tv The Reid Out MSNBC June 30, 2022 4:00pm-5:00pm PDT
hi. we're zerowater. and we believe everyone deserves the purest tasting water. that's why we strive for zero. you see, to some it means nothing. but to us, it means everything. here, take a look. this meter showing triple zeros means our five-stage filter did its job, and that virtually all dissolved solids or tds have been removed. and all that's left is the purest tasting water. let's compare. a two-stage brita filter stops here. but our five-stage filter doesn't quit. zerowater. we strive for zero. tonight on "the reid out."
>> so help me god. >> so help me god. >> now all of the members of the court, i'm pleased to welcome justice jackson to the court and to our common calling. [ applause ] >> an historic transition coming at the end of the most activist and frankly destructive supreme court term in more than a century. also tonight, more criminal exposure for trump and his january 6th enablers, including a potential criminal referral for witness tampering. we begin tonight with a look back at what has been one of the most consequential and life changing supreme court terms since they overturned segregation and expanded women's rights. only this court has done all of it in reverse. today was the last time we heard from them and thank god. they have successfully weakened miranda rights. kneecaped state laws. began to dismantle the
separation of church and states and one in the court's final rulings this term the 6-3 majority effectively gutted the epa's authority to work on climate change. with the u.n. recently warning that we need to do something not now but right now, the court struck down this regulation that the epa drafted under authority granted by the clean air act claiming that it amounts to an extraordinary overreach by the epa. the decision will not only have major implications for the survivability of the planet and how they regulate anything. the republican attorney general in west virginia, joe manchin country, warned they were just getting started. coal in everyone's stockings
this christmas. this should not come as a surprise. they are the culmination of a half century's work by conservative politicians to remake the federal judiciary system. make no mistake, these justices who swore under oath that they had no political opinions have proven that they very much do have a political agenda and it all began back in 1991 with the contentious confirmation hearing of justice clarence thomas after surviving credible claims of sexual harassment and a bruising confirmation hearing, justice thomas made clear that he had an agenda and was ready for retribution. back in 1993 "the new york times" reported that justice thomas told two law clerks that he wanted to remain on the court until 2034 when they asked why he reportedly said the liberals made my life miserable for 43 years and i'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years. if you had any doubt that he had
an axe to grind, the active insurrectionist, told "people" magazine he doesn't oni groups anything. in the year 2000 thomas was part of the 5-4 majority that took the extraordinary step effectively ending al gore's presidential aspirations and putting the republican majority as a candidate in the white house. thomas is a senior member of a group of conservative justices who now join his once extreme goals and who also played a role in that florida case. justice brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett and john roberts were part of a team working for the republicans during the recount battles in florida which culminated in the historic supreme court decision that the court majority was so embarrassed out that they wrote down it should never be used as a precedent. the embarrassment is gone.
they delivered another set of victories for the republican party. during his confirmation hearing chief justice roberts said his job was to call balls and strikes and not pitch for bat. it is clear five of his members do not agree. gone is the concept of judicial restraint and in its place is the made up conservative philosophy of originalism. according to the washington post, taken together the decisions mark for now the triumph of originalism it maintains that the only legitimate way to decide constitutional disputes is to ask how they would have been resolved when the constitution was drafted, you know, at a time when no one except land owning white males did anything and women weren't mentioned. unfortunately, you should probably brace yourself for more. this morning the court agreed to
hear a case on whether state legislatures should be immune from judicial oversight in state courts when it comes to setting election rules. they want toer bring -- to jerry manneder. the right to do exactly what donald trump wanted swing states to do as part of his january 6th coup attempt just in time for 2024. no, do not expect clarence, husband of insurrectionist ginni, to recuse. joining me is erin carmone. good to see you, my friend. it has been too long. you wrote the notorious rbg. you've been paying attention to the court for a long time. this court's radicalism is striking some people as a shock. i'm not sure why, but did it
shock you? >> well, i mean, i think it's important to remember that justice ginsberg became the notorious rbg. she disseptembered from conservative opinions including the gutting of the voting rights act. so this is a direction that the court has been moving in. as you very well laid out, there was an admiration in the court's history of protecting powerful people, of upholding slavery, blocking women's rights in the second half of the 20th century and that is what has empowered this conservative legal movement. i think the difference that we're feeling now is the speed and brazenness. so john roberts, chief justice john roberts, i think, has a kind of savvy pr approach to how he chooses to do this. he usually likes to do at least two cases before he guts a major precedent so then he can say, look, we did this before. he'll take a half step with the voting rights act. he'll occasionally show his
