republicans and democrats come together and fight together to try to save democracy and now we will have to look to the full house vote. >> kurt. we don't have much time. i thank you all for joining us tonight. for this broadcast. "all in" with chris hayes will fick it up on the other side of the break. no, no, no break. >> appreciate it. the bipartisan house select committee investigating the january 6th insurrection just voted unanimously to advance an effort to hold former top trump advisor steve bannon in criminal contempt of congress over his refusal to cooperate with subpoenas for documents and testimony related to that riot. the matter is now set to go to the full house for a vote possibly as early as this week. if it passes the house and it is expected to, a criminal referral will then be sent to the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. which will decide whether or not

it will proceed with a criminal investigation into bannon's lack of compliance. if he is ultimately convicted, bannon could face up to a year in prison. but before we get to that, which is a long way off, let's step back for a second. the january 6th committee has subpoenaed a whole bunch of trump associates for information related to the insurrection. there have been high-profile targets like bannon and then lesser known subjects with ties to various groups supporting trump who may have been involved in the planning of that january 6th rally, the big one that the president spoke at before the insurrection happened. now, some folks that the committee has been trying to, like jeffrey rosen, who is donald trump's former acting attorney general have complied. they have actually given testimony. there have been reports that former trump white house chief of staff mark meadows is, quote, engage being the committee. and this is all happening, of course, as the former president himself has filed a lawsuit as of yesterday claiming executive privilege over the documents

related to the insurrection, even though he is no longer the executive branch and the current executive, that would be, of course, joe biden,has pointedly refused to assert privilege on donald trump's behalf. but that lawsuit as privilege laos as it may be has the trapsings of formal legal objection. that's different than what steve bannon is doing. steve bannon is basically just thumbing his nose at the committee, refuse to comply and citing trump's contested claim of executive privilege as a child. his attorney writing a letter, until such time as you reach an agreement with president trump or receive a court ruling, mr. bannon not be producing documents or testifying. of course, just a point of fact here, unlike other trump allies, steve bannon was not employed by the executive branch during the insurrection. he is just a guy with a podcast,

okay? and he is trying to get executive privilege. trump fired him quite famously in 2017, a fact the committee noted when it understandably rejected bannon's privilege argument. quote, even if bannon had been a senior aide to the president during the time period covered by the contemplated testimony which he was not, he is not permitted by law to the type of immunity he suggestion. now, many of these subpoenas are somewhat broad in their scope. that's true. it's not always apparent to the public what the committee is looking for. but that's not really the case with bannon. you might have heard liz cheney cite some of the reason they are looking into what bannon was up to. just according to the subpoena, there is ample evidence of the former presidential advisor being right there in the fold in the days leading up to january 6th. he spoke to trump in deals of 2020 urging him to focus his efforts to overturn the election specifically on that date, on the date of january 6th. on the 5th, just one day befo

the violent insurrection, bannon was present at a meeting trying to convince members of congress to refuse to certify joe biden's victory. and the comments bannon made on his podcast, that's what he does, he a podcaster, that same day. again this is just a 24 hours before a violent mob stormed the capitol. >> listen, all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. just understand this. all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it's going to moving, it's going to be quick. >> bannon's prediction, if you can call it a prediction, came true, sadly. the hell being the assault on police officers, the concussions, the heads being bashed in by the angry crowd, the use of bear spray. but after all that happened, i mean, after people had their heads bashed in and concussed on live television and after people had died, including people tloil

to donald trump on the steps of the capitol because of that loyalty, maybe because they listen to steve bannon, after that happened he wasn't backing down. he was pushing the big lie that trump really had won. in fact, bannon had john eastman, the man who wrote the memo on how to overturn the election on a show that night to whine about mike pence not overturning the election. there is some more context that is worth acknowledging while we are talking about steve bannon and whatever his job is. while bannon was publicly pushing trump's claim of a bogus election on his podcast, even after a deadly insurrection, he was indprash waiting himself to the president, counseling him on the election and the attempted coup and that line of communication between the two men is notable because bannon publicly fell out of favor of trump years earlier when he was quoted making disparaging remarks about his president and

his children in michael wolff's book "fire and fury." barn was in a interesting situation. he needed a favor. he was in legal trouble at the time. when he was arrested on a chinese billionaire's yacht by the postal service policemen, bannon was charged with federal crimes, with wire fraud and conspiracy and money-laundering conspiracy. those are serious criminal offenses stemming from an alleged grift whereas he and his associates allegedly conned die hard trump supporters out of millions of dollars of bogus promises to use the money to privately fund the border wall and to use some of the funds on lavish personal expenses. if you are saying that's not the steve bannon i know, who knows? we'll never really know. he is not going to go to trial for it. bannon was in trouble. perhaps he wanted to be back in the good graces with the man with unequivocal pardon power. he began telling trump the things trump wanted to hear.

