tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC May 13, 2022 12:00am-1:00am PDT
that is the guy who is poised to become speaker of the house, should republicans win the house in the midterm elections. they also issued subpoenas for four of his colleagues, and in fact, their colleagues. jim jordan of ohio, mel brooks of alabama, andy biggs of arizona, and scott perry of pennsylvania. the latter four in particular are largely believed to have been key players in the ex presidents plot to overturn the 2020 election. in case it is not clear, this is obviously a really, really big deal. we sort of dug back through the history here as far as we can tell, this appears to be the first time a member serving in congress has been subpoenaed by congress outside of an ethics investigation. let alone the man gearing up to be speaker.
and for months and months, house democrats have been trying everything to avoid getting too precise at this point. which is why it is worth looking back at just how we got here. in the days after the insurrection, it really seemed like kevin mccarthy understood the gravity of the situation. it is apparent in the since leaked phone calls with his fellow republicans from the days following the attack that mccarthy privately told allies he was thinking of asking trump to resign. >> and you asked if, you know, what happens if he gets there after he's gone? is there any chance? are you hearing that he might resign? is there any reason to think that might happen? >> i've had if you discussions. my gut tells me no. i'm seriously thinking of having that conversation with him tonight. i haven't talked to him in a couple days. >> mccarthy appeared to take the attack so seriously that he actually deputize his own ally, member of the republican house
leadership, congressman john taco of new york, to negotiate with democrats on an official bipartisan 9/11 style commission. the idea is that the two parties would come together, and they would create a serious 50/50 commission where neither side has a bipartisan advantage. and after months of painstaking negotiations, we covered them closely on the show, katko reached a deal with the democrats! but during those months of negotiation, mccarthy's political calculations changed. it became clear that trump had a firm grip on the parties. so mccarthy encouraged his own caucus to vote against the commission that he had essentially greenlight id, and left congressman katko to fend for himself. standing alone while he tried to fact check his own party on the commission. >> another charge i heard was that the commission could be controlled by partisan staff, hired unilaterally by the commission chair. that is simply not true. there has been some concerns, arguments made
about the criminal investigations. make no mistake about it. this commission has nothing to do with the criminal investigations. this commission bylaw cannot interfere -- interfere with criminal investigations. >> so strange about watching a republican be like wait, my colleagues are lying about something? but no, that is a lie. kevin mccarthy made a calculated decision, here it is clear, the facts of january 6th, the aftermath of the election, the insurrection, they were always going to be terrible for republicans, for donald trump. so bad in fact that his only hope was to try to turn the investigation itself into something illegitimate. katko's compromise did and the passing the hosts, it actually got 35 republicans on board which it did not that many but more than what he would vote for today, that is for sure. but, then the commission died in the senate after mitch mcconnell came out against, it whipped votes against it, and republicans filibustered. >> after careful consideration, i have made a decision to
oppose the house democrats unbalanced proposal for another commission to study the events of january the 6th. is everybody surely knows, i repeatedly made my views about the events of january the 6th very clear. i spoke clearly, and left no doubt about my conclusions. >> well mitch, you, know if you are done with it then i guess everyone should move on. by, the way the unbalanced line is just literally on. surely mathematically, that was the whole point. democrats are not willing to let the investigation of the attack. oh then, how speaker nancy pelosi established, using her power as speaker of the, house a select committee to look into the insurrection to investigate it. that was less formal in the proposed commission, which would have involved both members of congress. mccarthy, who was taking orders from trump, decided to sabotage it. he then tried to appoint jim jordan to the committee who of course, is now being subpoenaed for his very role in plotting the coup itself. we know that jordan spoke to trump on
january 6th multiple times. the committee tried to join no says that he is a material witness and the investigation. >> congressman jordan may well be a material witness. he is someone who is involved in in number of meetings and in the meet up to what happened on january 6th, involved in planning for january 6th, certainly for the objections that day as he said publicly. so he may well be a material witness. >> obviously it would be preposterous to put a member on the committee investigating the event that they were part, of right? like, it sure who is involved in the crime sitting in the jury box. it does not make sense. -- who had spread trump's big lie, in return, mccarthy took his ball and went home. he pulled all of his republican appointees off the committee. >> speaker pelosi has taken the unprecedented step of denying the minority parties picks for the select committee on january