independence from the republican party, particularly when the trump administration got really sloppy on certain issues. and that allowed people to still think that and decisions like over gaffell, kennedy joining liberals. some abortion rights opinions that weren't as bad as they could have been. for a while there was a sort of treading water. i think you're right to place it at bush v. gore. clarence thomas when he joined the supreme court, he was the minority ideologically. i think bush v. gore put them on a path for clarence thomas to be the intellectual vanguard leading the way. justice kavanaugh is the medium. when justice ginsberg disseptembered in bush v. gore, a lot was made of her saying i dissent instead of i
respectfully dissent. listen to the colleagues now. congratulations justice ketanji brown jackson. i am very, very sorry. she is about to join the ranks of the losers whose job it is to lay out very clearly in pages that the supreme court justices themselves can't ignore what's happened. here's justice kagan today in the epa decision. she said the current court is textualist in being so suited. special cannons like the major questions doctrine, this is something that they made up. came to light in the ipa case and in this case coming up with the legislatures, magically appear as get out of text free cards. that's pretty out there. they were pretty out there in the roe decision. the institutional liberals that sit on the supreme court are actually warning us that as bad as things are been, they are getting worse really, really
fast. as you mentioned, they are about to get worse for maybe our lifetime considering the age of these justices on the court now. >> you go to kavanaugh, this is somebody whose memorable quote is what goes around comes around and that i like beer and he essentially was threatening -- he is saying i am going to politicize this court. alito said, no, we are a court that has desired outcomes. we're going to rule almost always in favor of conservative christian. they're 83%. whatever conservative christians want, not religion, conservative christians. i haven't seen them do that for any other religion. just they're down the line for corporations, for wealthy people. they're pretty doctrineaire. the brazenness is what i'm talking about, they're an
evangelical group. i think bush v. gore unleashed that. do you? >> i do. they've had a series of strategic plans that have gotten them to this point. they've also gotten lucky in terms of both deaths and retirements on the supreme court. the fact that so many conservatives galvanized and there was no punishment for mitch mcconnell or donald trump. it helped donald trump. his seat was left over despite so many norms. the things that govern the supreme court were soft norms, politeness. there were enough republican appointees that were willing to follow the rules and believe in the institution of the court. there was nothing holding them except for some measure of accountability. the win he wins in 2016, that gives us gorsuch, gives us kavanaugh. wow, listening to clarence thomas talk about his feelings of vengeance. >> yeah.
>> and then have them be paralleled by brett kavanaugh when both of them have been accused of sexual harassment and attempted rate. we are living the whirlwind right now and going to continue. >> erin carmone, really appreciate you. with me now is senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. you know, senator, we've talked about this before, but, i mean, i think a lot of people were taking back with the breathtaking polite tieization of this court. this court has been very clear that they no longer worry about how it looks. roberts is not in control. it's the plate tently, braze generally political partisan wing, the trump wing that is produced by presidents who haven't even won the popular vote that's in control.
are any of your colleagues within the democrat take caucus surprised? >> no. i think we've seen this coming and we were slow to figure it out. i think we've figured it out now. there is a lot of pent-up anger and scorn in these new opinions. highly critical of previous supreme court justices. highly critical of regulatory officials. really almost cruel cutting commentary about people in they don't like. >> yeah. >> then you've go got this favorite doctrine that was grown in the koch brothers hot house and now grown into the law of the land in major and concurring opinions. there's a lot going on.
>> it's sort of like donald trump. they have the same sort of ethos. we're going do this and we don't care. today happens to be the anniversary of the meat inspection act of 1906. it permitted the sale of adulterated livestock. it keeps us from dieing from eating meat. i bring that up because the e.p.a. decision today guts the regulatory state. the epa cannot regulate power plants, can't do anything to protect our air, can the agent sois don't -- what's scary is
the intellectual thoughts and i think this was the goal of the people who spent all of that money to pack the court. over $500 million spent over years on packing the court and telling it what to do through all of the front groups and cooking up the maker. >> the thing is in the ep av ruling they essentially said that the e pe a does not have any authority to do these regulations unless congress specifically passes. nor each and every way this they want to reg the house can pass 1,000 bills the senate can pass
this ruling mandates deregulation because though know. >> the court created a massive political jam in congress allowing unlimited money into politics and, b, not enforcing the transparency problem of citizens u the it r -- t. has to be done by congress. the idea that they don't know what they're doing when they're doing this is i think prepostster rouse. they're serving a special interest overlord that we've done a very weak job as democrats of calling out over the years. >> i agree with that, sadly. last question. we are out of time.