it paid off it appears. in his final hours in the white house, after much back and forth, donald trump, the president, pardoned barn at the last minute. so now it appears the one-time trump campaign chairman feels confident about where he stands as he willfully defies congressional oversight with bogus claims of privilege. while this vote was a preliminary step, it appears that steve bannon's legal headaches may are far from over in the end. congressman adam schiff sits on the select committee committee investigating january 6th. congressman, you have said this in the days leading up to this. i don't think it was unexpected that bannon would thumb his nose at the committee. i am struck by the speed at which this is going. the vote happened tonight. what happens next? >> i expect we will take this up on the floor very soon. i am not in a position to

announce how soon, but i think very soon, just as we took up this criminal contempt and as the chairman pointed out tonight, for anyone else who is watching, any other witnesses that request that we demand to testify, we will hold them in contempt if they refuse to do their lawful duty. i am pleased we moved so quickly. i think the vice-chair, liz cheney's statement was really powerful tonight rebutting and rebuking the big lie and those who continue to push it. and i'm really pleased we are moving quickly. >> i want to play something the chairman said about moving forward on this stuff on bannon when there have been targets, subpoenas in various states of full, partial or negotiated towards some sort of compliance. this is what chairman thompson said about why bannon stands out in his actions. >> it's a shame that mr. bannon has put us in this position. but we won't take no for an answer.

we believe mr. bannon has information relevant to our probe and we will use the tools at our disposal to get that information. mr. bannon stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena. that's not acceptable. no one in this country, no matter how wealthy or how powerful, is above the law. left unaddressed, this defiance may encourage others to follow mr. bannon down the same path. >> how important is this moment for the overall inquiry that you are involved in? >> well, i think it's extremely important. and we have to take notice of the breadth of what bannon tried to do, which is not come to committee and assert some kind of privilege, but claim that he doesn't even need to show up, he is absolutely immune from legal process. others tried that, too, and the courts rejected that argument. it is rejected here. i am confident it will be reject

bid the justice department. and the fact that we are referring him for prosecution will get the attention of others. he is important in his own right. he has relevant information of the day before the insurrection. he was talking about all hell was going to break loose and for those who had talked about wanting to be there during the time of the revolution, here was another opportunity to be there for a revolution. he clearly has information relevant to our committee, our country. but also he's an important example of what should happen if people refuse their lawful duty. >> i want to play something something kevin cramer said. i think people noted this for and it continues to be true, that in the aftermath of a violent attempt to overturn the election with an angry crowd chanting "hang mike pence" outside the capitol that some members were shaken, understandably. i think a lot of republican members have sort of moved and

and as long as the crowd isn't their ear chanting "hang mike pence" at that moment they prefer not to say it. senate republican kevin cramer, what he had to say about today's vote on bannon. >> i actually think the whole commission is a bit irrelevant. i don't see steve bannon being all that -- frankly, i don't know how many people are paying attention it. there aren't that many people paying attention to the january 6th commission. what is the point? >> well, the point is that the rule of law needs to be observed. it's surprising to hear senators talk that way about an attack on our capitol that resulted in the deaths of americans, the beating of police officers. but also essentially undermining congress' role in doing jiefr sight, our oversight into the most brutal attack on our capitol in over 100 years. so, look, donald trump sets the tone, and the tone donald trump wants to set is do not consider

what happened on january 6th, or if you do, you should praise those who took up arms against our government. they are heroes, political prisoners. we want some way to defy them. that's donald trump's message. like dutiful carriers, many in his party are trying to carry that message. but the facts are the facts. it was a brutal assault. we still have so much to learn about what went into it, what the president, then-president trump knew about it in advance, what they knew about the participation of these white nationalist groups in advance, and we want to make a set of recommendations to protect the country going forward. that's our mission. >> congressman adam schiff who serves on that select committee, request just voted unanimously out of that committee to go to the full floor. thank you very much, congressman. >> thank you. the republican vice-chair of