6th. this represents something that has not happened in the house before for a select committee in the history. it is an egregious abuse of power. pelosi has broken this institution. >> i mean, if we are talking about precedent, no one had ever tried to appoint an alleged coup plotter to a committee to investigate the coup. it is an interesting choice of words for mccarthy, considering the insurrection literally broke the institution. smashed it to pieces. but this was the party line now, right? committee is a sham. the claims are illegitimate. we can put it off into this other corner of the world. you there, republican voter you don't have to worry about it. of course, pelosi did a point to republicans to the committee. both immediately became prize in their own party. cheney, once the third more powerful republican in the, house was on the phone with mccarthy when he contemplated asking trump to resign, lost her position of party leadership. the republican national committee even censored cheney and kinzinger for quote, participating in a democrat-led persecution of
ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse. the kind of political discourse where you take a weapon to a cops head and bang it repeatedly. now, to their credit, seriously to their credit, cheney and kinzinger who's politics i do not like at all, were not deterred. and the bipartisan committee has remained determined, and united and its purpose. in the face of republican stonewalling, stonewalling from trump's allies, invasions, we have the situation now where less than a month before the committee is said to go to public hearings, there is one last investigation. that is to find out with their colleagues know. and their colleagues will not tell them. so they are going to do the unprecedented thing to issue subpoenas to the republican obstructionists including kevin mccarthy the top republican of the house, the man who helped block the
initial commission in the first place. congressman eric swalwell, he is a member of the house committee, and he joins me now. congressman, i don't think that anyone would deny this is a very big, significant step. what is your reaction to it? >> shouldn't their oath have been enough, chris? every citizen's responsibility when they witnessed a crime is to cooperate with authorities. this is the greatest crime against the constitution we have ever seen. the most amount of arrests, and in a single act, and these individuals have information. and, so shun their oath to office that they serve when they raised the right hand and were sworn in on january three, just three days before the insurrection, shouldn't that have been enough? it clearly wasn't. they were asked to come in voluntarily. they refused to do so. and drastic times calls for drastic measures. this was a day we nearly lost our democracy, our freedom, our right to vote, and have that vote mean something. and if they don't want to cooperate, then we are going to
have to press them with legal subpoena. >> yes there is always a don't make a threat that you cannot back a question, as well. now that there are subpoenas issued, if those subpoenas are safely ignored as it appears to have happened with mark meadows, who was subpoenaed, cooperating, stopped cooperating, was criminally referred to the department of justice, nothing has been forthcoming, we don't know why that is but it has not happened. do you vitiated the power of the house to enforce the subpoenas if that is the situation you end up in? >> well chris, if they are not going to honor the subpoena, then i think the committee has already shown that they are willing to keep going forward. that could mean yes, a civil case. go up the courts to a civil case. or it could mean a criminal referral. it could also mean a referral that is an ethics committee. i think they have a number of options. but most importantly, if they do not honor, it it means that they have something to hide. it is an inference of guilt. and a single case it would be used against them. the only reason they are not going forward,
because they have information that they want to conceal. >> there is also this question about the shoe being on the other foot. this has always been hanging over all. the idea is that what binds the decisions of the majority makes is that it won't always be the majority. we have seen congress, the house, move back and forth several times in the past 15 20 years. there is this threat that keeps happening. despite the threat that there is a real asymmetric -- and not in the other. that punishment, of their more absent members, it's going to be revisited upon the democrats if the tables turned. this is mccarthy threatening to strip you of your committee assignments back when the house voter stripped the committee's assignments from marjorie taylor greene and paul gosar. when asked, yes, mccarthy replied when asked if that meant he will use the standard democrats have created by stripping representatives marjorie taylor greene and paul gosar of their committee assignments. how do you think
about the threat of, it is going to be even worse when we have majority? >> they are going to do that anyway. and i told the january six committee members before the decision was made that i hope that you do not believe you are protecting me, or mr. schiff, or miss -- by not doing the right thing there because you do not want them to do that to me or anyone else in the future. they are going to do that anyway. and i go back with eyes wide open. but if the shoe were on the other foot, and republicans were in power, we are already out of balance. because we have position now where they would not allow another peaceful transition of power. they are trying to write the laws in a way where they would never have to give up power. and they might not certify donald trump's -- they might decertify the next time donald trump wins and have the votes to do it. and that really concerns me more than what measures they would take against me, or any of my colleagues. >> what do you think the goal, you are not on the committee,