president biden has indicated that now he does favor relaxing the filibuster or adjusting it to ensure women's rights. but you don't have 50 votes for that, right? manchin and the senate aren't going to allow that, right? >> no, we do not have 50 votes. >> there you go. you said you need 2 to 4 senators. y'all need 54 senators to do what needs to be done. >> coming up next on "the reid out," it seems banning abortion in their own states is not enough or cruel enough for some republicans. they want to punish you if you continue. "the reid out" continues. my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®.
my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®. mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or havmultiple endocrine sia syndro type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® 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. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? (♪ ♪) ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. why choose proven quality sleep from the sleep number 360 smart bed? because it can gently raise your partner's head to help relieve snoring.
today president biden said he would support a filibuster exception to pass abortion rights into law. we have to codify roe v. wade into law. if a filibuster gets in way we have to make an exception to get it done. there are temporary restraining orders blocking the law. the move comes after judges put temporary abortion halts in texas, utah and louisiana. promising news but the fight is just beginning. several national antiabortion groups and their allies in republican state legislatures are advancing plans to stop people from seeking abortions across state lines. the biden justice laws say they
would stop that. the planned parenthood place across the line anticipates 14,000 people will seek services in the region. joining me is dr. colleen mcnichols in the st. louis region in southwest missouri and joan walsh. thank you both for being here. dr. mick -- mcnichols. fair view, illinois. i love a good map. shows how close you are to the missouri border. you are right there surrounded by states that are either already banned abortion or likely to do so. so the influx is going to be real. what is that going to mean pragmatically for you, for your doctors and your patients? >> your a right, joy. illinois is going to be a
critical access state for probably close to half the country. even in the last 48 hours our waiting time has gone from just three to four days to 2 1/2 weeks already. you know, as folks are going to be looking for, you know, where to get this care, we're going to be relying on the state of illinois to be able to absorb those patients, but it's not going to be easy. we're talking about operational changes, increasing hours, going from 8 to 10 hours a day to maybe 12 hours and adding sundays. you know, it's no small fete to be able to add 30,000 patients to the state of illinois for care. and the truth is, the physical spaces that are already available in illinois are not what are going to be the challenge. it's going to be getting people from their homes to those clinics and then back just to access that care that's going to be really problematic. >> that has to be done, joan, while some of these states are also passing laws that will criminalize that process. just taking someone in a car
from one place to another, whether it's an uber driver or someone who just assists somebody by giving them a ride could be then prosecuted in a state like missouri. the doctors who maybe consult online, do like a -- you know how you do like telehealth who consult with a woman -- >> right. >> -- saying here's how you help. they're trying to criminalize that, basically expanding their abortion bans outside their boarders. are people in the activist world prepared for that? >> no, i really don't think they are, but i don't mean that as a criticism because the people in the activist world have been telling us about this, joy, for years, as you and i both know. >> yes. >> they have been telling us this is going to happen. they're going to get rid of roe and here are things we can do. you and i listened but a lot of people didn't listen. so now, you know, we've got states or counties getting rid of, you know, plan b, you know,
the next day, sorry i made a mistake contraception acting like it is abortion. it is not, people, but people are getting -- pharmacies and counties, i don't think a whole state yet are getting rid of that. there is so much ignorance about a woman's body, we have to also say that, that these people are going to go all out passing new laws trying to enforce laws they think are already on the books and providers are terrified. >> yes. >> you know, obviously abortion providers are some of the most brave people in our country, but they don't -- you know, they just don't know how this will be either interpreted or expanded. and so we're in a world of pain. >> well, i mean, and that's the thing, dr. mcnichols. you're talking about providers having to take a risk on the state they're in to consider
abortion care. somebody has an ectopic care, they have to think about do they treat it. the republican governor is putting out saying missouri law has not changed with the legality of contraception. they're not affected by the unborn child act. we're talking about the pills, the plan b pills that rape victims are given. doctors are getting nervous about prescribing those and even though this missouri governor is trying and the forced birth people are trying to say, oh, no, no, no, we don't want to take away birth control. those of us who are familiar with the evangelical community and that world know they do think that iuds are abortive decisions. they are coming after -- i mean, they've signaled it. how afraid are you as a provider that they're going to go for all of it, contraception too?