the house select committee investigating the january 6th voted to hold steve bannon in contempt. >> because he refused to appear, we have no choice but to seek consequences for mr. bannon's failure to comply. those consequences are not just important for this investigation. they are important for all congressional investigations. mr. bannon's and mr. trump's peripheral arguments do, however, appear to reveal one thing. they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th and this committee will get to the bottom of that. >> associate white house counsel under president barack obama, ian, we all expect the next few

days will be voted out of the full house and go to the department of justice. i think there is a real open question about what happens when this lands on merrick garland's zesk. and you worked add a government lawyer, worked in the white house, you have sort of been around the people that will be making decisions on this. i wonder what your perspective is on it. >> well, i think the good sign is in the letter from white house counsel dana remus that rejected any serious claims of executive privilege in turning over documents. she made clear this is a unique and exceptional circumstance. it's important to remember what the stakes are here, which is that steve bannon and donald trump very much want the failed coup attempt of last year to be practiced for a future successful coup attempt. one way to do that is to do what trump and bannon has been trying to do since day one, prove that rules don't matter, that laws are for losers, that they are above the law. and for lang time they have

gotten away with that, whether that is stonewalling congress or the american people, cannot conduct oversight when it's tied up in court or engaging in a treasonous insurrection or whether it is defrauding and stealing money from your supporters and get yg you are friend the president to pardon you. they have proven time and again that they are getting away with it. the question for merrick garland is, is that what the rule of law means to him? and i don't think it is. >> you're the lawyer. i have to say allegedly, allegedly defrauding his supporters. steve bannon, you know -- >> allegedly. >> yeah. he is a real mench. i can't see him doing that. look, the law -- part of what is so maddening, right, this has been true from, the you know, the earliest days, like, this is a guy who skated his whole life. he wriggled out of stuff. "the new york times" ran a 10,000 word piece accusing him of criminal tax fraud, you know, in black and white.

there is multiple criminal investigations. one in fulton county. there is one in the manhattan district attorney's office. what's been impeached twice. he whipped up a violent insurrection in front all of us which we all saw. bannon has been pardoned saying i am going to get away with it. the law isn't that super clear, or is it? what controls here? that is the worry, too? what a court does with this and whether the house has the power that they want tro have and believe they should have here. >> there is no question that the house has the power to compel this testimony and that any claims of executive privilege are completely spurious for this reason. executive privilege attaches to the constitutional acts of the president when the president is fulfilling his oath of office. but in this case the president wasn't involved in any pow their the constitution gave him. he was involved in inciting a violent insurrection to overthrow the republic of the

united states. because that not an official constitutional act of a president, there is no executive privilege to attach to it. >> what do you think of the approach of the committee right now and the general understanding amongst the kind of democratic governing class and lawyer class, more broadly, of the peril of this moment? at one level they say the right things. today was a marked example of sort of moving with dispatch and seriously. but i sometimes worry that they don't really believe that we're this the peril they are in. and i think sometimes you share that concern. and i wonder what your assessment is. >> i do. i give credit to representative schiff because he has been one of the of the few members of our government, congress, executive, anywhere who does deeply get this and i think some of the other members of the january 6th select committee do as well. but for most of the leadership of this country, they are looking at what is a five-alarm fire that is engulfing our

democracy and walking slowly over to it with a bucket of water. and that is not what it is going to take to protect our democracy right now. if you look at what's going on, what is leading to this january 6th committee and the bannon defiance of a subpoena, it is straight out of a playbook that every scholar that has studied the downfall of democracies around the world have warned is the playbook. six things that every autocrat has done to dismantle democracies. they have politicized independent institutions like law enforcement, the civil service. they have spread disinformation. they have quashed dissent. they have corrupted elections. they have attacked vulnerable populations and sought to undermine checks and balances. donald trump has tried to do all of them. he is trying to do the undermining on checks and balances with steve bannon right here. unless our institution starts stepping up, we are going to see a successful coup in the future in the way that the last one failed. >> all right. ian baasen with the dark

warning. thank you very much. next, getting covid on purpose. the right wing campaign against life-saving vaccines reaches new levels and the fox news hosts who haven't found the courage to call out their bosses. we'll be right back. ir bosses. we'll be right back.