you are one foot in one foot out, what should the ultimate goal here be in this next month as we approach the public hearing? >> to tell the story of what happened with witnesses who can animate that for the public. as to how close we came to losing our democracy. who was responsible? kevin mccarthy said that donald trump admitted responsibility to him. that is why kevin mccarthy is such an important witness. so who was responsible? what's actions to donald trump take leading up to this? what did he know about violence that was going to occur? what actions did he not take that could have protected this from happening? could have protected the lives that were injured that day. and then what was the plan, knowing that republicans are more comfortable with violence then voting, going forward to make sure that a day like this never happens again. >> all right, congressman eric swalwell, great to have you on. thank you very much. when we come back, at least five republican members of congress are attempting to hide what
tears and fortunes, and sometimes their lives, to give us, their descendants, but america is the greatest nation in world history, so i have a question for you. are you willing to do the same? >> that was alabama republican congressman moe brooks, at donald trump's ellipse rally on january six 2021, and there is no confusion, given that tape which we all saw, as to why the committee investigating the insurrection would want to speak to him. on that list of house republicans subpoenaed, today is at least one somewhat -- scott perry, of pennsylvania. he was one of the central figures in trump's plot to stay in power. he figures quite prominently in the senate judiciary report on the efforts to overturn the election, beyond amplify and trump's false election fraud claims, working to prevent his own constituents votes from being certified. he acknowledged introducing jeffrey clark to trump. clark is a key figure, remember, he was in the
department of justice, he was the official essentially tried to pull off a coup in a department of justice, where he would strong-arm the acting attorney general into leaving, or at least stealing the election by sending out these official letters to the department of justice. saying, quote, georgia and several other states -- that it was investigating voting irregularities, and recommend that each state legislature call a special session to consider appointing an alternate slate of electors. luckily those never got sent. glenn kirschner, is a former federal prosecutor who spent 30 years in the washington d. c. district attorney's office, and he joins me now. glenn, we should start of this fact, which i think we can skip ahead to the instruction that, a subpoena is a serious thing in any context. when you get a subpoena, you don't just throw it in the garbage, and that's the starting point for how to think about what happened today. >> subpoenas are supposed to be taken seriously, they're not party invitations, chris. we can have the usual conversations about, what are the enforcement mechanisms now, in the event these five members
of congress defy the subpoenas? we've been through this so many times. it could either be there or voted for contempt, and referred to the department of justice. but the doj's batting average is not very good at the moment. they're only one for four when it comes to indicting folks who have been referred for prosecution. only steve bannon has been indicted. we're still awaiting mark meadows, peter nevada arrow, dan scavino. then you have inherent contempt of congress, which is a long dormant weapon in congresses enforcement arsenal. will they pull out their weapon of inherent contempt, and use it against some of their own members if they did defy subpoenas? that would kind of feel like just desserts. then, of course, we have civil enforcement, which can be a long unwieldy process in the civil court. so, yes they should be taken seriously. we have all the usual enforcement mechanisms, but it remains to be seen, what will they do, will they comply or will they defy?
>> so, let's start with brooks because he's so obvious. one of the things, and the world of executive privilege is this idea of waving it if you talk about the thing an issue. there's a little bit, it seems to me, of a parallel. which is brooks has been going around blabbing because trump decided to an endorsement because he's doing poorly in his primary, and he's going around telling everybody, the trump still wants to overturn the election. at that point you think, like you seem to want to talk, you should just talk. >> yeah, and the view that i have about why they chose these five members of congress, because they could've chose others, we heard about the supposed reconnaissance tours, given to insurrectionists. we saw josh hawley, he have the support for the insurrection. but they didn't subpoena those folks, instead they subpoenaed these five. i can only assume is because each one of these five bring something to the table about donald trump's conduct and misconduct, not just our own. you just have no brooks inciting violence, quite frankly, expressly. but i think
the other thing at risk right now, chris, is that the legal landscape has shifted not so subtly in recent weeks, because a federal judge in california did announce, in his finding, that after litigating the john eastman email issue, that there was evidence by a preponderance of the evidence, 51%, that donald trump and john eastman committed two felony crimes together. so, now i suggest that ups the ante on the mccarthy of the world, if they decide to refuse to testify against donald trump, when a federal judge has already announced by a preponderance -- that actually constitutes to federal felonies in and of itself, if you refused to come forward and talk about the crimes that have been committed against the united states. accessory after the fact and misfortune of a felony. which we haven't talked about a lot. that comes directly into play, because a crime has been
