and that does it for us tonight. we will see you tomorrow and msnbc primetime. it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, my friend. >> good evening ali, and we will be joined by someone who joined us on the night that we first had our hands on this late supreme court decision, including congresswoman katie porter, and it is interesting to get people's reaction now from that night, when hands were shaking when they were reading the sting. >> i look forward to it, my friend. have a great show. >> thank you. once again, the senate did what it is structurally built to do. it crushed democracy. a group of senators who

represent 186 million people were defeated in a senate vote today by group of senators who represent 144 million people. the founders debated whether the number of senators should be proportional to the populations of the states. and in the end, they landed on a compromise position of two senators per state, which did not seem like an atrocious perversion of democracy at the time. because the biggest state, virginia, had only 747,000 people. but today, washington d.c., which is represented by zero senators, as basically that population. when the founders agreed, in the end, to two senators per state, the total population of the country they were forming was 2.7 million people. it was inconceivable to the founders at the time that the

population of brooklyn would be 2.7 million people as it is today. the founders were designing a government for a country whose entire population was the same size. the same size as the population of brooklyn today. it was inconceivable to the founders that the unexplored areas of the continent would eventually include a state called wyoming, with a population smaller than many of the country's biggest cities. and that even deeper into the unexplored territory, they would eventually be a state named by its spanish speaking settlers that would eventually have a population to rival the size of some of the most influential countries in the world. and the economy of that state alone would grow to be the seventh largest economy in the world, if it were a separate country. the founders would have

recognized that the 40 million people of california, being restricted to voting for the same number of senators as the 580,000 people of wyoming, is a crime against democracy. we long ago outgrew the senate formula of two per state, which has evolved to allow outcomes in the senate supported by minority of the american people. today, the senate imposed the will of the 30% of the american people at most against the objection of 70% of the american people. the senate can do that. that was just another day's work in a legislative body functionally disconnected from democracy. all senate democrats, except, one voted in favor of the women's health protection act, which has passed the house of representatives and used the roe v. wade framework to guarantee women and girls the right to choose what happens to

their own bodies. the final vote was 49 in favor of the bill, 51 opposed. vice president kamala harris, who presided over the vote, was ready to cast a tie breaking vote if necessary, and said this -- >> i just presided over the women's health protective act vote. and sadly, the senate failed to stand in the fence of a woman's right to make defensive bout about her own body. let's be clear -- the majority of the american people believe in defending a woman's right, her choice. this vote clearly suggests that the senate is not where the majority of americans are on this issue. it also makes clear that a priority for all who care about this issue -- a priority should be, to elect pro choice leaders at the local, state and federal level. because what we are seeing

around this country are extremist republican leaders who are seeking to criminalize and punish women for making decisions about their own body. >> republican senator susan collins and lisa murkowski voted against the bill today. they support their own bill, which they say more closely -- senator murkowski released a statement saying, i strongly support women's reproductive freedoms, including the right to abortion established by roe and casey. the legislation before the senate today -- the women's health protection act -- goes well beyond the precedent established in roe and casey. it does not include the hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortions. and it has been the law almost as long as roe. it does not include conscience protections for health care providers that refuse to perform abortions based on religious belief. it explicitly overrides the religious freedom restoration

act for the first time. it also allows late term abortions without any notable restrictions. after the vote, senate majority leader chuck schumer said this. >> you elect more maga republicans if you want to see a nationwide abortion ban. elect more pro-choice democrats if you want to see the right to choose a woman's freedom available for one end of the country, from one end of the other. left more maga republicans if you want more no exceptions for rape or incest. a lot more pro-choice democrats if you want to see women have the freedom to make decisions over their own bodies. elect more maga republicans if you want to see a woman forced to carry the results of a rape or incest. elect more pro-choice democrats if you want to see women

protected. if you want to see women's rights protected. >> democratic senator patty murray said this. >> we are not going to let senate republicans override women's voices. they may have spoken out today. it may feel that they have won today. but women of america -- it is time for us to stand up and fight and that is exactly what we are going to do. use your voice, and we will use our voices. we will fight back. this goes to the november election. every one of you has to be willing to stand up and fight with us. we will be your voice. stand with us. >> joining us now is ali vitale, nbc news capitol hill correspondent. ali, the strategic question of the day is, why didn't the democrats try to expand this vote to include murkowski, collins and manchin, joe manchin? expanded by including more in the direction of that collins

