tv The Last Word With Lawrence O Donnell MSNBC January 18, 2022 7:00pm-8:00pm PST
ver stopped helping others. we don't need a superhero to solve san francisco's biggest problems like crime and homelessness, just the innovation and courage to lead. join me. so tomorrow is one year, tomorrow is the 365th day of the joe biden presidency and in anticipation, the first press conference of 2022. i will be here on msnbc for special coverage following that press conference. alongside my friend and colleague nicolle wallace starting with the president tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 eastern. i'll see you there. now it's time for "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> rachel, i'll be watching the press conference in some version of recline. probably at that hour, partial
reclean, taking notes. that's work, right? >> did you just brag to me you'll be in a recliner? >> it will be by that time it will be an actual sofa but -- >> oh, wow. even worse. >> there won't be a desk anywhere near me, nothing that looks like a work environment but i'll be working, taking notes and hanging on words. >> it's still covid time. what is a work environment? i haven't worn public facing pants in two years now. >> yeah, and your pants prior to covid were not -- [ laughter ] >> you were not -- >> touche. >> you were not the vogue idea of an anchor woman. "vogue" was never coming by saying let's do the rachel work wardrobe. >> i don't know.
i don't know. i think you might under estimate how weird "vogue" has gotten. >> it's their mistake if they don't get around to that. >> i think we should stop digging. >> we're done. we're done. >> bye. >> thank you. >> bye. >> thank you. well, today an elderly man in new york city with no visible means of support with strong symptoms of extreme cognitive decline was subpoenaed to tell what he knows about a conspiracy, rudy giuliani dropped from law and barred in washington d.c. as he awaits the permanent disbarment received a subpoena from the house select committee investigating the january 6th attack on the capitol. giuliani has more than within reason to plead the fifth
amendment, the subject of a criminal investigation into new york city where the fbi raided his home last year to collect evidence, an event that giuliani said is illegal and unconstitutional even though giuliani himself had supervised such raids when he was the u.s. attorney in manhattan in the 1980s that criminal investigation is about possibilities of ukraine. that's not something the committee wants to ask giuliani about but the committee's letter covers several areas that could involve federal and state crimes. the committee's letter to rudolph giuliani said you publicly promoted claims the 2020 election was stolen to disrupt or delay the
certification between november 2020 and january 6th, 2021 and thereafter and you actively promoted claims of election fraud on behalf of former president trump and sought to convince state legislators to take steps to overturn the election results according to witness testimony and public reporting in december 2020, you urged president trump to direct the seizure of voting machines around the country after being told that the department of homeland security had no lawful authority to do so. according to public reporting, on january 6th and in the days prior you were in contact with then president trump and members of congress regarding strategies for delaying or overturning the results of the 2020 election. three other possible criminal co-conspirators received
say sydney powell has been sanctioned and recommended for possible disbarment by judge linda parker who ordered her to pay $175,000 in attorney's fees to the state of michigan for initiating a frivolous lawsuit about the presidential election in michigan. sydney powell raised millions of dollars by telling her fundraising victims the lie she was working to reverse the outcome of the presidential election. last fall, federal prosecutors subpoenaed the financial records of fund raising organizations that she created. the committee's letter to powell says in part quote you urged president trump to direct the seizure of voting machines around the country to find evidence that foreign adversaries hacked those machines and altered the results of the election. sydney powell will no doubt seek the protection of the fifth amendment to refuse to answer questions about those possible
crimes. in the committee's letter to attorney general, the committee said in part quote you prepared and circulated two memos purporting to analyze the constitutional authority for the vice president to reject ordeal lay counting electoral votes from states that had submitted alternate slates of electors. the committee's letter to boris epstein fired from the white house staff of donald trump in the first year of that administration says in part quote, you participated in a press conference on november 19th, 2020 during which attorneys for the trump campaign promoted claims of election fraud. publish reports placed you at meetings at the willard hotel in days leading up to january 6th and you are reported to have participated in a call with former president trump on the morning of january 6 th during which options were discussed to delay the certification of election results in light of vice president pence's