committed that is cognizable by a court of the united states, and you can seal it? which is wet mccarthy and the others would be doing if they refused to testify. you have committed a three-year federal felony. >> we've also got evidence, in some of the letters, of just the degree of plotting that was happening. particularly this one sort of threat here is scott perry, about the attempt to get pardons, which i think is also interesting because it reflects a little bit of consciousness of guilt in the aftermath of this, this is reading from the committee's letter to representative andy biggs. sorry, not scott perry, this is andy biggs, sorry about that. recent information from former white house personnel has identified an effort by certain house republicans after january 6th to seek a presidential pardon, for activities taken in connection with president trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. your name was identified as a potential participant in that effort. we don't know that much about it, we've only sort of seen this a little bit obscured for through reporting. but, the
seeking of pardons strikes me is quite significant in terms of what it shows about their consciousness of the gravity of what they had possibly participated in. >> yeah, exactly, you don't need a pardon for a peaceful protest, or a normal tourist visit. you need a pardon for a crime. of, course granting a pardon is some indication of crime has been committed. the supreme court has said receiving or accepting one is some admission of guilt. you know, when you boil it all down. you have even the trump children testifying before the j six committee, and members of congress are not going to testify in what is virtually their own living room. that tells us that they are really wanting to cover something up. >> yes, that's a great point, if don jr. can zoom in and talk it is very rapid clip, certainly congress can do the same. glenn kershner, thank you very much. >> coming up, former
i called the barnes firm, that was the best call i could've made. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to know how much their accident case is worth. let our injury attorneys help you get the best result possible. members, we are back in ♪ the barnes firm injury attorneys ♪ ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ session. as is obvious, we have members who decided they want to hijack or process today. >> so that was the scene in tallahassee, florida last month, a democratic revolt as the florida legislature ran through a new congressional maps drawn
by ron desantis. the complaint was that the desantis map reduce representation for black floridians, by a limiting one congressional district represented by black, democratic and shrinking another, democrats took her case to court, and yesterday at desantis appointed judge agreed. finding the map would reduce the impact of 370,000 black voters and eight mostly rural counties, quoted diminishes african rep marketability to elect representatives of their choice. as a, today the desantis map was blocked, and the question becomes what happens now. marc elias, the founder of democracy docket, helped fight on behalf of voters. he's been in court pushing for fair elections across the country, he joins me now. mark, tell me what the florida proposal was, why the lawsuit happened, and with the state court found. >> yeah, so chris, thanks for having me, it was actually more outrageous and even think.
because the florida constitution prohibits drying maps that diminish the rights of minority voters. and the florida legislature knew this. the republicans in the state house, and that republicans in the state senate actually did an analysis, that said the desantis map will diminish the ability -- of minority voters, that's why they originally passed a different map. they oppose the desantis map, it's only after desantis vetoed that and said it's my map or no map, that you saw the spineless, got loose republican leadership in the state house and the state senate say okay, we will go with your map. >> right, so they draw, >> right, so they draw, essentially, a constitutionally compliant map that doesn't take away this one black majority black seat, and that's when we're talking about sort of selecting their representatives. the language of the voting rights act, it's been integrated into state constitutions as well, as they think about making sure that african americans can
elect representatives who are black, in majority minority districts. so desantis said no, you have to do this map that knocks out a black representative in the congressional delegation, because advantages republicans nationally more. what was the mechanism? this is a state court finding, right? what happens now? >> so what happens now is, as you said, the trial judge went to the, hearing and found that the violates the state constitution, and ordered to implement the map that our expert, harvard professor -- had drawn that would preserve cd five as it was. the state has indicated that they are going to appeal, so this will now go up to the court of appeals, or the supreme court in florida, where look, they have a very simple choice. they are either going to strike this map down, because it is clearly violated of the state constitution, where they're gonna ignore the state constitution. the fact that the
trial judge, as people pointed out, including yourself, was appointed by governor desantis, is interesting. but he was applying the law in the state constitution as it clearly is spelled out in the state constitution. >> and also, in a lot of this litigation, we've seen that the court striking down about can be just the beginning of a story. in ohio, of course, a similar situation, although they're not a racial gerrymander, such as a partisan. one but they violated either a state statute or constitutional permission, the bans partisan gerrymandering. the state court said no, this map doesn't work. ohio republicans basically barely tweaked, it and they basically are trying to ram through now. they're re-approving them up previously rejected by the house supreme court. it's the same when the -- isn't resolved by may 28th. it seems like there are defiance of the state court in ohio is basically going to let them win that standoff. >> well we'll see, as you point