bill? >> that was one of the open questions here, lawrence. at the start of the week, one of the things i was asking democratic leadership aides was, was the plan for this to fail in a bipartisan fashion with more people voting in favor of it than against it? or is the plan to just make it so that all republicans would be on the other side of this? and that republicans would have a more clear cut line to run on in the midterms? it is clear now, knowing the way today played out, the way that they chose to go on this, and the way that it was explained over the weekend by democratic leadership aides, was that they did not want to water down with they were voting on. they did not want it to be less meaningful to the base. instead, they want to put forward the strongest version of the bill that they possibly could, all the while knowing that it was going to fail. to them, they view this as a way to get people on the record ahead of the midterms and to hopefully energize their base. i do think that a lot of the

polling we have seen on this, where the economy remains the number one issue for americans, and abortion and reproductive rights basically do not rate on any of these polls. and if they do, they are in the single digits. all of that, at this point, is out the window. for both republicans and democrats alike, they have been running on this issue in theory for a long time, but now they are finally at a precipice where the landscape has significantly changed, and it soon as the supreme court puts down the ruling it will officially put democrats and republicans both in a place where it has been decided. i do think, though, that as republicans democrats move forward and try to make this as an election issue, the vote that went down today is quite telling. it is the same way that it went down in february. the same people that voted for voted for today. the same people that voted against voted against today. it is really telling. because the landscape has really changed around this issue. and yet it has not changed the calculus in congress. it is why you saw both senators

there, who you played, as well as the vice president, asked what comes next year. the only thing that can come next is making this an election issue, as it goes to the states for this issue. >> dick durbin said more about what might come next. let's listen to what he said. >> yeah. >> why have democrats chosen not to work with susan collins in trying to get a bipartisan bill? >> i think the effort is underway. the votes today are reported -- but i think they are going to try to reach -- >> he sounds like he wants to work with collins and murkowski. that could get you to basically a vote of 52 in the senate. that would then have the power of majority and bipartisanship. >> it would. but it also would still not get you to that magical 60 number, where they would need to get to

in order to overcome a filibuster on this. i think those conversations are happening in earnest. but we are presuming the 52 in that situation as well. there are a lot of democrats -- and frankly, i'm interested in hearing what your next guest has to say, on what's she we fall on the spectrum. but there are a lot of democrats that would say the way to collins murkowski planted structured would still allow for a lot of loopholes at the state level. you would still end up with an america who ends up with a lot of the states allowing accessible abortion, and then a lot of states restricted and bennett. then you end up in a situation where the supreme court ultimately decides -- and if it decides this way -- the presumption that 52 democrats can just get on board, that is not necessarily would i have been hearing from senators in the halls of congress, who did view the women's health protection act as the idea that they want to vote on. obviously, now that seems like it is on the dust heap because of the way the vote went today. but at the same, time there may

be other measures, even aside from a casting collins, that they could try to pursue. there are some people who are floating doing this in a piecemeal fashion, doing it in a more smaller, targeted style on reproductive issues. i think that in having conversations with advocacy groups and people at the white house and people on capitol hail, there is a sense right now that the federal government is -- if you are not going to do it this way, there's not a time that can be done otherwise. and that's why a lot of people are not just looking for to the states for an electoral capacity, they are also looking to the states to see what the state attorneys general can do to step up access in the meantime. this is all in preparation for the supreme court decision. >> ali vitale, thanks so much for your reporting on this vote today and for joining us tonight. we really appreciate it. >> thanks. >> and joining us now is democratic senator tina smith of minnesota. she previously served as executive vice president of