unwillingness to deny or delay certification. rudolph giuliani have to ask themselves how much do they want to spend in attorney's fees starting today fighting the subpoena? rudy giuliani complained about donald trump's refusal to pay giuliani's legal bills, the most expensive course of action for these witnesses is to try to go to court to fight the subpoenas that, the cheapest course of action is to show up at the date and time requested and plead the fifth amendment to virtually every question. the subpoenas that demand that each of the witnesses produce documents to the committee on february 1 and testify on february 8th. leading off our discussion tonight is democratic congressman chair of the house administration committee and a member of the select committee investigating the january 6th
attack on the capitol. congresswoman, thank you for joining us on this very important night for the january 6th committee. do you have any indication at this point from any of these subpoenaed witnesses how they are going to respond? >> i do not, lawrence. i would hope they would come forward and tell us everything they know if they're proud of the activities they engaged in and should want to come in and tell the committee everything they did. the subpoenas that have been sent forward. we expect them to compile. certainly the documents must be sent in. there is no fifth amendment privilege in the documents unless producing them them shelves would be a crime and we hope they'll come in and answer questions. we have a lot of questions. >> there is obviously with rudy giuliani just to start with him, there is obviously a zone of fifth' mendment protection that
he would want in facing these questions. he's already known to be the subject of a federal criminal investigation. he has already been temporarily disbarred for some of the conduct that you want to talk to him about. and so i assume the committee in your discussions have anticipated the possibility that a witness like mr. giuliani might show up and take the fifth amendment for virtually every question after his name and address. >> the state of law is if you think you would incriminate yourself criminally and want to be protected by the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, you have to come into the committee and assert that right question by question. the reason for that is then the committee has another decision to make which is whether to seek use and unity from the claim. if we decide that is wise and that decision has not yet been
made, then you would be required to testify as to the matters and that testimony to the committee could not be used in your later prosecutions. so that would be a subsequent decision that committee would have to sort through and case by case, question by question witness by witness. >> the committee started on subpoenas that with steve bannon and since then, though, seems to have been working upward through the sort of pyramid of all of this. is this set of subpoena what you would consider the top of the period just shy of the president and vice president? >> not necessarily. you're right. we have heard from hundreds of witnesses, you know, the news story is when someone high profile refuses to testify, meanwhile, hundreds of others are coming into the committee to
answer our questions and we have received quite a bit of we're piecing it together. these subpoenas that are to individuals that appear to be very involved in the plot to overturn the election. we want to ask them for questions about that but it's not the end of the inquiry. >> there is reporting tonight that the committee has subpoenaed the phone records of eric trump and kimberly guilfoyle involved with donald trump junior. what can you tell us about that? >> i think it important to note we haven't sought the content of any records. the records that are being sought have to do with the location, the length of time, phone numbers that were called or where texts were sent but not the actual content but it will
help answer some questions, fill in some holes from other testimony we've received, test whether the testimony we've received is reliable. so it's important. >> it in effect is a phone bill that you're asking for, it's what we see on phone bills. this call was placed at this time to this phone number or a text was sent at this time to this phone number. no content of the communication at all. >> that's correct. >> and from that you get to basically form questions, i assume, about the content. you see a communication going from this person to another person. what if you want to know that content? is the only way to get it is to ask questions of the people involved in the content? >> quite possibly. but i will say as we've got over
50,000 documents that have been released to us and so if you can compare some of the documents to the records, you can put together a piece of information, may led to questions for other individuals or it may be putting together the pieces of testimony we've already received but i think it is important to note that at this point, it is just the data. it's not the content. >> congresswoman, the chair of your committee bennie thompson said the committee is going to go public. you're going to have public hearings. it sounded like it could be in january. it could be this month. what can you tell us about the public hearings schedule of the committee? >> i'm going to let the chairman make that announcement. but we are going to have hearings when we are ready with the full picture and probably will be a series of hearings,