out, they are in defiance of a court order of the state supreme court. we will see whether or not that court takes action on the motions to hold the state officials in contempt, or not. because it's really outrageous. what's happened in ohio is that the states court struck down the map, the state republicans are simply ignoring that by acting in bad faith, by passing and re-passing maps of the state court has made clear are unconstitutional, in a hopes of running out the clock. but we will wait and see, the supreme state court will have the last word on that. >> in the case of florida, you have the timeline here, and this will get a field. again, it seems pretty clear clear, right? if you take a majority minority district, an african american district away, in a state that is not seen a significant decline in a population. you have clearly done something that is pretty violated the basic thrust of what we have post voting rights act standards for how to re-district. i guess the
question is, how much faith do you have in the state court in florida to do the right thing here, given that the trial judge was also desantis appointed? >> yeah, so look. with the florida constitution says is that you cannot reduce minority voting opportunities to elect. there is no dispute on the facts, there was a district that minority voters could elect, their candidate of choice in the fifth congressional district. that district has now, by anyone's analysis been taken away. that will no longer be a district where minorities can elect their candidate of choice. democrats agree on that, the republican legislature agrees on that, i don't even think ron desantis disputes on that. so the law clearly requires for that to be struck down. this will now go up to the court of appeals, or directly to the state supreme court. those courts will face the same choice that the trial court did. do you abide by the florida constitution, or do you ignore it? and i oftentimes say
to you in two others, that democracy is on the docket. because we are ultimately left with the courts as the last bastion to preserve rights, in a country where republicans have become increasingly lawless. >> all right, marc elias, who is working on this and other cases, thank you very much i appreciate it. >> thank you, chris. >> next, democrats already facing an uphill battle in the midterms, and with abortion rights at the very top voters minds, why is the speaker of the house doubling down on reelecting a democrat who opposes abortion rights? that race, after this. that race, after this. ace, after this.
since i left for college, my dad has gotten back into some of his old hobbies. and now he's taking trulicity, and it looks like he's gotten into some new healthier habits, too. what changes are you making for your type 2 diabetes? maybe it's time to try trulicity. it's proven to help lower a1c. it can help you lose up to 10 pounds. and it's only taken once a week, so it can fit into your busy life. 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. the choices you make can help control your a1c.
lost a major vote to codify roe v. wade at the national level, the majority on the supreme court apparently oh poised to overturn a landmark ruling, speaker the house nancy pelosi is once again reiterating her support for the lone member of the house democratic caucus who opposes abortion rights, congressman henry cuellar, representing the rio grande valley of texas -- and pelosi, is on team choir. >> i'm supporting henry cuellar, he's a valued member of our caucus, he is not pro-choice but we can meet him, we passed a bill and that's what we have. by the way, this is one of the first congress is that we have had with a democratic president, with the pro-choice congress. i have to say, there's a little bit of tension between the message, elected more pro-choice democrats to prevent
overturning roe v. wade, and also don't worry about this antichoice democrat, we have enough votes in the house. and, yet the entirety of house leadership is giving money to or actively campaigning for this long incumbent democrat, to fend off the -- why should i just pro-choice. i view livingston's d. c. bureau chief of the texas tribune, and she joins me now. abby, this is sort of a little under the radar in national politics, i've been paying attention to it -- the leak of the dobbs decision really puts a spotlight on this, -- that said, i'm not surprised pelosi is standing by, she was standing by her members for a very long time, it usually has to become a criminal situation. his attorney has told me and other reporters he's been form by other fbi reporters -- pelosi cares about one thing, and it's power, know your power. she wants that gavel, and in the past she and other democratic
-- pelosi cares about one thing, and it's power, know your power. she wants that gavel, and in the past she and other democratic leaders have recruited pro-life candidates, and he is one of the few incumbents left who is pro-life. right, but i mean let's talk about the power questions, the fbi raided cuellar's apartment, or his house, right? now again, this seems like a not great thing to have hanging over a candidate, so even if your take away abortion you're thinking, who do we want to come out of this primary? cuellar his representatives have said that he's not a target, but that seems like not the biggest assurance do we know anything about what the deal was with the fbi raid. >> i've never worked the phones
harder on the story, and i've nothing on this. this is the strangest race i've ever covered, and i've covered again hundreds of congressional races, they happen in january in a really bad time and it really serious questions in the legal community about the propriety of the justice department during that time, the name james comey has come up in this context. so strange, but it kind of die down and then the roe v. wade thing blew up. so this is an incredibly hard race for him to win. i wouldn't count him out, he's a very good politician, but he's had the kitchen sink thrown out and by the gods. >> yeah, and jessica says narrow, his, challenger this is the second time she's challenging him. she was on meet the president xi was describing the fact that, it's not just on abortion he's a mansion-esque figure in the house caucus, it's fair to say. the furthest right of the caucus over everything, just take a listen.