planned parenthood. thank you for joining us tonight. you are with us tonight on that shocking tonight when we were holding our hands for that first time, the leaked alito first draft opinion. and here we are, with a vote in the senate today that really is a reaction to that opinion. what happens next in the senate? >> what we have in this country is a republican party that is hell-bent on telling women what it thinks they should be able to do with their own bodies. and taking away autonomy that all women deserve an expect. so, that is the fundamental reality. as you said in your opening, lawrence, this is all playing out in the united states senate where a minority of voters have an extraordinary voice in what happens in this country. that's because of the way the senate is structured. so, what has to happen is that

those of us that are in the majority, those of us that represent 70% of the voters, have to have more power in the senate to be able to express the voices of those voters. that is why my colleague, senator murray, were saying just a moment ago. this is going to come down now to organizing and turnout and persuasion and all of the work that we have to do in a democracy. and understanding that, in the united states and, i majority does not rule. you have to have a supermajority in order to be able to express the will of the people. >> so, within a month or so, roe v. wade is going to be overturned by the supreme court. will the senate come back and vote on this again? vote on the day that roe v. wade is overturned? the day the judgment is announced? or the day after? >> when i'm thinking about is, how win roe is overturned by

the supreme court -- and let's be clear, roe is going to be overturned, because of the result of a multi decade strategy, and the federalist society and other donors. when that happens, what is going to happen is that there is going to be a crisis of health care in this country, women who need abortions for whatever reason are not going to be able to get what they need. that is going to create a major crisis. and the accountability for that is going to rest with the republican party and those republicans that are of a fuse to stand up for women's fundamental freedoms. fundamentally, the united states senate -- i will do, and the democrats of the senate, we will do everything we can to clarify with the differences. but we don't have the power to accomplish what the whale is of the american public. and that is why the election is going to be so, so important if you care about some of these fundamental freedoms. >> would you join an effort to

pass the collins murkowski version with 52 votes in the senate, and then, of course, that's a meaningless thing to do because it would need to beat the 60 vote threshold, but then also ask those same 52 senators to vote to change the senate rule on the 60 vote threshold for just this one piece of legislation? >> well, you probably know that i think that the filibuster is an archaic remnant of an old senate that needs to be abolished. i think we should get rid of the filibuster for voting rights, for a birdie abortion rights, for the health of our democracy. i think on this issue though, i think if you really look at what is in the collins murkowski bill as it stands right now, it does not prevent the kind of abortion bans playing out in state after state after state. i don't believe that it does the hard work we need to do to

protect the fundamental freedoms that roe protected. i don't think it gets us where we need to get it to, along with the problem as you said, even if we had 50 plus one votes to pass the collins murkowski, that doesn't get us anywhere, because you need 60. i see no evidence that we have ten republicans that would be willing to join us in an effort to protect reproductive freedom, and that is why the election is so important. >> so it is sounding like the democrats message on the day that roe is overturned in the supreme court is, wait till the next election and then wait several months after the next election for all those new democrats, presumably, if you get them to be sworn in in the senate, so that you then might be able to pass something, assuming the 60 vote rule could then be overruled in the senate,

at least for this one piece of legislation. it sounds like the democrats will be asking for about a year. you're going to be saying to pregnant women in america, for about a year, don't expect anything from the united states senate. >> you are touching on exactly what i am talking about, which is that this decision by the united states supreme court is creating a crisis of health care for women. it is unconscionable. the accountability for that rests with the republican party, which is refusing to stand up for women's fundamental rights. the only thing that i know how to do as a senator and also as an activist for reproductive rights, as someone who worked at planned parenthood and as an organizer myself, is to organize voters to make sure that their voters are their voices are heard. i would note that there are many people and organizations that are now going to be pressed into action over these next months.

it's starting right now. doing everything we can to make sure that women have the capacity to have access to abortion care when they need it. that is going to create, as i said, a crisis across the country, a health care crisis that we have not seen for many years. the thing that i am focused on is, who is responsible for this? and what are we going to do, joining together, to take action to make this, to make our country a place where women have the fundamental freedom and autonomy to make decisions for themselves about their own bodies and their own lives. >> senator smith, before you go, it's sort of a personal question about how this feels to you now, this alito draft that we held our hands together, that first night, feeling the shock of. it i know you are still processing the shock of it. you've had over a week to live with it now. what does it feel like, and what does it feel like to you,