(upbeat music) - [narrator] this is kate. she always wanted her smile to shine. now, she uses a capful of therabreath healthy smile oral rinse to give her the healthy, sparkly smile she always wanted. (crowd cheering) therabreath, it's a better mouthwash. at walmart, target and other fine stores. use a single hr software? nope. we use 11. eleven. why do an expense report from your phone when you can do it from a machine that jams? i just emailed my wife's social security number to the entire company instead of hr, so... please come back. how hard is your business software working for you?

with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in one easy-to-use software. visit paycom.com for a free demo. hon? first off, we love each other... (man 1) oh, this looks like we're in a screen saver. (man 2) yeah, but we need to go higher. (man 1) higher. (man 2) definitely higher. (man 1) we're like yodeling high. [yodeling] yo-de-le-he... (man 2) hey, no. uh-uh, don't do that. (man 1) we should go even higher! (man 2) yeah, let's do it. (both) woah! (man 2) i'm good. (man 1) me, too. (man 2) mm-hm. (vo) adventure has a new look. (man 1) let's go lower. (man 2) lower, that sounds good. (vo) discover more in the all-new subaru outback wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru. ever wonder how san francisco became the greenest big city in america? just ask the employee owners of recology. we built the recycling system from the ground up, helping san francisco become the first city in the country to have a universal recycling and composting program

for residents and businesses. but it all starts with you. let's keep making a differene together. this halloween, xfinity rewards is offering up some spooky-good perks. like the chance to win a universal parks & resorts trip to hollywood or orlando to attend halloween horror nights. or xfinity rewards members, get the inside scoop on halloween kills. just say "watch with" into your voice remote for an exclusive live stream with jamie lee curtis. a q&a with me! join for free on the xfinity app. our thanks your rewards. the "n" word. of course you should never call anybody the "n" word. that's despicable. but to say the word?

you can't even say that the word is despicable. you have to say the "n" word. >> that is dennis praeger, 73-year-old right-wing radio host. you may have heard him before for some of his takes like that one. he is also the founder of something called the praying you view, which is a five-minute clip with a conservative twist on nearly every single issue. he has been a vocal anti-vaccine voice, encouraging people to get covid so they have natural immunity. yesterday he announced that he finally got covid, too. >> i wanted to achieve natural immunity, which is by far the more robust immunity that one can have against covid or any virus. and i hugged strangers in the thousands, literally in the

thousands while not being inoculated, and it was a gamble based on the knowledge, not based on being a gambler. i am not a gambler. i certainly don't gamble with my health. >> well, i would argue that hugging thousands of strangers as an unvaccinated 73-year-old is in fact gambling with your health. although what is your daily hugging schedule looking like if you are hugging thousands of people? he said he is taking a variety of at best ineffectual drugs including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin of course, as well as the monoclonal antibodies which have shown to be effective. he is feeling better and i am glad to hear that. but he is just the latest of a slew of conservative radio hosts to come down with covid, including several who died, including a nashville conservative talk-radio host phil valentine who advised

people not in the high risk demo to get covid and said that his odds of dying were less than 1% before dying. the radio he works for told employees they must be fully vaccinated by october 11th. over the past week four radio hosts have left the company after refusing to be vaccinated. one of the stars of the organization is threatening to leave unless they remove the mandate. >> these companies ever thought of that? the countless numbers of moms and dads sitting in some kitchen table explaining to their kids how they may have to move out, how daddy doesn't have a job? because a bunch of people in a c-suite thought it would be a good idea to play pretend dr. fauci for a moment and mandate people jam something into their bodies that they don't want to take? me, you can have the mandate. but you can't have both. >> well, that's a tough choice. if you do not have an uncle who

shares his videos on facebook, that is dan bungino. one of the maga side characters. that guy threatening to quit is fully vaccinated. a part of me wants to give him credit for sticking to his principles and calling out his employer over his vaccine policy, something people like tucker carlson don't have the courage to do. the thing is, like tucker, dan is also a fox news host and weirdly enough he has not threatened nor said one single word about fox's strict vaccine protocols. you either vaccinate or test daily. i guess the tough guy routine only goes so far. >> author of the book of republican of lies, american conspiracy theorists and their surprising rise to pow e joins me now. i was strugly praeger saying i was trying to get it and natural

