tv The Beat With Ari Melber MSNBC June 27, 2022 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
donations or musical everyone can get involved in the want to. don't miss it. sunday july 3rd, 7:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. thank you for letting us into your homes during these times. "the beat" with ari melber who's also been enlisted to help me starts now. >> there's a lot going on in the world, i think we all know, and the thing that you're doing here, which i want to shout out and echo, i love it not only because it relates to music and culture, which i do love, but i think that i know you care a lot about what's going on overseas. we have been covering that story along with everything else that comes in and out of people's attention, ukraine needs the world as eyes than issue in whatever way people can participate and i know you have been working hard on this, so on behalf of whomever, myself, i
think it's great what you're doing is we'll all be tuning in. >> thank you so much. you were one of the first person i called to, let's say, educate mist about the music world. so thank you for being there for me. >> thank you for doing it, and we're all going to see what you're doing. the culture part matters. that's why zelenskyy spoke at the grammys. there are all ways we can engage. we'll be watching, nicole. thank you. >> thank you, friend. >> absolutely. welcome to "the beat," everyone. as just nicole and i were you discussing there are many, many things going on in the world, and in america we're following several stories for you tonight. we'll begin with our lead story, the reaction to the fall of roe and what is happening around the country. later, i have to tell you, we have a big story coming up, another big trump coup plotter facing a search by the feds. that's new breaking today. this time it is one of the donald trump's most controversial lawyers and aides ever and, that's saying something, john eastman.
congress also now announcing a new january 6th hearing for tomorrow. you may be thinking, wait, did i forget? was there another hearing coming? no, this was not on the schedule. we're only gathering new information from our sources in the way we're dealing with the committee to learn why they're holding this tomorrow. we'll have an update on that and eastman facing this heavy escalation in the probe later tonight. our continuing story, shock waves follow bid marchs of thousands. what you see here has been animating so many people in so many places, reacting to the supreme court, which, now stocked with three trump appointees has reversed 50 years of law to the right to constitutional choice in america. by every available measure we have had up until friday and over the weekend, americans oppose exactly this kind of moif. it has been poled for some time. they strongly oppose it now that it has become reality.
activists, opposition materializing well beyond these specific categories, which is the way sometimes washington divides things up, by gender, geography. as word spread friday and reaction built over the weekend, it is very clear those five justice who voted to formally reverse roe, three of them appointed by trump, who got, we should note, fewer votes both times he ran for president than his opponent, well, those three new trump justices along with the voting bloc, they are a government minority. they're squaring off against what is clearly a much, much larger american majority, and the reaction to what they've done ranges from the personal, political, people speaking up well beyond politics and crass our larger culture. >> i wanted to dedicate this next song to the five members of the supreme court who have showed us at the end of the day they truly don't give a
[ bleep ] about freedom. >> it's health care. they ned to have it. it's necessary. >> all these irrelevant old [ bleep ] trying to tell us what to do with our [ bleep ] bodies. >> we won't quit. we won't give up because women are dieing. >> [ bleep ] the supreme court. >> it's a direct attack on groups that are dacaed already. ♪ good speed women's rights ♪ >> this is not the edge. this is ground swell we need to say, these are our rights. >> god speed for women's rights. they judge you, they judge christ. god speed for women's rights. they judge you, they judge christ. god speed for women's rights. they judge you, they judge christ. >> take just the final two voices we show youed you in the partial collection of what everyone is saying and doing. what citizen say this should be the start to a ground swell, not the end to a legal case. after that, an artist with many, many millions of followers, kendrick lamar confronting the
claims of religious judge who is apparently believe their personal religious views must control others under law. he rejects that zealotry. lamar offering a more humble view of religious traditions. we show thaw tonight to start our coverage, because both those views are animating part of the backlash right now. as this week begins, i'll tell it to you straight -- americans are living in a fundamentally different society than last week. now a constitutional right ha evaporated before our eyes. now a court that operates through its legitimacy has according to the majority -- we cover what the majority thinks -- the court has torched some of that in exchange for a rjts and political agenda at the first moment it found the five votes to take this action, three
of them courtesy of donald trump. what i'm reporting for you are legal facts, the i part from one's personal or religious view, which is why we're at an inflection point in history. consequences are here right now, here for people. the new abortion bans arriving in ten states. some are litigating the details. arizona, west virginia, wisconsin, shutting down health-care and abortion services already in response the this ruling. >> i had to look people in the eye and turn them away when they were seeking abortions. >> people that were upset, angry, people breaking down crying, people in disbelief. this is a really emotional -- emotional and hard day. >> we've always said take everybody. we'll figure out how to serve people, and we haven't been able to say that now. >> we will find a way to help clients, and if it means moving, we'll have to move.