>> absolutely, joy. we've already seen many examples of how the missouri legislature is coming after things like birth control. just two years ago we fought this very issue where the legislature was trying to eliminate access to plan b and to iuds for medicaid populations. we have spent the last 24 hours undoing some massive confusion around the difference between abortion and birth control. i 100% agree with you. they are coming for it, but in these moments it's incredibly critical to make sure patients have the most up to date information and know they can still get birth control. >> yes. >> medical emergency exceptions which you talked about, too, very narrow exceptions. completely unworkable and dangerous. how sick is sick enough before i can take care of somebody? is one stroke level blood pressure sufficient? do they have to be bleeding so heavily that they need a blood transfusion before i can take
care of them? it is unnecessary and preventible harm to people on a scale -- >> these are laws are passed by men who couldn't pass a seventh grade biology test. those who told us not to be hysterical about donald trump and they're telling us stop being so hysterical about a national abortion ban orbans on contraceptives. >> oh, i'm going to be hysterical and i hope we all will. i'm going to be absolutely hysterical because they will do whatever they can. i really love the fact that lying liar brett kavanaugh who tlied get his supreme court seat poor susan collins told us, oh, no, we're not coming after contraception, gay marriage.
this is going to stop. it's going back to the states. he's a liar. they're all liars. they are coming after our rights and it's going to get worse before it gets better, joy. >> indeed. thank you for all that you do. indeed. i mean, they were on the bush v. gore team. they promised us that was not precedent. look, poof, the entire supreme court are politicians inside the republican party. it's all lies. i join joan walsh's thanks for all you do. the latest on the january 6th investigation including select committee member liz cheney to ditch donald trump calling him a domestic threat to the constitution. a domestic thro the constitution
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,
the house committee has been talking about interfering with the ongoing investigation. liz cheney said that the panel is prepared to make a criminal referral on anyway who tried to influence witness testimony. that warning follows a speech when cheney excoriated the former president and her fellow republicans. >> at this moment we are confronting a domestic threat that we have never faced before and that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the
foundations of our constitutional republic. we have to choose because republicans cannot both be loyal to donald trump and loyal to the constitution. >> just hours earlier the committee issued a subpoena to former white house attorney pat cipollone. according to bennie thompson they have obtained evidence about which cipollone was, quote, uniquely positioned to testify. thompson referenced evidence that mr. cipollone reportedly raised legal and other concerns about president trump's activities on january 6th and in the days that preceded it. they need to hear on the record. joining me now, charles -- jamal coleman jr. let's go through this one by one. pat cipollone is now subpoenaed. we've talked about this before about whether he will testify or
not. what are the litigatable claims. >> if he decides to testify, he does have a constitutional right to plead the fifth amendment. i suspect we may not hear a lot of testimony out of him. i think that is the middle grouped for him. when you saw the testimony given from general flynn, if you can call it testimony, he pled the fifth over and over and over again. so i suspect there will be a combination of one of two things, he will plead the fifth excessively or he will claim executive privilege athough the fifth is a better claim. his client was the white house, office of the white house, not donald trump. in that way you see the committee trying to get around the issue of executive privilege which has held up conversations
with mark meadows and so many other people who were intimately committed. i suspect those will be his two defenses but he will rely most heavily on pleading his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. >> it's hard to understand why other than he wants to be an active member of maga world. he was on the right side of this. unlike somebody who might have more reason to be hesitant to come forward under oath. let's move on to him. this is tony ornato. the right is sort of hanging their whole defense of trump at this point on him and on whether or not he would refute what cassidy hutchinson said about all of the events that went on. now the event in the -- it wasn't the beast, it was in the suv. it isn't the most salient point. they don't argue that he wanted to go to the capitol. you have the right sort of hanging their hat on it.
