >> i think, absolutely, they overplayed their hand, two-thirds of texans believe in the roe versus wade in their constitutional rights. two-thirds of texans believe that. the question is, will they be held accountable

he relentlessly pressured local election officials and the department of justice to help reverse the results of the election, and when that did not work, his supporters turned to changing voting laws across the country. >> to talk about how dangerous this is, again, for the foundation of the democracy, you have to look at the entire scope of actions here by the former president, his inner circle and also republican politicians who are believers in these lies. here's cnn senior investigative correspondent, drew griffin. >> cnn spoke to a dozen state and county officials involved in elections for this special report. many of them republicans themselves. they all expressed concerns about the future of the united states, that donald trump's big lie could change this nation forever. donald trump's attempt to subvert the election started long before anyone voted. >> we're not going to lose this, except if they cheat. >> continued on election night. >> we want all voting to stop. >> sparked and attempted insurrection. >> we fight like hell. >> as disgraceful as trump's public words were, beh

this in all of us on the judiciary committee are clear, this is with the department of justice needs do. >> so matthew, the thing that we're seeing. is that i don't know why texas republicans thought they could just sign this in a room mostly full of men, cheer for and keep it moving. and that they want to, and now they find themselves in a position, of trying to characterize rape. as if texas doesn't have the most rapes in the united states. statistically. their number one, and they're now trying to argue backwards. and say no, rape is already illegal. like i think if you're arguing rape is illegal, which yeah no kidding. you're actually losing the argument. do you get the sense that this is a case where they've overplayed their hand? and they are going to start to see a backlash that is real and potentially politically damaging? >> i think absolutely they overplay their hand completely. a two thirds of texans believe in roe v. wade. and the constitutional rights of a woman's rights to choose. that's two thirds of texans. the question is, will they be held accountable, and ultimatel

it is the department of justice and our department of justice has launched an effort to divide the americanple and flame left front and center and have no shame or they had to lock down these tapes because of national security come are you kidding me, tucker? it is not national security but fake news security, they had msnbc, cnn and they want to make sure the american people believo the constant effort and psychologically brainwashed to people by don't worry, we will tell you what happened in there and you know what it is six a can to pearl harbor and akin to 9/11. how insulting to the victims who endure those real tragedy. there is no limit that they don't go to. and i also want to say this, this is beyond this entire situation and the most embarrassing thing they are not thinking about internationally how embarrassing this looks to the american people. think about vladimir putin sit down with msnbc and they said look what you do to political dissidents andlo he left on ther face, he brought up january 6th and you know what it's come a vladimir putin was right.in we no longer have the mor

and the department of justice has just become involved in the controversial harpy bill in texas. we're going to give you the 360 view of the issue following the supreme court ruling up holding the texas legislatures bill. i'm sorry, no huge these stores and more on today's new use right here on our t america. let's get started. ah, thanks for joining us now. we're going to get enough dentist and we're oppositional . leaders are still holding out hope the taliban will not take control of their country even without us support. now the testers in control were who were mainly female, were peacefully calling on the taliban to respect the rights and gains they had made over the last 2 years. decade 2 decades chanting freedom and carrying banners . however, as the crowd grew with men joining in mainly anger at pakistan for their support for the taliban, an interference in africa and affairs, the taliban used force including beating protesters with rifles and sticks, as well as shooting into the air. to discuss this latest run to violence mysteries, it was the conversations and guitar bet

no, the department of justice misinformation. the department of justice launched an effort to divide the american people. they have been lying left, right, front, senter from the beginning and they have no shame. the idea they had to lock down these tapes because of national security? are you kidding me? it's not, it's fake news security. they have their propaganda arm. they have their msnbc, their cnn. they want to make sure that the american people believe the constant effort to psychologically brainwash the american people by saying don't worry about seeing it, we're going to tell you what happened in there. it's sick they said this is akin to pearl harbor, this is akin to 9/11. how insulting to the victims that endured those real tragedies. there's no limit they won't go to. so extreme this rhetoric. and i want to say this, looking beyond this entire situation, the most embarrassing thing is they're not thinking about internationally how embarrassing this looks to the american people. think about what vladimir putin sat down w