>> this is the reality as we begin the week, and we bring in between of our experts. emily a "the new york times" magazine writer. welcome to both of you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> emily, when you see the reaction, it is what was known because where the public falls on these issues has been well documented. what does that mean as this controversy, which justice alito proclaimed would end, or somehow lessen based on his ruling -- i think thus far that's not happened. >> right, this is just a new chapter in a long and bitter fight in this country, and we're going to see it play out state by state. abortion opponents are going to try to pass bans that are as restrictive as possible in as many as half of the states, and people who support access to abortion are going to try to
make those bans less onerous for people seeking abortions, try to help women travel, and also try to get the abortion pills, which we know at this point are safe and effective, into the hands of people who need them. so those are these new sets of battle lines that the supreme court's conservative majority has drawn. >> lafonza? >> ari, i think it's clearly right, the protest over the weekend, the sort of folk who was shown up when the decision was made public on friday, this is a part of the accountability in our system. i think that people all over the country, the majority of americans supporting this fundamental freedom, are expressing, i think, the initial phase of accountability in our system, with the ultimate being at the ballot box this november, and i expect that this will
continue, and i look forward, frankly, to contining to support candidates like the ones that emily's list has been supporting as they head into november as well. >> you mentioned candidates, which is part of why we wanted to hear from you tonight. there are many aspects to this. it's nuanced. i try to cover that. but we've documented long before the ruling came down friday that it is largely male legislatures that have pursued these rules. it is largely male justices that uphold them or, in this case, roll back the right. i will note there was one female trump appointee in this ruling, but the other four male. there are many aspects to this that go to the fundamental questions and equality under law, which is something equally applied and fair to everyone, or is it selectively applied? to throw one more thing, not to bombard anyone, but we want it out here we have the demographic data out here. i want to make sure that's up
there for focus. when you look at who is affected by this and justice ginsberg used to speak about this with regards to class and race, which is cross cutting. but women are most affected by the fall of row. white women for a variety of reasons would not be as statistically impacted by this in as many places, and i'm just curious if you want to speak on any of that. >> i would, ari, and i appreciate you and your team for coining that analysis and putting those facts in front of american people. it's interesting to say the least that the majority of legislators and governors who are advancing laws to constrain the freedom of women or men, i think it's interesting the majority of the court who advanced this decision limiting the citizenry of 167 million
women in this country, more than half of our population, was done by a majority of men. there indeed is nuance, but the writing is very clear that there is an intention here to create a permanent underclass of women, and i am here and would love to continue this conversation as we speak directly to the women that justice alito called out in his decision, where he said, it's not as if women don't have electoral or political power, and i think it is time that women across this country show these justices the kind of country that they want their daughters and sons to inherit. and frankly, the kind of country that we deserve. >> yeah, that's interesting. you're citing some of the selective reference to political turnout in the opinion, but you're also saying, okay, bring it. emily, this brings us back to the juris presumption of
innocence prudence. the fact that justice alito keeps hiding to ball seem to be a tell he doesn't want people to know the truth. at a certain level he's concerned about the legitimate si and understanding of the court. he says, this whole ruling is governed by history. you have to do what happened at the time of the 14th amendment, or goes back to 17th century treatises. are we going to be real? zwrender relations wither treated as poverty, gender servitude at a time when women were part of an organized capitalistic sexual slavery. if you want to say that's as far as the analysis can go or that's what the ruling should be on, don't you start out game over, emily? >> yeah, we heard the supreme court repeatedly today and again last week that it has to be
based on ideas that are firmly rooted in the history. this means we're going back to a time before black people were able to vote, what we knew think of as a small fraction of our country was fully in control. so it is very limiting to imagine women's rights in terms of only the 18th and 19th centuries, and that is what this conservative court seems determined to do on reproductive rights, religious rights, and in other areas. the second amendment. and it's really going to have a profound impact on the lives of americans. >> yeah. all very important points we have been covering here in our first segment tonight, both the law and democracy response. thanks to both of you. let me tell folks what is coming up. there's a lot going on today. breaking news of a new search warrant on trump's election lawyer who was taking the fifth. the fbi just took his phone.