former white house aides have said tony ornato has lied about events or denied things that have happened. here is what is said by alyssa farrah griffin. during the protests i told them they needed to warn press before clearing the square. meadows said we aren't going to do that. tony lied and said we aren't going to do that. tony ornato sure seems to deny conversations he apparently had. first the one with keith kennedy and now the one with cassidy hutchinson. he should testify under oath. now i want to play you one more thing. this is congresswoman. >> mr. ornato did not have as
clear memories from this period of time as i would say ms. hutchinson did, if that's a fair assessment there, but we're always happy to have folks who have recalled things to come back and talk to us. >> cassidy hutchinson told her story under oath. isn't now the main question whether tony ornato is willing to lie under oath? do they not need to put tony ornato under oath? >> i don't necessarily think so. as speaking from a former prosecutor, it's clear ornato has credibility issues. whatever comes out of his mouth, if it corroborates what we've heard from cassidy hutchinson then perhaps it may have value. if it refutes that, there are a number of different reasons or things you can point to in terms of prosecuting that evidence that shows that he has credibility issues and consistency problems. we've heard from members of the committee that he could not
recall certain events. now if he comes back and says i remember this, so on and so forth, as a prosecutor what i would be saying especially if it refutes the point it makes. didn't you earlier say you couldn't remember that? are you saying further away from the time period you remember better than you actual dli closer to the time of the events having actually occurred? you remember more now than you did remember then? he has all sorts of credibility issues. his testimony to the committee could be valuable but i don't necessarily think the committee needs to hang their hat on things one way or the other. it does, however, expose how important cipollone's testimony is in that it becomes a matter of credibility in balancing the word of one person versus the other. so you need another person who was in the room to either corroborate or refute the testimony we heard from hutchinson in order to make it more credible. that's why hearing from pat cipollone is much more important. >> you think hearing from
meadows would be more important because he's the former chief of staff. what do you think is the holdup with the department of justice? because there is a contempt, you know, referral out there. >> i think the department of justice is really being careful about how they approach this executive privilege issue. they do not want to get embarrassed by doing something or forcing testimony that ultimately the court decides they don't have the ability to do. i think that's the big holdup. they have to figure out, number one, what it is they can ask, if anything, how do they narrowly tailor whatever they need to get around executive privilege in such a way to get what's going to be value for looking what they're going to pursue in terms of charges. >> it's always so fun talking to you, charles coleman jr. it's like my little law class. cheers. >> up next, the stunning development in the 1955 abduction and murder of 14-year-old emmett till in mississippi and the apparently
researchers believe the first person to live to 150 has already been born. it could be you! wow. really? of course, you'll have to eat your greens, watch your stress, wear sunscreen... but to live to 150, we're developing solutions that help doctors listen to your heartbeat while they're miles away, or ai that knows what your body will do before you do. cool. introducing elevance health.
evidence in the case uncovered an unserved 1955 arrest warrant charging that same woman for till's kidnapping. they're relatives of till. they're calling for caroline bryant donham to be arrested. she was married to one of the two white men who were accused of the killing. get this, the sheriff told reporters that he did not want to, quote, bother ms. bryant since she had two young children to care for. with me now is deborah watts, emmett till's cousin. she was part of the team that discovered the warrant. thank you so much for being here, ms. watts. i want to take you back to that discovery. what were you all looking for in that courthouse? how did you come upon this incredible document? >> well, i'll just tell you with
a team of about five of us, and this was the second opportunity to search. there was a team that went towards the end of march after we had a meeting with the department of justice, the fbi investigator and the dea richardson. so at that time they told us there was nothing else that they could do. we knew all along that this warrant for caroline bryant's arrest was never served. keith beauchamp who is an award winning filmmaker and was responsible for the investigation that reopened the case in 2004 made sure that we understood that and so a collective group of us went to the courthouse in la flew county, greenwood, mississippi, to search for that warrant. we knew that one bit of evidence had never been served and we wanted to find it amongst other things that we thought might be there but we did find it and we are hoping that this leads to