immunity is best because i have been hearing a lot of this and there is, like, the tip of the ice perg is natural immunity which is of course a real thing when you get covid and survive it, your body produces antibodies, but something deeper than that, that that is the really good way to go about this public health development. my understanding is that this is a broadly propagated view in certain circles. >> yeah. so the idea that natural immunity is somehow better than the immunity from vaccines is something promoted not just during the covid-19 pandemic, but in the anti-vax world before that. during previous enormous measles outbreaks in 2015 and 2019 anti-vax personalities and radio hosts claimed it would be better for your children to get measles than to get the mmr vaccine. so this is not a new idea. it's not even necessarily a new idea in the context of the pandemic. some of these folks have been making this claim really since covid-19 appeared, you know,

people like dell bigtri. i believe last june told his viewers to get this cold. so this is a common talking point and a dangerous one. >> yeah, i mean, what i think is clarifying about it is that in some ways it reaches what to me is the idealogical bedrock. i have hard time understanding or empathizing with this view, which i think is one of the most deadly views that i have seen propagated in my time in public life. 150,000 people have died from this -- from this virus. but when it comes down to is kind of the social darwinism, like, yes, a lot of people will die and like them's the breaks and they are old, poor, vulnerable anyway and if you survive it shows you are strong and you kind of get that vibe a little bit off the praeger stuff and the joe rogan interview with sanjay gupta as well. >> yeah. the idea that natural immunity

is better and the idea fundamentally people who get sick or die of covid are responsible for their sickness is a commonly propagated view. and it's important to remember that it's not just, you know, the fringe anti-vaccine world. this proposal that healthy folks should get covid and we would reach herd immunity more quickly that way was, for instance, suggested by boris johnson in the earlier part of the pandemic, a suggestion that he quickly dropped when he, himself, got covid and realized very quickly that it's unpleasant. it was also the suggestion ever the great barrington declaration written by a group of academics from harvard, stanford, oxford in the early part of the pandemic. and again this suggestion that it's a good idea to go out and get covid to avoid getting covid is on its face ridiculous, but it also doesn't acknowledge a couple of things. first of all, the existence of things like long covid, the idea that mild infection can leave you with health issues, which

millions of people are struggling from at the moment, but also more fundamentally the idea that we should avoid getting sick to avoid getting other people sick, you know. in large part, you know, this is how we got these dangerous variants, for instance. >> yes. as i thought about dennis praeger doing all his hugging, i mean, so much hugging, i mean, really -- >> so much hugging. >> legendary amounts of hugging b by his own account. i take him at his word that the thousands and thousands of people that i hugged literally, that, yes, some of them were exposed to the virus, which is, of course, how all of this works and that's the problem. also scott atlas, when you are talking about people proposing this. i mean, the guy that took over essentially as the chief advisor to president trump for, you know, a key period of the pandemic appeared to basically have this view as well. >> right. it is a social darwinist view. and it essentially says if you are immune compromised, someone who the vaccines will work less

well, just too bad. that is just your problem. and it is especially sort of surprising that this view continues to be promoted at a time when folks have their children going back to school, many of whom are not old enough to get vaccinated at the moment. what it is saying is that we are willing to take that risk of sickening our kids who have no protection at the moment. >> anna merlin, that was great. thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. next, the new texas redistricting maps that gerrymander the state deep irinto the red. there is a lawsuit trying to stop it. we will talk to one of the people suing after this. uing af. of your love babe♪ ♪girl, i don't know, i don't know,♪ ♪i don't know why i can't get enough of your love babe♪ ♪oh no, babe girl, if i could only make you see♪ ♪and make you understand♪

get a dozen double crunch shrimp for $1 with any steak entrée. only at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. you could spend half an hour preparing for the half hour status meeting. orrr... you could cancel the meeting and share updates in slack instead. it's where your whole team is in one place so everyone can stay up to date. slack. where the future works.

at heinz, every ketchup starts with our same tomatoes. but not every tomato ends in the same kind of heinz ketchup.

because a bit of magic unfolds when there's a ketchup for everyone.