with all your experience with planned parenthood and as a senator, what does it feel like to you that it is coming? what is coming in this country in the next month or so when they make this decision? >> you and i talked about this the night that we saw this opinion. it felt like a gut punch. it was almost difficult to process because it was so stunning and so brazen in its disrespect for women and their ability to make decisions about their own lives. now i've lived with it for a week i have to tell you, today was a difficult day for me, personally. i was in touch with some friends of mine who have worked so hard on these issues for so long and it just, it is a hard day to experience this. but you have to persevere. you have to keep on working. when i wake up tomorrow, that's what i will keep on doing. but as i said, i think from last we spoke, lawrence, this

is the first time that i can remember that we have seen the supreme of the united states, in my lifetime, take away women's rights, take away peoples rights, and this is a sign, i think, of a great dysfunction in our democracy. >> senator tina smith, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> and coming up after this break, representative katie porter joins us next. er joins us next ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ open talenti and raise the jar. to gelato made from scratch. raise the jar to all five layers.

raise the jar to the best gelato... you've ever tasted. talenti. raise the jar. bipolar depression. it made me feel trapped in a fog. this is art inspired by real stories of bipolar depression. i just couldn't find my way out of it. the lows of bipolar depression can take you to a dark place. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. this is where i want to be. call your doctor about sudden behavior changes or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, confusion, stiff or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be life threatening or permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor if latuda is right for you. pay as little as zero dollars for your first prescription. nicorette knows, quitting smoking is freaking hard. you get advice like: ask your doctor if latuda is right for you. try hypnosis... or... quit cold turkey.

kidding me?! instead, start small. with nicorette. which can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette the more information i found, got me more curious. it showed how much my family was really rooted in campbell county. we discovered that our family has been in new mexico for hundreds of years. researching my family has given me a purpose. 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. dove knows we damage our hair a lot my hair i curl it. i have to use a lot of heat new dove hair therapy shampoo & conditioner with ceramide & peptide. it nourishes at a cellular level to rescue damaged hair. discover 10 x stronger hair with new dove hair therapy rescue and protect. san francisco is getting back on its feet. people are heading back to the office and out with friends across the city. prop a ensures that muni delivers you there quickly and safely. with less wait time and fewer delays. and a focus on health and safety in every neighborhood through zero emissions fleets. best of all, prop a won't raise your taxes. vote yes on prop a for fast, safe, reliable transit. >> what we saw today's

republicans telling americans all over this country and, and women in particular, that their voice is more important than yours, that's what they believe in, is more important than your choice about your own body and your own family and your own future. now is the time to lift up our voices and fight back. >> joining us now is democratic representative katie porter of california, member of the house oversight committee and the deputy chair of the house progressive caucus. representative porter, you are with us on that night when we were holding the draft opinion in our hands for the first time. it was shaking in my hands, i was so shocked that we possessed it, first of all, and that we were reading it. on reflection now that you have had more than a week to live with it, and you saw what the senate did today, what are your feelings about it tonight?

>> i think it's not my frustration, my anger, my disappointment, hasn't diminished one bit. in fact, i've had more time to think about with the consequences of this decision are, not just in the immediate term, for women who are worried about with this means for them, for families that are worried about what this means for them, but then he about the long term economic consequences of this decision. we saw yelling from the secretary of treasury, talking about with this decision will mean if women are forced to drop out of the workforce, if they have to cut their education short. so i think my sense of frustration, my sense of rage, my sense of disappointment, my anger as a citizen of this country, that i feel like my own ability to control my health care is being taken care away from me. we're going to see the frustration and the rage, the anger in the disappointment, we're gonna see it keep going as people grapple with people what people thought was unthinkable.