>> the last thing we want is to hold on to a slim democratic majority, and have someone like him who's gonna keep siding with republicans, not just on this issue but he's done it on things like the pro-act, he's voted to fund the border wall. he has an a rating from the nra, there's so many key issues where he's always siding with republicans. he can become the joe manchin of the house, we don't want henry cuellar to be the deciding vote. >> now the question right of course is it's hard to imagine a democrat rather than joe manchin winning west virginia, what is the new lines of the district in the rio grande valley look like in terms of how swing-y it is? >> it's pretty swinging, i was around some democratic operatives last, night and i was the first question they asked me is what i thought. this could be a tough race no matter who wins it, david waterman has pointed to him of as a more electable one in the fall. that's an open discussion i will talk to jessica's narrow
since we got back. i think it's very much up in the air, and very unsteady going forward in south texas. >> yeah. i would say that the lack of clarity of why the guys house was raided by the fbi does really cast a poll over the whole thing. if i was just backing it one hedge a little, bit that is just me. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you for having me. >> you may or may not have noticed but i have been out for a few days. a huge thanks to the hosts for stepping in to host the show. after dodging it for two plus years, i did test positive for covid. i am definitely feeling, and sounding much better now. there is something i learned while i was sick that i think everyone should know about. we will talk about it next. e will tal about it next.
>> in 1991, legendary basketball star hall of famer magic johnson was going to die. or at least that is what everyone thought. magic out announce that he had contracted hiv, and was in awful, tragic, painful revelation that stunned the world. >> good evening. the news is so shocking, and so unexpected that it is difficult to absorb even as we reported. magic johnson has tested positive for the hiv virus. that is the first step to aids. magic johnson, basketball superstar, so beloved, so well known, his first name was all he needed will be on the world of sports. tonight, magic announced he is retiring of basketball because of his condition.
>> because of the hiv virus that i have attained, i will have to retire from the lakers. i think sometimes we think that we -- only gave people can get it, it is not going to happen to me, and here i am saying that it can happen to anybody, even me, magic johnston, it can happen too. >> all around the country people were scared, upset, it was all anyone talked about the next day. nightly news highlighted an aids hotline that was inundated with worried calls. >> at aids hotlines in los angeles and elsewhere, if the phones were ringing off the hook. people asking all sorts of question about the disease. >> people are frightened. people who previously thought they were not vulnerable to this realized they are. >> at the time, contracting hiv was essentially a death sentence. there were some drugs available that could sometimes delay the progression of the disease, but there was no cure.
that was a reality that magic johnson faced in 1991. he did return playing at the olympics, and he played one more season with the lakers, went on to tour with the all-stars. he became an entrepreneur, launched a successful media career, and along the way magic johnson went from being a man facing certain death, where the world was preemptively warning, to just a normal guy. albeit, a very wealthy and famous one. because, thanks to a lot of research, the development of new drugs, hiv became something you could live with. we have not eradicated hiv and a. i. d. s.. we have converted it from a death sentence to a manageable virus. the medications now available, people now contract hiv, they can live full regular lives. and magic johnson was one of the first, maybe the first highly visible people who demonstrated that. now, more than two years and to the covid pandemic, after 1 million deaths just here in the u. s.. millions more around the world.