we have that report for you new tonight with a surprise hearing tomorrow, and we're being told a mystery witness as of this hour, it's not been confirmed formally by congress. later, an expert on how the supreme court might be undermining its own legitimacy, and we will hear from the attorney general in a swing state who says he'll not enforce part of an abortion law that goes back to the civil war. bacr if you've been living with heart disease, reducing cholesterol can be hard, even when you're taking a statin and being active. but you can do hard.
you lived through the blizzard of ninety-six... twelve unappreciative bosses... seventeen fad diets... five kids, three grandkids... one heart attack... and eighteen passwords that seem to change daily. and with leqvio, you can lower your cholesterol, too. when taken with a statin, leqvio is proven to lower bad cholesterol by over 50% and keep it there with two doses a year. common side fects of leqvio were injection site retion, joint pain, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, chest cold, pain in legs or arms, and shortness of breath. with leqvio, lowering cholesterol becomes just one more thing life throws your way. ask your doctor if leqvio is right for you. lower. longer. leqvio. ♪ got my hair got my head ♪ if leqvio is right for you. introducing new one a day multi+. a complete multivitamin plus an extra boost of support
for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+. a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable,... i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. check. when uc held me back... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc got the upper hand... rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older... with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq... as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq.
ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save. wanna help kids get their homework done? ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq. well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities.
so many people are overweight now and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now, there's golo. golo helps with insulin resistance, getting rid of sugar cravings, helps control stress and emotional eating, and losing weight. go to golo.com and see how golo can change your life. that's g-o-l-o.com. this supreme court has always navigated deep american controversies. in fact, when you go to law school it is common and at times cliche to refer to how the court doesn't have its own army or
police force to back up its rulings. doesn't have to following and intense passion and support of most politicians. what the court draws on, besides technical authority is a type of legitimacy. now, if you're watching the news right now going, i'm not sure about that -- welsh that's the focus of our report right now. the impact of this decision that guts roe will continue to be important to many people for its direct consequential force on their life, its impact, and we're going to keep covering that as we did at the top of the hour. there's also what this decision, which is an undeniably big deal -- there will be talk in law school and history for a long time to come -- what does this mean for the court itself? it's facing this mainstream
rebukes already. take "usa today's" front page which raises the issue from an american view of, wow, once you do this, this fast with a bunch of new trump appointees, the court's legitimacy is, quote, in question after this ruling. the nationwide protests we're living through right now are not logging a generalized disagreement with the outcome. much of this is tapping into what is now a prevailing view, that this decision came out because new justices joined the court, and they personally oppose abortion. now, let me be clear -- if the sentence i just said sounds obvious, trump put people on the court, voted to reverse the precedent because they oppose it, it if it sounds obvious, remember, that is what they currently deny. the court's legitimacy requires that it never does that, that it doesn't just reverse what is
law, press sent, constitutional rights, because new people are voted on and they just personally disagree. its legitimacy comes from being above personal opinions and politics, let alone a judge's personal religious views. that may be obvious, but i want to spell it out. if justices joined and ruled on their religious views, however earnestly held, than a the supreme court would become an unaccountable superlegislature that would just mandate, everyone has to observe the sabbath or go to church, or if you have enough strong jewish believers on there, everyone has to stay kosher because that's what its members think. justice alito strongly
disagrees. he claims they're literally neutral on abortion, and that's not why they ruled. yet he also claims, quote, roe was egregiously wrong from the day it was decided. this is a bold statement. legally what he's saying is not that new facts or information changed something, which can happen in precedent. what he's saying is since the ruling came down in '73, it has always been legally wrong. that's sort of legally speaking the highest threshold for things to be overturned. people believed -- and the court says not only were they wrong then, and that's always been the wrong view. this alito view was just
dissected by linda greenhouse, "the new york times" reporter for the decades. she notes in a new piece this is the first time the court rescinded an individual right, and left it up to the states, something that used to be, according to the court, protected by the constitution. now, again, i'm keeping it as blunt and clear as possible. these things are linked. the fact that the court is being purr sooefed by everyone as making a sudden change as soon as it got trump appointees on it who have a view of abortion, that perception against what alito is claiming, that he needs people to believe something else, he needs everyone to believe this decision was wrong from the start. as greenhouse points out, that will also mean however, so many past republican appointed justices who backed roe have also been wrong from the start.