>> i want to go back to janet yellen pointing out the economic consequences of this for women. most women who use abortion services already have one child. so what is happening there, in many cases, is a decision about what is economically possible for them and what is possible for them, given that they already have one child. >> absolutely. this is not, abortion is not about whether, it is not in contrast to motherhood. it's not about people never becoming mothers. it's about deciding when to start a family. as you mentioned, the majority of people who have an abortion are already mothers at that time, and some of them have several children. some will have an abortion in your want to have children later. so this idea that there is this choice that somehow republicans are choosing mothers and motherhood democrats are choosing to not be mothers,

choosing abortion is just wrong headed. this is part of family planning, it's part of reproductive health care, in the same way that things like birth control our, and when we see republican start to invade our choices about abortion, we're going to see them come from birth control next. >> president biden has said that inflation is the number one priority for the biden white house to try to get under control right now. as you are out there, in california, talking to constituents, during this reelection year for congress, how does inflation compare to this newly-important -- in the sense of a supreme court decision pending -- abortion issue. how do those two issues compare? i >> don't think they compare. i think they actually reinforce each other. and it can become more expensive to fuel your car,

feed your kids. it's exactly why people need to be recharged. it's wet they need. and people are going to paying more for housing. it's a reason that people are saying that they need to be able to make their own decisions about starting a family. i don't think it's about comparing them or -- it reinforces for people how big a responsibility it is. i want to take a look at a poll of florida voters. this is a university of south florida poll, about the causes of inflation. and they have at the top of the list, 87%, saying supply chain. 83%, covid-19. 64% biden administration. then comes warren ukraine. and trump administration at 49.

i personally would move or in ukraine way up there. how does that list look to you? >> i think it is missing a really important contributor here. that is price gouging. the evidence here is not tricky to understand. i don't need a white board for this one. when you are selling a product, and one of your inputs -- say you are selling gasoline -- and your input, which is oil, goes up in price, you may have to charge more. but if you are just covering the cost of your higher input, you would not see your profits double, quadruple. that is what we are seeing. we are seeing it with oil. we are seeing it with food products. we are seeing these companies. they are not just passing along the cost of the higher input. they are not just passing it along on the supply chain difficulties. they are using the supply chain moment to increase their profits by raising their prices well beyond the higher costs

they are facing. no one is taking away, i think, from the war on ukraine, and from supply chain issues, from labor shortages. these are all real factors. and the price of fuel, of course, affects the price of many other goods. but there is -- you simply cannot look at wall street's profits and not come to the conclusion that this is one of the most profitable moments that while she has seen. and they are profiting off of what they view as really an opportunity to engage in price gouging. and we have to crack down on that as we also try to solve some of these underlying inflationary factors. >> representative border, can you please stay with us across a break? i want to ask you something about what you did in your subcommittee. this may sound like something congress does all the time, with reference to the january 6th committee. but you actually sent a criminal referral to the justice department for recommending an investigation of a trump cabinet member. i would really like to get the details on the other side of

the commercial break. please stay with us.

when you need help it's great to be in sync with customer service. a team of reps who can anticipate the next step genesys technology is changing the way customer service teams anticipate what customers need. because happy customers are music to our ears. genesys, we're behind every customer smile.

fanduel and draftkings, two out of state corporations making big promises to californians. what's the real math behind their ballot measure for online sports betting? 90% of profits go to the out of state corporations permanently. only eight and a half cents is left for the homeless. and in virginia, arizona, and other states, fanduel and draftkings use loopholes to pay far less than was promised. sound familiar? it should. representative katie porter. it's another bad scheme for california. i have -- i can tell the story of your criminal referral to the justice department. but i would rather have you tell this story. and how it came about. and one of the things that really stuns me about it is

that it centers on, among others, a trump cabinet member who i forgot existed. i forgot who was secretary of the interior after the first one had to leave. but please tell us why this criminal referral is about. >> so, what happened here is the deputy secretary of the interior, the secretary of the interior at the time was ryan's inky, who is currently running for congress. but the deputy secretary was named bernhardt. he took a secret meeting with a developer named ike ingraham, trying to develop a project in arizona, in a very environmentally sensitive area. it was a secret meeting, never disclosed on any of secretary bernhardt's calendars. it was never disclosed to our committee. a couple weeks later, this fish and wildlife career employee, just doing his job for 30 years, he gets a call around a