not just one. some of what the timing relates to is how soon the court denies cert to the former president's request unleashing we hope soon documents from the national archives. we expect that will fill in a lot of questions and allow us to accelerate the speed. but i'll tell ya, we're working very hard. there are depositions that begin early practically every morning, multiple depositions. the members of the committee participate in them every day. the committee meets at least once, sometimes twice a week going through what we found in the next step so it very active piece of work. one of the most intense endeavors i've been involved in in my years in congress. >> congresswoman, thank you very
much for starting off our discussion tonight. thank you. >> thank you. and thanks to the congresswoman for that perfect segway to neal, law professor at georgetown university and former acting u.s. solicitor general. with that setup, we have to go straight to you for the supreme court's schedule on the question about donald trump's documents. >> yeah, they can act at any time, lawrence. indeed, i think there is even documents that will be released tomorrow by the archives unless the supreme court acts. you know, i think all indications from court watchers, supreme court is not going to side with trump on this. these are bogus executive privilege claims and so, you know, ordinarily you might expect the court to hear it because it's a grave matter but the arguments advanced by team trump were so bad, i think the thinking is they probably won't even hear them. >> neal, what is your reading of
these subpoenas that that the committee issued today? >> very, very important, lawrence. you know, some legal teams win buckets of jury verdicts and others like donald trumps win buckets of subpoenas that and i'm glad to see the committee do this. it's honoring truth seeking function. it's rare to subpoena a lawyer. i would be uncomfortable if these folks were acting truly as lawyers but a law degree doesn't shield your inquiry if you're a co-conspirator or plotter or have on going criminal activity so i think for these lawyers, you know, like rudy giuliani, this attorney client privilege they're starting to advance now is a double edged sword because on the one hand, these four folks hope to keep their shield their actions from public scrutiny but on the other, they have to defend what they were doing as bonefied legal advice and if you have any doubt about
how hard that's going to be, just google the words sydney powell disbarment and you will see just how hard that claim will be. >> yeah, and so neal, this seems to be legitimate fifth amendment claims available to some possibly all of these witnesses especially rudy giuliani. >> sure. i mean, you know, there is potential criminal activities here. the letter that you read, lawrence, that congress wrote to him today i think, you know, starts to refer to that and so you're going to have executive privilege being litigated and probably something about the fifth amendment, too and ordinarily, i would worry, lawrence because that amount of delay in getting this information allows these four, you know, attorneys to get their story straight but i do think that gives them too much credit. these four couldn't figure out how to have a press conference at the four seasons so i'm not sure they could really get their story straight. >> yes. neal, thank you very much for
joining us tonight. >> thank you. coming up, kyrsten sinema phoned it in but joe manchin showed up and amy klobuchar was in the room when senate democrats discussed changing the senate's 60 vote rule today. that's next. the senate's 60 vote rule today. senate's 60 vote rule today. that's next.they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wooo, yeaa, woooooo hey tex, can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ [bacon sizzles] [bacon sizzles] ♪ [electronic music plays] ♪ [bacon sizzles] ♪ [electronic music plays] ♪ woo!
does it really seem like the dreamers of our constitution envision the system where they can stop it all together, stop the vote, stop the consideration, throw a wrench into a process, take it off the rails and walk out the door and go home? that is not what they envisioned. >> that was some of what senator amy klobuchar had to say about voting rights legislation. the legislation has to clear a 60-vote threshold. ten republicans would have to vote with the democrats to allow a vote on voting rights
legislation. majority leader chuck schumer expects no republican support to advance the bill so leader schumer said this today. >> if the senate cannot protect the right to vote, then the senate rules must be reformed, must be reformed. if the republicans block closure on the legislation before us i'll put forward a proposal to change the rules to allow for a talking filibuster on this legislation. >> here is what senator elizabeth warren said about the current senate rule. >> today's filibuster doesn't encourage debate. it promotes coward. senators can torpedo bills without saying a single word in public or even stepping to the floor of the united states senate. this is not how a so-called
deliberative body should operate. >> democratic senators gathered for a meeting today to try to convince two of the democrats joe manchin and kyrsten sinema to support a rule change so the senate would be alloweded to have a vote. joined by phone before the meeting began senator manchin said this. >> the majority of my colleagues in the caucus, they've changed. they've changed their mind. i respect that. you have a right to change your mind. i haven't. i hope they respect that, too. i've never changed my mind on the filibuster. >> joining us now is amy klobuchar of minnesota. she's the chair of the senate rules committee. senator, thank you for joining us tonight. what happened in the discussion where senator sinema was on the phone and manchin was there?