the -- at least the execution of the warrant to caroline bryant dunham charging her in the kidnapping and murder of emmitt lewis till. she's we were just excited, ecstatic, happy, very emotional at the time when we found it. in the lower level of the le flore county courthouse. >> yeah. carolyn bryant dunham, the book, the blood of emmett till, which brought a lot of younger people to the story that only knew about it from history class that's illegal to teach in their state -- in that book, carolyn bryant dunham, she actually gave an interview to that author, and then she took back her previous admissions that she lied about your cousin, about emmett till. do you want her arrested and put under oath to get her to,
under oath, say what she did? >> well, we think the evidence speaks for itself. and we think the sheriff needs to serve that warrant to carolyn bryant dunham. the da needs to in pelle a panel, a grand jury, and then [inaudible] to be a part of that and then indict her, being culpable in the murder and, first of all, the kidnapping of emmett till -- >> absolutely. >> but carolyn bryant dunham definitely was there. the fbi investigation and other reports and the admission by dale till injure, the fbi investigator at the time, he receed an admission that to other young men had been brought to her to identify them, and of course, we know what happened with emmett till. those two other young men were costed, they were thrown out, beat up, but emmett till what -- happened to? emmett till he was kidnapped
and murdered later. >> yeah. >> there needs to be identification, carolyn bryant dunham [inaudible] the only person that would do that. and in fact, the document that we found, there was an affidavit for her arrest as well. also, the [inaudible] of moves right, who identified her. he had to -- >> write -- >> and this kidnapping took place, of course, joy, before the murder. >> yeah, yeah. >> it's time and carolyn bryant dunham needs to be brought to justice. >> i just want to, before we run out of time, very quickly, you are six or seven years old when your cousin was murdered. how did his murder and this historic funeral that made me till, who opened the casket so that the world would see the results of it -- where you at that funeral? how did his death impact your family? t fune>> i was not at the funeri was actually a toddler at the time, not quite six or seven years of age.
but i heard about it. when it made me till traveled across the country to speak out, along with the naacp, she came to my hometown, omaha, to ask. and i was able to see a booklet created by a photojournalist, earnest withers, who identified and -- photograph, i should say, that identified this trial of moves right, pointing at the two murders. so, i was able to see that and connect the tears, the emotions with the visit of mamie till. even as a toddler, i was able to become emotional about it. but in later years, mamie till [inaudible] and we oftentimes had conversations about what happened -- who was responsible and what kind of justice she wanted? she did not want -- i would say this. she didn't want to have any type of hate towards carolyn bryant dunham or vengeance. and we hold that in our hearts
as well. we just want justice served. [inaudible] as wanted as well. >> indeed, indeed. deborah watts, it's such an honor to speak to you, best of luck to your family and we wish you the best of luck in pursuing this case. thank you. thank you. >> thank you. >> up next, my thoughts on this historic day, as ketanji brown jackson is sworn in as justice ketanji brown jackson, on are deeply troubled supreme court. troubled supreme cour t.
wanna help kids get their homework done? 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. at xfinity, we're constantly innovating.
and we're working 24/7 to connect you to more of what you love. we're bringing you the nation's largest gig speed network. available to more homes than anyone else. and with xfi complete, get 10x faster upload speeds. tech upgrades for your changing wifi needs. and advanced security at home and on the go to block millions of threats. only from us... xfinity. today was and historic day for
the united states of being court. and no, i don't need mean the egregious rulings we have seen coming from the conservatives. in the first time in the courts 233 year history, a black woman sits on the bench as an associate justice. ketanji brown jackson he's only the sixth woman to be seated on the highest court in the land. she replaces justice stephen breyer, who stepped down this morning, then helped swear in his former clerk. >> i, ketanji brown jackson -- >> do you solemnly swear -- >> do solemnly swear, that i will faithfully and impartially -- >> discharge and perform -- >> this charge and perform -- >> all the duties -- >> all the duties -- >> incumbent upon me -- >> incumbent upon me -- >> as an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states -- >> as an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states -- >> on behalf of members of the court, i'm pleased to welcome justice jackson to the court and to our common calling.
[applause] >> wow, wow, wow. in a written statement, justice jackson rights, with a full heart, i accept asylum responsibility of supporting a defending the constitution of the united states and administering justice without fear or favor, so help me god. i am truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great nation. and that is tonight reidout's, all in with chris hayes starts right now. is tonight reidout's,>> tonigh- >> this moment in our history demands more. republicans cannot both be loyal to donald trump and loyal to the constitution. >> a clarion call to confront donald trump's danger to democracy, as the high court issues another set of decisions that tear apart representative governance. tonight, the desperate need for action on both fronts, with congressman jamie raskin. plus, new details of alleged intimidation of witnesses and
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on