>> that's true, your honor, but the point there was the see the thinking of the framers of the constitution. >> i'm just wondering if there isn't a base, inconsistency there. >> that's just a little bit of what it sounded like when they were actually adjudicating and hearing this case originally. republican presidents appointed much of the roe majority, that was them discussing the arguments in '72, and it was a back then a 7-2 decision. men at the time, five appointed by republicans. and greenhouse stresses this in her "new york times" piece responding to friday's ruling, noting that alito is saying all of those justice were so
blatantly obviously wrong in that decision as well as over time is, quote, breathtakingly arrogant. numbers though 1 in 4 women have an abortion by age 45 in america. but this doesn't even impact all women equally. experts, as we've noted from the top of the show, say women of color are most impacted -- professor melissa murray says for poor women, women of color, women who lack the resources to travel, it's been especially grim. for alabama women who already have a maternal mortality rate triple white women, those numbers could increase by a third. none of those numbers are true. just as so many people lied through this, so many of the justices have as well. greenhouse draws on her own history, own career, and notes that before roe, in 1970, quote, more than 90% of abortions in new york hospitals were
performed on white women nonwhite women make up the deaths. a lawyer told her, it is the poor women who have to pay. greenhouse noted a coming challenge could bring the striking down of all abortion laws in the u.s. she wrote that in '70. three years later roe did come down. the point there, the grim point, is that when it comes to class and equality and discrim nation, some things have not changed at all, and that is far worse news for certain people in america. we are indebted to people like ms. greenhouse for her reporting, for her work on the supreme court, and for our understanding and tonight, that reporter, plz greenhouse along with joan walsh is our best when we back in one minute. best when we back in one minute. for your,
welcome back to our special coverage. we just drew on "new york times" reporting from back to 1970, and now joining us is the aforementioned author of some of that work, linda greenhouse, and joan walsh a national affairs correspondent for "the nation" and friend of "the beat." welcome. >> thanks, ari. i really appreciate that opening. >> well, we appreciate -- i don't think -- i think i can -- i'm always careful who i'm speaking for. there's evidence a lot of people appreciate your work, and your essay walks through so much there. given that setup, why don't you tell us what was important to you to convey? because as we always say, people of good will, people who are trying to do things right may disagree on issues and yet what you document is a deeper problem in the court's very legitimacy right now. >> i think what we see in this opinion really is what i call breaking the fourth wall.
if you know the image of the fourth wall, when we go to theater, you know, we know we're just seeing a play. we're not seeing people really acting out their lives. and we accept that. we accept that the supreme court is populated by people who get there through politics, named by a president, confirmed by the senate, confirmed the heartland of america's political life, often, and we're cool with that. we the public have made a bargain with the supreme court. we accord you the legitimacy to exercise the enormous power you have as long as you're staying in the kind of mainstream of americans' understanding of the principles that we live by. what the court did was the dobbs' opinion, the mississippi case was break the fourth wall, enabling us to look at them clearly as you did in your opening and say, hey, wait a
minute, you know, the overwhelming popular sentiment in the country is, don't do this. we may disagree about when someone should have an abortion or different aspects of abortion, but at the end of the day, it's very strong majority of the american public wants this to be an option, and the court giving really no reason, as you said. you know, the court has overturned precedent many times, often to expand rights, like brown versus board of investigation or ples si, or to clarify rights or take account of new information, this kind of thing. if you read the dobbs majority opinion, the alito opinion, virtually identity cal to the draft that was leaked, i urge people to read it. read and it look for women.
look for any acknowledgement in that opinion that this decision is going to have any impact on women. it's astonishing. women are not there. so, you know, i think that the court has broken its half of the bargain with i think devastaing consequences for the way americans think about the supreme court. >> yeah, you document that. and joan, i'm not joking when i mention the sabbath or keeping kosher or any number of earnestly held beliefs i know people who believe that very deeply. the question is whether it's going to be a theo kra si. no one is saying people don't have to right to these beliefs or to peacefully advocate on them if they want to speak or tray to convert, to use the literal word, others to that belief system, but what alito
and the majority do at great, great cost to many things, including the court's legitimacy, it would seem, joan, is we're here now. we just got here, and now we're going to do it our way, in some sense, their religious way. joan. >> well, absolutely. linda said so much. i can't say it better than linda but it strikes me that nothing has changed here. there's no new medical science new york new science about pregnancy or abortion. we haven't had much new information about fetal viability for a while, and certainly the polls haven't changed with women and men overwhelmingly support this right. the only thing that changed is this majority. they're here, they're here now, and they're doing this now. the point about all the republican justices, two generations of them, basically,
who have upheld this right in some fashion other over the years is so important. i think of sandra day o'conner, elected by president reagan, made the opinion in the casey decision, which did restrict abortion but made it available. i think her opening lines are -- linda can correct me, i'm sure, is the ability of women to participate equally in the sboeshl political life of the nation. it's dependent on the ability to control their reproductive lives. you didn't see anything like that in alito's opinion, and you're right, women are absent. many of them want us to be absent from the public sphere to the greatest extent possible. >> linda, i want to draw on another part of your piece, where alito says what will be reasons to govern health-care decisions.