was it focused on the two of them? >> we're focused on voting rights and i never disclosed what happens at these meetings. i think it's important to have open discussions but i'll tell you what i have told them, what i have told my republican colleagues and that is that voting is fundamental. we're talking about reforming the rules of the senate and taking a secret process where literally people just stop the vote, they make it so you can't actually get to a conclusion of an issue and they go home or raise money or whatever. that as i said is not how this place is supposed to work. so we're taking what is essentially a secret behind closed doors to process and making it public with the standing filibuster, something i'll note senator manchin was interested and and we had
discussions about all summer. the idea is you go back to what it used to be when "mr. smith goes to washington" the movie, you exhaust the speeches. each senator can speak two time s and then at that moment you get to a point and the second thing your viewers need to know is this filibuster is carved up so many times so that we can do the peep's business it's not even funny. 160 times. there is an exception for tax cuts. that's 51 votes. there is an exception for supreme court justice as in amy coney barrett 51 votes. there is an exception for repealing rules and regulations like an attempt made on the afford care act, 51 votes. so it appears as though their priorities they somehow whittled down to 51 votes and i don't think this say moment you hug this concept type, make no
reforms to it as people have done in history and throw the voters under the senate desk. i think we need reform. >> senator schumer announced a vote on wednesday at 6:30 p.m., which will probably becoming across one of your electronic devices in a moment, if not already. does that mean that's the vote to end the debate, that's the one you need 6 0 votes for? >> that's the first vote. to make very clear for the first time we're debating tomorrow because four times republicans have shut us down so we haven't even been able to have a debate. we did this as you know the rules very well, lawrence, as a message from the senate so we will at least be able to debate the bill. then the vote means okay, let's end the debate and vote. right now that requires 60 votes. as you predicted, if we don't get there we'll go i assume after some debate to a rules change. >> and will the senate be able
to go straight to the debate on rules change after that 6:30 vote on wednesday? >> i believe we can and that is our plan because we have to -- we really are left with no choice. this will be the fifth time that they shut us down if they do as predicted without being able to get on the bill for a vote. >> one of the challenges you seem to be facing with senator manchin is he said today that he doesn't believe that there is any serious threat to voting rights in america. he said, you know, that's not going to happen and he specifically sited democratic election lawyer saying that mark elias a fighting these in the courts and that's good enough. >> i think if you talk to mark elias as i'm sure you have, he will tell you and said publicly with this concerted effort across the country to suppress the vote that litigation is not enough. you have a case where, say, in
montana where they had same day registration for 15 years flipped the switch and people that used it in the last election will go to the polls and show it disappeared. in georgia raphael warnock, the victory 70,000 people registered to vote during the runoff period and limited the run off period and stopped the registration of people during that month. these are things going on state by state by state and yeah, you can litigate and we have incredible arguments to be made but basically what we want to put in place so that you can vote regardless of your zip codes, federal minimum standards upheld repeatedly by the way the ability of congress to do this under the constitution that says a congress can make roll through the rules regarding federal elections. that's what we're trying to do here. it's about guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of what state you live in.
>> senator amy klobuchar, thank you for joining us. appreciate it. >> thanks, lawrence. great to be on again. >> thank you. coming up, you've seen the headlines in our most respectable publication. is a civil war ahead asks "the new yorker"? are we facing a second war asks "the new york times"? we'll have that in a series of segments on this program called "a house divided." we'll be joined next but an author that's become the basis for much of the discussion of civil war, barbara f. walter is the author of how civil wars start. and she joins us next.