time texas lawmakers signed off on a new map of congressional districts drawn up by republicans in that state. states do this once in a decade following the census, although

there was a time in texas 2-2 bites of the apple under the bush administration. they do not look good for the democratic representation. they awarded two seats in the house of representatives. republicans placed a new district, 37th congressional district in the austin area to capture democratic leaning voters that were endangering the prospects of republican incumbents and 38th would offer republicans safe territory in the houston area. in both districts white residents would make up more than 60% of eligible voters. that's part of a larger trend of what's happening in texas. senior reporter ari berman broke down the details in his latest mother jones piece. white verse are majority in 60% of the maps' districts. hispanic voters make up 39% of the state population are a majority in just 18% of the districts. black and asian texans make up under 12. the thing that makes this notable is the population growth

which allowed texas these two new seats is 95% attributable to people of color. now a latino legal rights organization, the mexican american legal defense and educational fund, is suing the governor and the deputy secretary of state to block the map from taking effect saying it illegally and unconstitutionally dilutes the voting strength of voters in texas. she joins me now. firstly, let's start with what the ground rules of the voting rights act and the constitution say about this process. what is the sort of guidance in terms of equal representation here? we know that there is an imperative for majority/minority districts or districts where non-white members can be elected because. diversity of constituency. what is the baseline we look at to judge this map by? >> well, that's exactly right.

there is a legal requirement to draw majority/minority districts under the voting rights act when certain factors are present, and those factors are what we look for when we embark on redistricting. one of the most important, what does the population look like? and here in texas over the past ten years we have had significant demographic change in the state, and really a dramatic growth in the latino community as well as other minority groups in such a way that more majority/minority districts should have been drawn on these maps. >> so that's -- i mean, that is the basic baseline i'm hearing from you, that there are not enough, that there are, i think, three members of the texas delegation who are african american, they are not a majority-black district, they are in districts with large portions of black voters. what -- what are you -- what do you want from the court? >> well, we've challenged all

four statewide redistricting plans. you mentioned the congressional plan. that discriminates against latino voters, but so do the house of representatives' plan within texas, the texas house, the texas senate and the state board of education. all of those maps do not have latino majority districts in them commensurate with what the law requires. and so what we are asking the court to do is to block the maps drawn by the texas legislature and draw maps that comply with the voting rights act. >> there is something of an irony here, right, which is that republicans are drawing these maps and, you know, latinos in texas are politically across the spectrum in terms of their politics, we saw clearly in the rio grande valley what happened in the 2020 election. there are all kinds of folks with all kinds of politics. there is a universe you could have more latino representation that doesn't im peril the republican party, yet they have chosen in a targeted fashion not

to make that happen. >> it's correct. latinos are very politically diverse all around the united states. but what is the enduring constant in texas? regardless of which political party is in charge of drawing the lines, because texas used to be a one-party democratic state. what endures across all of these decades that we have been doing this work is to advantage white political influence and to diminish latino political influence, even when it's growing so quickly as it is now and shown in the most recent senas. >> nina, thank you for your time today. >> thank you. there was a time in the career of nebraska congress man jeff fortenberry when the most important problem on his radar was this defaced campaign sign. luckily for the congressman, the vandals are no longer an issue. the bad news is his problem has

to do with a federal grand injury. that story is next. th a federald injury that story is next we look at w, what you'll need, and help you build a flexible plan for cash flow that lasts, even when you're not working, so you can go from saving... to living. ♪ let's go ♪ ♪ ♪ dry eye symptoms keep driving you crazy? inflammation in your eye might be to blame. [inflammation] let's kick ken's ache and burn into gear! over the counter eye drops typically work by lubricating your eyes and may provide temporary relief. those drops will probably pass right by me. xiidra works differently, targeting inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. [inflammation] what's that? [inflammation] xiidra? no! it can provide lasting relief. xiidra is the only fda-approved non-steroid treatment

specifically for the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. one drop in each eye, twice a day. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye or any surface. after using xiidra, wait fifteen minutes before reinserting contacts. [inflammation] got any room in your eye? be proactive about managing your symptoms by talking to your doctor about twice-daily xiidra. like i did. [inflammation] i prefer you didn't! xiidra. not today, dry eye. ♪ ♪ xiidra. you've never seen anything quite like it. we've never created anything quite like it. the all-electric, all-mercedes eqs.