quote, respect for pre-natal life at all stages of development, maternal health and safety, eliminating what he calls gruesome medical procedures, the integrity of the medical profession, according to him, a for religious view above it, the mitigation of fetal pain, whiches awe note is a bit of a dog whistle and the prevention of discrimination. that's a lot of text. linda, because that was an important part of your piece, i did want to you walk us through that. >> what these are, most of them -- not the top two, but the rest of them, are anti-abortion dog whistles that just don't belong in a supreme court opinion. the integrity of the medical profession is code for denigration of what the majority opinion astonishingly calls
abortionists. that's a very ugly word for medical professionals who provide abortion care. and the prevention of discrimination is a reference to clarence thomas has been clear about this in early opinions -- states are trying to pass laws that would make it a crime to have an abortion if the reason is a pre-naal diagnosis of down syndrome. sadly, or for better or worse, most such diagnoses lead to terminating the pregnancy. that point is moot because these states are free now make abortion itself a crime. but alito going through that list really towards the very end of his opinion i think just underscores that we're dealing with policy and not law. >> yeah, i think that's so important what you're saying, and again, i've taken great
efforts to acknowledge the earnest disagreement in the country, which does exist, although majority the other way. but yes, disagreement. but as you say, when you get into that level and it's -- again, for people who claim, this is about the text or originalism and then they just give the whole game away and say, or it's about my religious believes and for particular by justice alito and the majority who have not exactly upheld discrimination protections for living human beings base on gender, race, et cetera, it gives the whole game away. again, i don't know we're better off in a world where everyone thinks the supreme court is just a less accountable superlegislature, but the conservatives or self-declared conservatives have certainly gone down the road. your piece work recommend it. that's why we quoted it, linda greenhouse. to two guests we have had on before, we'd love to have you back on. thanks for being here tonight.
>> thanks very much. >> appreciate it. coming up, the other news we have been tracking that broke late in the day. there's a surprise witness. we don't have it confirmed yet who it is, but the january 6th choosing to go forward with that. and the coup plotter at the center of the fifth amendment is also facing federal seizure of his phone. we'll get into that next. theers phone. we'll get into that next theers announcer: type 2 diabetes? discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk,
and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone.
announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription. ♪ got my hair got my head ♪ introducing new one a day multi+. a complete multivitamin plus an extra boost of support for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+. (fisher investments) in this market, you'll find fisher investments is different than other money managers. (other money manager) different how? aren't we all just looking for the hottest stocks? (fisher investments) nope. we use diversified strategies to position our client's portfolios for their long-term goals. (other money manager) but you still sell investments that generate high commissions for you, right? (fisher investments) no, we don't sell commission products. we're a fiduciary, obligated to act in our client's best interest. (other money manager) so when do you make more money, only when your clients make more money?
(fisher investments) yep. we do better when our clients do better. at fisher investments, we're clearly different. do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. if you have $100,000 or more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit coventrydirect.com to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance.