meet ron. that man is always on. and he's on it with jardiance for type 2 diabetes. his underhand sky serve? on fire. his grilling game? on point. and his a1c? ron is on it. with the once-daily pill, jardiance. jardiance not only lowers a1c... it goes beyond to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease. and jardiance may help you lose some weight. jardiance may cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function,
and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. a once-daily pill that goes beyond lowering a1c? on it with jardiance. ask your doctor about jardiance. are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? what if your clothes could stay fresh for weeks? now they can. downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters keep your laundry smelling fresh waaaay longer than detergent alone. pour a cap of downy unstopables into your washing machine before each load. and enjoy fresher smelling laundry. if you want laundry to smell fresh for weeks make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters. shop online for downy unstopables, including our new, lighter scent.
abraham lincoln in a speech to the illinois republican state convention on june 16th, 1858. three years later, president lincoln was the commander in chief in the war that killed more americans than any other. our civil war. our house has been divided since then over issues like women's right to vote, civil rights, the vietnam war, the iraq war but through all of that, our house has never been divided against itself to the point that "the new york times" and the "new yorker" are running headlines saying is a civil war ahead? are we really facing a second civil war over articles written by the most distinguished journalists and thinkers and tonight we'll begin a series on this program called "a house divided" to offer a range of thoughtful and educated guesses in response to the question is a civil war ahead?
our first guest is one of the people who started this public discussion with the publication of her new book "how civil wars start." barbara f. walter is a professor of international relations at the school of global policy and strategy at the university of california san diego. she studied at harvard's institute for strategic studies in colombia university's war and peace institute and she served on an advisory committee to the cia called the political instability task force. that group ranks countries around the world on a scale with fully functioning democracy at one end and dictatorship at the other end. the united states always had the highest positive score for democracy a plus ten but it has slipped down the scale recently to a plus five. that moved the united states into the zone that this scale
calls an anocracy because it is a democracy and elements of an autocracy. that is one of the risk factors that cia analysts use to predict civil war. joining us now is professor barbara f walter. the author of the important new book "how civil wars start ". professor walter, thank you very much for joining us tonight and beginning this discussion we'll have on this program that might involve begging you to come back. one question right off the bat about this score is there an example of a country with a plus five score on that political instability scale that has them falling into civil war from a plus five score? >> yes, so plus five is the beginning of this middle zone,
this zone where a lot of political violence and instability happens where it's actually at greatest risk is in the middle between negative one and positive one. so if you think for example about the wars that are going on today, ukraine is a country that slipped from being a full democracy into the inocracy zone into a civil war. if you think about iraq after the u.s. invasion when sudan hussain was toppled, iraq went from authoritarian into the middle zone, the u.s. was hoping to damocritize iraq and during this time in the middle zone the civil war broke out there. yes, we do see examples of it. >> and let's define terms as you do in your writing about what civil war means now in the 201st
-- 21st century. you said if america has a second civil war, the soldiers will go online strategizing how to undermine the government and force americans to pick sides. and so, that looks nothing like what we think of as a civil war. there weren't be two standing armies and what else would indicate the kinds of conditions that you're talking about, that you're envisions if it ever comes to that? ? >> it's going to be more of an insurgency. it's likely to be fought by multiple different militias, paramilitary groups. it will look more like what we
saw in northern ireland for decades where they were using unconventional tactics, terrorism directed at civilians, bombs placed in public places and at buildings, assassination of opposition leaders or judges who are not sympathetic to the insure cause. >> you also cite other risk factors for slipping this way. you say one of the other risk factors is a long standing dominant group, say, in this country white americans who fear that they are losing their dominance. is that what we were seeing on january 6th? >> yeah, so the u.s. is in the midst of this great transformation and it's a transformation from the u.s. being a white majority country to being a non-white majority country. that's going to happen at about