- i'm norm. - i'm szasz. [norm] and we live in columbia, missouri. we do consulting, but we also write. [szasz] we take care of ourselves constantly; it's important. we walk three to five times a week, a couple miles at a time. - we've both been taking prevagen for a little more than 11 years now. after about 30 days of taking it, we noticed clarity that we didn't notice before. - it's still helping me. i still notice a difference. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. ♪ ♪

your new pharmacy is here. and here. and here, too. it's here to help you save time and money and trips to the pharmacy. it's here to get you the medication you need when you need it. who knew it could be this easy? your new pharmacy is amazon pharmacy. your eyes. beautiful on the outside, but if you have diabetes, there can be some not-so-pretty stuff going on inside. it's true, with diabetic retinopathy, excess sugar can damage blood vessels, causing vision loss or even blindness. so remember this: now is the time to get your eyes checked. eye care is important to your long-term diabetes management. see a path forward with actions and treatments that may help your eyes— and protect against vision loss. visit noweyesee.com and take control of your sight.

election day two weeks away. that means that campaign signs are once again all over the place from busy street corners to your neighbor's front yard. that was reminded today, a memorable campaign sign in recent years, back in 2018. a sign for republican congressman jeff fortenberry running for re-election in nebraska's first district. this was his sign. somebody had the audacity to vandalize that sign, giving him googley eyes and changing the o to an a. a very juvenile joke all around, which we wholeheartedly condemn when we covered it at the time and we do so now again. congressman fortenberry was so upset that anyone who even laughed at that sign was in trouble, which is how we found out about it when his chief of staff called up and threatened a

local college professor who had simply liked the photo of the defaced sign on facebook. but the whole thing blew over and fortenberry was re-elected in 2018. again last year he doesn't have to run again until next year. he is safe from sign vandals for a while. but then yesterday the nine-term congressman released what looked at first glance to be a new campaign video. >> this is jeff fortenberry, and i'm out for a drive in my 1963 ford f-150 pickup truck. >> isn't that a nice scene? out in a vintage truck, his wife, the dog, beautiful nebraska cornfield. but this was no campaign video. >> i wanted to send you a video because we do have something hard to tell you. about 5 1/2 years ago a person from overseas illegally moved money to my campaign. i didn't know anything about this, and used some other americans to so.

they were all caught and punished, thankfully. about 2 1/2 years ago i had a knock on my door on a weekend. they were fbi agents from california. i let them in my house. i answered their questions. later we went back and answered further questions. i told them what i knew and what i understood. they have accused me of lying to them and are charging me with this. we're shocked. we're stunned. i feel so personally betrayed. we thought we were trying to help. >> well, jeff fortenberry was right. today the congressman was indeed indicted by a federal grand jury, charged with a count of scheme to go falsify and conceal material facts and two counts of lying to investigators. as i alluded to, a billionaire foreign national prohibited by federal law from contributing to any u.s. elections arranged for

$30,000 of his money to be contributed through other individuals to fortenberry's campaign during a fundraiser held in los angeles. the indictment says that despite learning of the illegal campaign contributions from a co-host of that fundraiser who cooperated with authorities, fortenberry did not file an amended report with the elections commission. it charges the congressman lied about what he knew about the whole scheme during two interviews in 2019 with federal investigators and prosecutors. this is where i pop in to say, always have a lawyer present when you talk to law enforcement. congressman jeff fortenberry will be arraigned tomorrow in los angeles. faces a maximum of five years in prison. at least they spelled his name correctly in that indictment.

are you one of the millions of americans who experience occasional bloating, gas or abdominal discomfort? taking align every day can help. align contains a quality probiotic developed by gastroenterologists. it adds more good bacteria to your gut to naturally help soothe your occasional bloating, gas and abdominal discomfort. support your digestive health with align, the #1 doctor recommended probiotic. try align today. and try new align fast acting biotic gummies. helps soothe occasional digestive upsets in as little as 7 days.

if you have this... consider adding this. an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients. so if you have this... consider adding this. call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. ♪

lunch, passionate, strong, and there was universal, universe ago agreement if that room that

we have to come to an agreement. >> democrats are in agreement that they need an agreement. negotiations still very much on going on the president's build back better agenda. today biden met with senators joe manchin, kyrsten sinema, separate discussions with moderate and progressive members at the white house. he has been extremely hands on. moments ago the white house released a statement saying he is more confident this evening about the path forward and there is urgency in moving forward over the next several days. there has been some, i think, encouraging news. they are closer to a deal. the back and forth is difficult to follow and agonizing and maddening. what i have been trying to laser focused on are the must-haves in the bill because from where i'm coming from in terms of priorities, this is a once-in-a-decade chance to keep the planet habitable. to what needs to be in this bill to really combat the climate crisis or get us towards the goal we are setting. that's my north star in