high-level politico wanting him to reverse his decision that the development would harm the environment. enough to over six, three things happened all at the same time. first, the army corps of engineers announced that they were reopening this. announced that they were reopening the decision. second, mike ingram and his 12 buddies of his, they -- a quarter of 1 million dollars to the trump victory fund and to the republican national committee. and number three, the fish and wildlife -- this whistleblower, this fish and wildlife person -- got a phone call telling him that he needed to reverse his decision. he got the phone call directly from the department of the interior in washington. so, the facts here are really shocking. this is a pretty quote quote. this is why this appears to be. in return for making nearly a quarter of 1 million dollars in donations, to the victory fund, to the republican national committee, this developer was

basically able to buy his way around environmental protection law. the facts of the case are shocking and they are very, very serious. quid pro pro is the most insidious form of corruption there is. and officials need to know, just because they tried to hide the tracks, does not mean that congress is not going to do its job. and conduct that oversight. when we find crimes, we are not afraid to make the referral to the department of justice. >> and you found all the senior subcommittee investigation, which you have now basically forwarded on to the justice department, to see if they find criminal conduct. >> yes. the chair of the natural resources committee, robert halawa, was working on this investigation. i took it over on the oversight subcommittee. we got together. and i am really, really proud of how careful and thoughtful. and what we try to do here, really, was get the facts. and we made the criminal referral so that the department of justice can conduct the depositions and go through the formal legal process to reach their determination of whether

criminal charges should be filed. but given the evidence before us, we have a responsibility as congress members to see that the law is being followed. and so it does not appear that that happened here and that's why we need this unusual step. it's the first time that the house natural resources committee has ever made a criminal referral. and i think that speaks to just how egregious the conduct is here and just how important it is that we in congress are establishing the rule of law. and the expectation that administration officials are going to follow it. >> representative katie porter, thank you, as always, for joining us. we always appreciate it. thank you. and coming up, newly-released audio tape shows lindsey graham, what he really thinks about donald trump when donald trump cannot hear him. and a newly-released email from trump attorney john eastman puts the criminal conspiracy to overturn the election in writing. neil kept y'all joins us next.

new york times reporters alex barnes and jonathan martin have released new audio recording of senator lindsey graham criticizing donald trump and defending congresswoman liz cheney after the january 6th attack on the capital capitol. >> he plays the tv game and he went too far. that rally didn't help, talking

about primary in liz. >> lindsey graham's sense of revenge was on full display in the supreme court confirmation hearing for judge justice ketanji brown jackson. graham said that he thought the hearing should be revenge for the way that brett kavanaugh was questioned by the committee, after brett kavanaugh was publicly accused of sexual assault and then found himself defending himself in his hearing by expressing his love for beer, among other things. nbc news has confirmed that fake trump electors in georgia are cooperating with fulton county district attorney willis 's investigation of possible violations of election law by donald trump and others in georgia. trump election attorney john eastman put the criminal conspiracy in writing according

to emails obtained by politico. and emails from john eastman to state legislators in pennsylvania, urging them to change the vote count in favor of donald trump, saying that, having done that math, you would be left with a significant trump lead that would bolster the argument for the legislature adopting a slate of trump electors, perfectly within your authority to do anyway. but now bolstered by the untainted popular vote. that would help provide some cover. joining us now is neil, katyal who served at the department of justice. he's an msnbc legal contributor. and if i end my email to you, neil, with this will help provide some cover, do you emmy the utley call the fbi -- who wins emails like that? when talking about anything other than covering up a crime?

>> exactly, lawrence. when it's emails finally we're talking about, finally -- all of a sudden, republicans are acting like words don't count unless they were notarized and sent by carrier pigeon or something like that. so, what eastman is doing in these emails as a trump lawyer, is he is under the cover of matt, trying to throw out the votes after he knew that trump lost. so, his basic thing in the email is, well, 4% of absentee ballots are generally thrown out. here only 0.4% were thrown out. so, you should throughout the extra 3.6%. and that will hand trump victory. give me a break. there are a couple of problems with that. one is, i don't know how many of the 4% were actually just votes cast by mark meadows and trump people anyway. and secondly, there is no electoral scheme anywhere, at least in the united states, in which you do that kind of math. of course not. you go ballot by ballot, and