2045. and one of the things that we've seen throughout history outside the united states is that the groups that tend to start civil wars are not the poorest groups. they're not the immigrants. they're not the groups that are actually the most down trot. they're the groups that feel like they're losing power and have a deep sense of resentment and feel like the country is rightfully theirs. they're the ones that still have the residual power capable of organizing and launching a challenge and if you look historically, if you look for example at the palestinians in israel, you know, if you look at the catholics in northern ireland and the muslims in the southern philippines, these are people that had once been the majority in their region that lost that majority status and lost power and eventually turned to violence to try to reinstate it. >> the northern ireland example is something we'll talk about in
future programs. there are people in northern ireland on what is labeled the catholic side, which is not the most accurate way of labeling these sides but they will argue that that was an anti cologne l revolution, an extension of a 1916 revolution and simply fought to a stalemate in the later 20th century and doesn't quite fit the model of what we would consider a civil war. but we'll come back to that later. i want to go to the south africa example which you've talked about and is fascinating and again, with the south african example, given that you described modern civil war as something of an insurgency, could it -- did south africa avoid a civil war or did south africa actually have a civil war in the form of a violent insurgency that then convinced the white dominant tiny minority
to in effect surrenderer in the civil war and surrenderer power to the vast african population there. >> yeah, experts do not consider what happened in south africa's civil war. in fact, when you ask them about south africa, they will say that was the country where they most expected a civil war large amounts of violence. they actually thought south africa would be just destroyed as a result. and it avoided it and people point to south africa as an example of what to do when you're in a situation like this. you had the white minority regime, the apartheid regime it desperately wanted to hold on to power. you have this very large black majority that has been protesting for years that is increasing its protests, that is shifting from a non-violent
protest strategy to a violent protest strategy and still, the white minority regime doesn't reform or compromise in any way. in fact, it ratchets up the violence. if you remember when the military went in and just murdered over 100 children. this was the direction they were going and we thought the experts thought for sure we're going to have civil war here. the black majority is just so numerous, they're just not doing to stand for this. and then the white minority regime shifted and the reason isn't because they suddenly had, you know, gained a conscience, it was because the white business community was slowly being strangled by very effective economic sanctions and it was the white business community in part that realized that they had to make a choice, they could either have profits or they could have apartheid but
they couldn't have both. and ultimately, they chose profits and they told the white minority regime they were no longer going to support apartheid and it didn't take long after that for the government to transfer power to the black majority. >> barbara f. walter, thank you very much for joining us tonight and starting off this discussion. we are all learning a lot from you. the new book is important "how civil wars start." thank you very much for joining us. >> my pleasure, thank you. coming up, imagine the insurgency professor walter described in the united states, imagine for example bombings every week in america. you don't have to imagine it because it happened not so long ago. social historian and author curt anderson will join our discussion of the house divided next. join our scdiussion of the house divided next colon cancer.
yep. the american cancer society recommends screening starting at age 45, instead of 50, since colon cancer is increasing in younger adults. i'm cologuard®. i'm convenient and find 92% of colon cancers... ...even in early stages. i'm for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you. woman: i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months after just two doses. skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, such as fevers, sweats, chills,
muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. at vanguard, you're more than just an investor, you're an owner with access to financial advice, tools and a personalized plan that helps you build a future for those you love. vanguard. become an owner. vanguard. i don't just play someone brainy on tv - i'm an actual neuroscientist.
and i love the science behind neuriva plus. unlike ordinary memory supplements, neuriva plus fuels six key indicators of brain performance. more brain performance? yes, please! neuriva. think bigger. i've been telling everyone... the secret to great teeth is having healthy gums. crest advanced gum restore. detoxifies below the gumline... and restores by helping heal gums in as little as 7 days. crest. the #1 toothpaste brand in america.