weren't any this week. but today a surprise or emergency hearing added all of a sudden for tomorrow, and the committee is plainly saying this was not the plank but they now have, quote, recently obtained evidence and new witness testimony as of this moment we do not have confirmation of who this witness will be tomorrow, but there's a lot of news coming down the pipe. john eastman confirming he had his phone seized by the fbi. he says the fbi took his phone from him as he was leaving a restaurant so they could get access to his emails. the warrant issued at the behest of the inspector general. joining a now, nick akerman who's experienced in these raids, searches and prosecutions. welcome back, sir. >> thank you. >> first after all, i just want to remind folks, if you go back
a couple months, you didn't have any of this. you go back a couple weeks, you had signs, developments, searches. in the last two weeks you have the physical lawful search of mr. clark's home and now a physical interaction to get the phone of mr. eastman, two people at the center of the coup plot focuses around january 6th. do you view this as a bad sign for them and a sign the doj is going up the chain, or too early to tell? >> it's bad news for both of them. the only way the government could have obtained either of those warrants is to have probable cause, one, that there was evidence of a crime. in the case of eastman, on his phone. and there was evidence of a crime in clark's apartment. now, that probable cause cannot be stale, meaning it has to be current. and don't forget, all of these
activities that occurred were around january 6th almost over six months ago. so somehow the government has come one current information on both of these individuals. that is, somebody has either ratted out john eastman or somebody has somehow found out that he's got information on that telephone, whether it's calls to various people recorded there, whether it's emails. i mean, he's got the iphone 12, which can actually contain documents for all we know, all these documents that were subpoenaed by the committee, some of which weren't turned over by the court. so, somebody somewhere has basically put in the government's possession the fact that there is information on there currently and that there was information in the apartment of jeffrey clark. so that is what is so breathtaking here. >> yeah, and i want to jump in just -- i want to build.
i only have you for another minute. there's always violence of january 6th that's been prosecuted, and whether there are further limpings, we don't know. but the public evidence against these two people, clark and eastman is more about what they did with trump going into the 6th, meaning if there were no violence that day, would these still be likely searches and lawful warrants? because what we do know is they're involved with alleged crimes that didn't require violence. they required obstructing or stealing an election. >> that's right. it's trying to basically come up with a letter saying -- lying that there was fraud in the election to try to get the state of georgia to rescind and take back its electoral votes from joe biden. so, yes, there are different crimes here, but again, this shows that the government is on top of this, because they got somebody, or people who are
telling them things that are very current i was -- >> lastly -- >> i was always concerned -- >> i got one -- just want to get one more thing. these aren't traditional prosecutors. according to eastman it came ouchlt inspector general's office a sentence or two, does that matter? >> it could, because that could be the place where the evidence came from. somehow the inspector general, at least with eastman, came across the current evidence that made the probable cause for this warrant. >> very interesting. to remind people, inspector general, that's like the watchdog, so if you have people who are lawyers or doj officials who are acting badly or like criminals, the i.g. is the first place to start. whether it got worse than that, we don't know. can't prejudge. but nick akerman says it's bad news for them. on a night with more time i'd love to spend more time with you. >> thank you. bye-bye. up ahead, we turn to our
final guest, an attorney general what's defying a state abortion ban. that's next. n attorney general what's defying a state abortion ban. that's next. it's important. we walk three to five times a week, a couple miles at a time. - we've both been taking prevagen for a little re than 11 years now. a time. after about 30 days of taking it, we noticed clarity that we didn't notice before. - it's still helping me. i still notice a difference. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. if you have type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure you're a target for chronic kidney disease. you can already have it and not know it. if you have chronic kidney disease your kidney health could depend on what you do today. ♪far-xi-ga♪ farxiga is a pill that works in the kidneys to help slow the progression of chronic kidney disease. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration,
urinary tract or genital yeast infections in women and men, and low blood sugar. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may lead to death. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. and don't take it if you are on dialysis. take aim at chronic kidney disease by talking to your doctor and asking about farxiga. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪ this is john. he hasn't worked this hard to only get this far with his cholesterol. taken with a statin, leqvio can lower bad cholesterol and keep it low with two doses a year.
side effects were injection site reaction, joint pain, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, chest cold, pain in legs or arms, and shortness of breath. with leqvio, lowering cholesterol becomes just one more thing life throws your way. ask your doctor about leqvio. lower. longer. leqvio. cookies and breyers. lower. longer. that's like getting two desserts! wait... do we have to thank our moms twice? i don't know... (laughs) breyers. 100% grade a milk and cream, and loaded with delicious cookie pieces.
better starts with breyers. ♪ ♪ ♪♪ voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪♪ so many people are overweight now and asking themselves, voltaren. the joy of movement. "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance.
that's why they don't work. now, there's golo. golo helps with insulin resistance, getting rid of sugar cravings, helps control stress and emotional eating, and losing weight. go to golo.com and see how golo can change your life. that's g-o-l-o.com. i'm joined by the attorney general for wisconsin. vowing not to enforce 170-year-old abortion ban on the state books. welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> tell us what the state of the law is today and what your position is. >> well, unfortunately it's really uncertain what the state of the law in wisconsin is. we have an abortion ban from the mid-1800s that remains on the books. it bans abortion in almost all cases. there's no exception for rape or incest. there's no exception for abortion early in the pregnancy.