you look at whether or not there is election fraud with respect to any individual ballot. you do not do things like this. and as you say, lawrence, the tell here, as he says, is that that will give us cover. cover. this is a presidential election we are talking about. >> does that email, then, leave any doubt on john eastman, knowing what he is advocating is illegal? >> it sure looks that way. i mean, you could try to explain it. i've known john eastman since week looked they gather on the supreme court. he clerk for justice thomas, i clocked for justice breyer. many people thought he was a bit kooky, perhaps. but people didn't really think he was a coup supporter. but that's evidently what he has become. >> if you look at the electors in georgia, the cooperation of fake electors in georgia. you see this interstate conspiracy --

john eastman is a part of it. it's all interstate communication, saying, you know, here is how to sends to washington a completely fake set of electors. and it is for more than one state. >> absolutely. >> it seems like fani willis has almost the entire, t in georgia, the entire version of the conspiracy. including donald trump's phone calls to the secretary of state. >> that is right, lawrence. there's two separate issues. one is the local investigation with the local folks there, including fake electors that were appointed. and that were potentially appointed by republicans there. that looks, potentially, criminal. and the question you are raising is, how high does it go? do any of these fake electors get contacted by trump or eastman? or people close to him? the the news today is that the electors are cooperating. it's not any surprise that the fake electors are participating. they did not sign up to

participate in the crime. all they did was, i suppose, get together and fly to washington d.c. and override the results of the securely run election. so, how are they supposed to know that attempting a coup would create this for us? >> how is it different from impersonating an fbi agent. >> it is not. it is the same kind of basic problem, if they knew it. obviously, they may have defenses on criminal intent and so on. but right now it looks bad for them and it looks for bad for this, overall, what looks like an orchestrated conspiracy. and lawrence, judge carter, a respected federal judge in california, he has already looked at the evidence. he said it's more likely than not that john eastman committed crimes, and that donald trump committed federal felonies. >> what is merrick garland's role here? >> a federal indictment has to be brought by the attorney general. we don't know exactly what the attorney general is doing. there is a school of thought that says it is a good thing. merrick garland is by the book,

he is not leaking, and so on. another school of thought is that he is such an institutionalist that maybe he is too afraid to go after trump. my hope is that, because he is such an institutionalist, because he cares so much about this country, the department of justice and the rule of law, he will look at all of this, look at watch judge carter said, look at what the january six committee says next month and concludes in hearings. i suspect that evidence will be overwhelming that donald trump committed federal felonies. >> thank you very much for joining us tonight, neal katyal. >> and thank, you lawrence. >> tonight's last word is next.

under district attorney gascón, time for tonight's last word. i prosecuted car break-ins. all repeat offenders, often in organized crime rings. but when chesa boudin took office, he dissolved the unit and stopped me from collaborating with the police on my cases. now home and car break-ins are on the rise because repeat offenders know they can get away with it. chesa boudin is failing to do his job. there's a better way to keep san francisco safe.

recall chesa boudin now.

>> let me ask you this. have you, made any decision in your own mind whether you feel roe v. wade was properly decided on? without saying with that decision is? >> i have not made, senator, a decision one way or the other, with respect to that court decision. >> we're versus wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it was decided in 1973. so, it has been on the books for a long time. >> i would tell you that roe v. wade decided in 1973, as a president of the united states supreme court. it is a president of the united states supreme court. it was reaffirmed in casey 1992. it decided a lot of cases. >> senator, i said that it is settled as a precedent of the supreme court. and entitled under principles legally. >> roe v. wade clearly -- casey upheld at central

holding. and spelled out in greater detail the test that the court uses to consider the look galaxy of abortion regulations. >> tonight's last word is precedent. the 11th but hour with stephanie ruhle starts now. hle starts now >> tonight, the fate of federal abortion rights remains uncertain, as a key vote fails in the senate. so, what is next? plus, new details on the plot to overturn the 2020 election. reporting on the push to try to re-tabulate pennsylvania's popular vote and tossed out thousands of absentee ballots. plus, our exclusive interview on the future of work. the bold new prediction from the ceo of airbnb about what is next for you, the worker, as the 11th hour gets underway on this wednesday night. >> good