you've just heard a description of a 21st century civil war as being kind of armed insurgency with sporadic outbursts around the country. what would that insurgency look like? more what would that insurgency look like? more attacks on federal buildings? how about bombing federal buildings and post offices around the country? how about bombings every week somewhere in the country? we lived through exactly that during the vietnam war when small local post office buildings were being bombed in the middle of the night by amateur bomb makers in the radical fringe of the anti-war movement because they were set off primarily bypass fists protesting the car, most exploded in the midcal of the night when they were sure no one was near the building being bombed. the most deadly such bombing in american history 20 years later
in 1995 the white supremacist timothy mcveigh bombed the federal building in oklahoma city, oklahoma, killing 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center in that federal building. why did none of those bombings ever provoke the idea that america might be on the verge of a new civil war? joining us now is kurt anderson, a "new york times" best-selling author, his latest book is evil geniuses, the unmaking of america. it was in your book, fantasyland, that i read about something i lived through as a high school student, but was surprised to learn. and that was that in 1969 and 1970, there were at least ten bombs a week on average, ten bombs a week being set off in protests, political protests, around this country. why did that not -- i don't remember being even slightly
worried that was going to change the order of things in this country. >> well, nor did it send america into an hysteria, partly for all of the bad things about there being three tv networks and a more concentrated mainstream media, the media didn't whip up hysteria about these most, almost entirely small bombings . there was a bombing at the capitol. it wasn't just post offices. it wasn't just the bank here that is burned down or other buildings. ten a week, as you say, at least, if more. because it was kept in perspective, is what it was, was a very tiny underground and its affiliates insurgency, if you will, that were doing these almost symbolic bombings, not meant to kill people, as you say, but to say we are radical
and we are engaging in revolution. and people remained calm and they weren't all even mentioned on the "nightly news." they were so common and they went away, as the vietnam war went away, the draft went away, and most of these underground people were arrested. it ended. so it was a passing phase. and alz you say, i was amazed to discover it, and that's why i put it in the book. people don't realize pause it wasn't -- and even though there was certainly talk among the far-left militant revolutionary militants about, oh, socialist revolution, we are going to trigger a socialist revolution and nobody took that seriously and it didn't happen as a result of those bombings. >> one of the things to consider in the possibility of anything we would call a civil war or 21st century insurgency version
is who is going to do this and one of the factors i would suggest that the cia analysts consider in these things, what do they have to lose? and when you look at americans today who are worried about making their car payments, worried about paying their mortgages, that's a much bigger concern to them than the possibility of should i go out to a federal building and commit a crime, you know, for donald trump. 75 million trump voters exactly a few thousand of them were willing to do that on january 6th. >> and even most of those several thousand who broke into the capitol building were not, i don't believe, imagining they were in an armed force about to take over the capitol and be arrested. so many of the people who have been prosecuted as they are trying to get out of punishment, they say, and perhaps sincerely, i didn't realize what i was
getting into. i agree entirely. now, again, i am not saying none of this can happen or there won't be a terrible set of violent actions, but as you say, there is -- there was -- and in the u.s. civil war -- and that's -- one of the problems with calling it an imminent possible civil war is that we americans only think of our civil war 150 years ago, which was -- had -- was so different in so many ways, even though, of course, the array of forces resembles that, you know, in many ways, but, for instance, when you say they -- people aren't going to be willing to die or kill for the sake of whatever their grievances are today, back then half of all the wealth in the south consisted of slaves. so there was, indeed, a reason to fight.
>> yeah. and when you look back at those young radicals, 18-year-old, 20-year-olds setting off bombs in 1969, none of them have mortgages. none of them had car payments to pay. none of them had things that they needed to go home to that night in the same way that the people do now. kurt, we are out of time on our first round of this discussion. we will be back at it again. thank you very much for joining us tonight. we'll be right back. h for joini us tonight we'll be right back. [limu emu squawks] woo! thirty-four miles per hour! new personal record, limu! he'll be back. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ for people living with h-i-v, keep being you. and ask your doctor about biktarvy.
biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it cannot be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take h-i-v treatment every day and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv, keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you. inner voice (kombucha brewer): i'm dramatically holding this bottle, so the light hits it just right, and people think... wow...
...he knows what he's doing... ...when i'm actually pretty lost with my payroll taxes. intuit quickbooks helps you manage your payroll taxes. cheers. 100% accurate payroll tax calculations guaranteed. what happens when you block heartburn with one prilosec otc in the morning? heartburn doesn't stand a chance - day... or night. excess stomach acid can cause heartburn. prilosec otc works differently by preventing excess acid production. so don't fight heartburn, block it. prilosec otc. one pill in the morning blocks heartburn, all day and all night. my daughter has type 2 diabetes and lately i've seen this change in her. once-weekly trulicity is proven to help lower a1c. it lowers blood sugar from the first dose. and you could lose up to ten pounds. trulicity is for type 2 diabetes. it isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. it's not approved for use in children. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer,
or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, changes in vision, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.