there were laws passed subsequent to roe that regulate legal abortion and so whether those laws control or this ban does is going to be a matter of likely decided by the court. in the meantime, i have been clear that as long as i'm the attorney general of wisconsin, we're not going to use any resours at the state department of justice to investigate or prosecute anybody under our mid-1800s abortion ban. >> and when you say prosecute, is that a ban that could be construed to indict someone? be that a doctor or someone else? >> that's right. it makes providing abortion a felony. if a doctor performed an abortion unless it was to save the life of the mother, it would be a felony in wisconsin if that ban is found to be in effect. i expect we'll hear from the court soon as to what the state of the law is. >> what if again legally an individual, a citizen was trying to perform an abortion on another person. or potentially as construed on
themselves? >> except to save the life of the mother, the only abortions that would be lawful under the 1800s ban would be self-administered. because there's an exception that says the mother can't be prosecuted. but that's incredibly backwards and dangerous. and so it's my hope that we will see our court step up and be clear that ban isn't in effect. in the meantime we're not going to be enforcing that ban through my office. it would make women in wisconsin less free, less equal and less safe. we're not doing it. >> many of the laws referred to as trigger laws are more product of a recent effort to say as soon as roe falls, the state is on record or ready to basically go through that. you are describing something much older. is it automatic that old laws kick back under the books in other areas? is this specific to the bay abortion legal landscape or is this just a generalized problem?
once you get clarity from the courts, will you enforce whatever remains if there's a prohibition? >> we don't have a trigger law. a number of states do. like michigan we have a preroe ban that was never repealed. now whether that is springs back into effect after being dormant for 50 years is really an unprecedented legal question. it's not normal to be in the position where rights that had been guaranteed for americans all of a sudden were taken by the court. certainly not after 49 years. so we don't really have precedent for this. ultimately courts will need to decide. i will say that a law passed in the mid-1800s that has been dormant for 50 years, all of a sudden having that come back into effect for my perspective is inconsistent with the notions of consent of the govern. this is not something that wisconsin voted for. it's not in this generation or this century even.
so all of a sudden having it go into effect would be a mistake. >> understood. and again this is the front lines of what is happening in many places. a state that went for biden not a state people associate as the same as mississippi. and yet, very interesting to get your perspective of what your office is do. thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> we'll be right back. s for ha. >> we'll be right back plus an extra boost of support for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+. ♪ so i climbed into the cab, and then i settled down inside ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere, man ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere, man ♪ ♪ of travel i've had my share, man ♪ ♪ i've been everywhere ♪ ♪♪ my mom says that breyers is made with real milk. [cow mooing]
i think i can hear the mooing. [girls laugh] breyers natural vanilla is made with 100% grade-a milk and cream and only sustainably farmed vanilla. better starts with breyers. trelegy for copd. [coughing] ♪ birds flyin' high, you know how i feel. ♪ ♪ breeze driftin' on by... ♪ if you've been playing down your copd,... ♪ it's a new dawn, it's a new day,... ♪ ...it's time to make a stand. start a new day with trelegy. ♪...and i'm feelin' good. ♪ no once-daily copd medicine... has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating,
lemons, lemons, lemons. the world is so full of lemons. when you become an expedia member, you can instantly start saving on your travels. so you can go and see all those lemons, for less. i've got moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months, after just 2 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 fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs, or if you plan to, or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save.
♪ got my hair got my head ♪ introducing new one a day multi+. a complete multivitamin plus an extra boost of support for your immunity, brain, and hair, skin & nails. new one a day multi+. republican congresswoman mary miller speaking out about roe this weekend at a trump rally. and upsetting many. >> president trump, on behalf of of all the maga patriots in america, i want to thank you for
the historic victory for white life in the supreme court yesterday. >> you heard her clapping and others. she made a reference to quote white life. her office says she misspoke. it touches like so many of the issues on what exactly it is people are cheering for. we want to show you that before the hour was up. the reed out is next. >> tonight -- >> definitely believe this is not over. i do. i think he just said the quiet part out loud. >> the he, vice president harris referring to is of course justice clarence thomas. who wants the court to take away more rights. yet another example of how the cruelty is the point for republicans. the human suffering from the court decision is already becoming apparent. also tonight.