i have been thinking about that example because i think it is a way to start to see a world we can live with this virus, as well. now as you probably noticed, i have been out for a few days, i had covid which is probably not a certain death sentence by any means. i am vaccinated and boosted. the first 36 hours or so i was pretty knocked out, it felt like having the flu, but then my doctor prescribing me the anti viral drug you may have heard about called paxlovid. and i have to say, my symptoms rapidly improved. when paxlovid first became available at the end of last, year there is very limited supply, and the drug was reserved for people at high risk, which made complete sense for rationing a serious resource. but as with the vaccines, the problem right now in this country isn't supply, it is demand. paxlovid is wildly underutilized and is just sitting on shelves. there are limitations. it is authorized under emergency use authorization, it has to be taken within five days of the onset of symptoms in order to be effective, so you have to get it as soon as you test
positive. there has also been more recent cases of patients relapsing up to completing their five-day course, which obviously needs to be studied further. right now, doctors are still limited by the fda regulations. the agency regulates paxlovid for people at high risk due to certain health conditions, like heart disease, and obesity, although the list is long and covers a big chunk of the population. but the fact that there are millions of doses of this drug just sitting unused is insane to me. i mean, this was the therapeutic that we were kind of waiting for. at least the first generation of something that really does work. a drug that would be taken right away, that could really minimize the symptoms of this virus, and i can tell you i took, it and it made a huge difference for me. it shows a lot of promises a way to dramatically reduce a danger and disruption of the virus that it seems is just going to keep circulating forever. a new poll shows that less of a third of americans are worried about getting covid, while cases are once again rising around the country. people are over it. and i get that. almost no one wants to
talk about covid anymore. certainly not politicians. basically no one wants to close down bars. and things like mask requirements are either struck down by courts, or just dropped. the virus is not gone. and we have basically abandoned any and all public health measures, non-pharmaceutical interventions, from stopping it from circulating. the good news is that we now live in a world where the overwhelming majority of folks could at least theoretically be vaccinated and boosted, and everyone who comes down with covid again, could theoretically get this antiviral drug right away. feel much better, must faster, dramatically reduced risk. if this were the reality, near 100% boosting rate, and universal automatic access to anti viral therapeutics, it would massively improve the situation for all of us. and again, it is not unlike what happened with hiv. for years, a cure seemed practically impossible. but slowly, with a lot of very hard work, we developed a therapeutic, that
made it completely manageable. it was treated, patients could be asymptomatic, and there was no magic urinals from one day to the next. but even as the drugs were developed, there was also a multi decade fight to get those drugs to be made cheaply enough to be accessible so the world's poorest people. but we have a highly effective medicine to prevent people from getting hiv in the first place. it is as commonplace and as accessible -- effective covid treatments like paxlovid, at least, now appears to be, should be the same. right? i mean, in the early days of hiv and a. i. d. s., it was all focused on non-pharmaceutical interventions, safes sex to stop of the transmission, we done -- so, we got covid now, we should be containing efforts to develop more treatments, and
even better vaccines. and to keep educating the public about the importance of boosters and vaccination, and the availability of paxlovid. but that is not what we are doing. instead, congress just put covid funding on the backburner, cutting it out of the package with funding from ukraine. in missouri, the legislator there recently passed a bill, i am not making this, up a bill making it illegal for pharmacists to tell patients that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are not effective to treat covid, even though that has been shown by multiple studies. so, if we are going to let covid circulate, relatively unchecked, which appears to be the current policy consensus, well then for the love of god, we need to do everything we can to use the tools that we have, which we have developed, to reduce the risk and disruption it poses. that means really putting our back into the effort to develop a next generation of vaccine, and drugs, and getting things that we have like paxlovid to everyone who needs it. it is an abomination if congress, particularly the republicans in congress, walk away from that
basic duty. that is all in on this thursday night. msnbc prime starts now with ali velshi. good evening, ali. good evening, ali. the start of the year, it was a bit of an open question. with the select committee investigating the january 6th attack on the capitol take the unprecedented step of subpoenaing fellow republican members of congress, so they could testify before the committee. and, did the select committee even have the authority to do it? >> do you think you're going to have to subpoena a sitting member of congress? >> well, i think that there's some question of whether we have the authority to do it. we're looking at the authorities are there. we're looking on our part. >> the authorities there.
they'll be no reluctance on our. part at that time, the chairman committee, the chairman the garage was reluctant to issue subpoenas. i doubted, thompson told the associated press. there's no precedent to force that compliance. but, in the months since, revelations have come to life. ce revelations have come to life. because after conducting nearly a thousand witness interviews and obtaining over 100,000 documents, one thing has become clear, efforts to contest joe biden's election victory were not limited to the white house and a kookie task of sham lawyers and conspiracy theorist, elected republican lawmakers were deepl they were integral to the plan to overturn the election of the 2020 election. a mind boggling 147 house republicans, look at them all, objected tobl certifying presidt biden's victory on january 6th
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on