following these negotiations. over the weekend there was a huge development when the biggest climate effort, clean energy, was likely going to get dropped because joe manchin opposes it. okay. so my question now is, what does that mean for the value of the package for the planet and what is really, like, the red line here? what's the litmus test for a climate in this legislation? how should i feel about this? i could think of no one better to walk through that question john podesta, working on this issue for decades on the hill, in the house, a former counselor to president barack obama where he is responsible for coordinating the climb policy, a former chief of staff to president bill clinton. john, my reporting indicates that this program, which had been struck clurd in a weird way but was going to make bulk payments to utilities so as to get them to meet targets to move off of fossil fuel towards clean

energy so we can be on track for our paris commitments, that that is -- joe manchin doesn't like it, and it's probably not going to be in the bill, which seems terrible to me. what should i think about that? >> well, look, it's clear that we're not going to get everything we want, but i still think we can get what we need. the other critical provision in this bill that seems to be in good shape are the clean energy tax credits, both for the power sector to produce more clean energy and the consumer credits to help people purchase electric vehicles. those remain popular across the board from moderates to progressives. there is a report out today by the premier modeling firm in the country analysis that suggested that with those provisions plus action by states, if corporations make -- keep to the pledges they have made, and the

administration takes administrative action that it's capable of doing and has the legal authority to do, we can hit the so-called climate cast. what president biden has put forward to the global community, which is to reduce emissions by more than 50% by 2030. that package of investments is transformational. and while the program you talked about, the clean energy payment program, would have been very helpful in getting us there, even without it we can still get to the goal that president biden has laid out. these investments though need to happen. so the biggest question is, will they come together, get this package done, keep those clean energy tax credits intact, make the important investments in justice that continue to be included in this package? if that happens, it will be a very good day for the planet. >> okay. i mean, i guess that encourages

me somewhat. but, like, walk me through. the carbon accounting here is such that, you know, the modeling said this was going to account for somewhere in the order of 40% of the emissions reductions, right, the cepp. again, it's very weirdly structured because they had to go with reconciliation. so it's budgetary, it's payments to utilities as opposed to a natural standard, which would be easier and more straightforward, frankly. fine we, 'dealing with reconciliation. i guess the question is what makes up for it or is it just that everyone has to be more aggressive at the state level? like, where does that -- how do they make up for what's gone? >> first of all, i think a lot of the reporting hoose discounted how much work these clean energy tax credits in the power sector do, which will deploy a tremendous amount of solar, wind and other zero carbon energy. and that work in conjunction with this payment program that was aimed at utilities, but even

without that payment program, those tax -- that tax support for clean energy is going to be a powerful driver of changing the energy system in this country. there are more that could be done. there is other ideas that are being pursued to try to replace the emissions that are -- that will be lost from the loss of this program, if it is lost. people are still fighting for it, although i think senator manchin is pretty adamant we need all 50 votes, including grants to the states to accelerate clean energy deployment at the state level, and more money for transit. there are other ways to get those done. the other thing that i think this means is that the administration is going to just have to do more work. they have put together an all of government approach. they put together an all-star cabinet on climb. but they are going to have to go get and use the authorities they have to reduce, you know,

traditional pollutants, coal ash, mercury, other kinds of pollutants which will rapidly change the energy sector. we need to get about 80% reduction in the power sector alone, but again that is doable with this package of tax credits plus aggressive action by the government plus the state action that i described. so would i rather have that program? of course. but can we still hit the mark? i think we can, and i think by doing so we'll create hundreds of thousands of jobs. the report suggested 600,000 jobs in the power sector alone. and tackle the real problem of environmental injustice in this country by directing those investments to the places that bore the brunt of industrial and power sector pollution. >> all right. i had you on to make me feel better, and i think that worked, more or less. i mean, look, if you take a step

back, it's utter madness that this senator from a state that, obviously, has a long fossil fuel history and who has personal financial stakes in the fossil fuel business is the veto on like, you know, this relatively small investment. but again i could bang my head against a wall all day over that if that's what it's going to be. i am slightly encouraged, i guess, by the rest of that. we will have you back as this continues. john podesta, thank you. >> the planet needs us to get it done. we have to use every tool we can to this forward. >> that is "all in" on this tuesday night. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> thank you. and thanks for joining us this hour. boy, has this been a weird news day. we woke up to surprise news this morning that the fbi was raiding a mansion in washington, d.c. a mansion apparently owned by russian oligarch oleg deripaska, or at least by concerns close to