be back, in this chair, with a new list of lives stolen. all because of this deadly and uniquely american problem of gun violence. and on that note, on that very sad note, i wish you all a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thank you for staying up late with us. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. at the end of tonight on all in. >> i'm not joking. i am sick to my stomach about what is happened in illinois today and i think we need to talk about gun control. >> the agony of the outrage following the highland park massacre. tonight new charges and why there may actually be a case for hope. and then, >> why is a senator from south carolina calling the secretary of state from georgia anyway? >> turns out a grand jury asked the exact same question. tonight, new subpoenas for

senator lindsey graham, rudy giuliani and other trump world figures who were caught trying to overturn the georgia election. plus, what we know about the new hearing the january six committee just announced. and election lawyer marc elias updates us on the state to state against the slow motion coo. >> i would actually like to ask everyone on the stage if they would agree we had a corrupt, stolen election. raise your hand. when all in starts right now. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. tonight, the suspect in the highland park mass shooting, who remains in police custody has been charged. with seven counts of first degree murder. with dozens of additional charges expected in the coming days. according to police, he plotted for several weeks before opening fire the 4th of july parade. leaving seven people dead and nearly 40 more injured.

police say the shooter used an ar-15 style rifle, which was legally purchased in the massacre. tonight, as i speak to you, vice president kamala harris is heading to highland park. accompanied by mayor nancy and state senator julie morrison. as the country is, once, again observing the same, maddening, sad ritual after another mass shooting. like we did after uvalde shooting six weeks ago, when 19 elementary school children and two teachers were slaughtered. again, using a legally required ar style rifle, and after the buffalo shooting, just over a week before, that were ten people were shot and killed in a grocery store using an ar-15 style of assault rifle. and after hundreds of other mass shooting in this country, yesterday's tragedy was a 309th this year alone. again, depending on how you define them. and just during this past holiday weekend, the gun violence archive reports at least 220 people were shot and killed. there are also real signs amid this despair and anger that these shootings are having a

radicalizing effect on the american public. the people are fed up that they think this is intolerable, as they should, and are demanding something to change. you see it in the polling. that little tick up there, solid green line is for stricter gun laws. the blue for leaving them as is. the darted green for less strict. broad majorities is now there, two thirds of americans supporting stricter gun laws. that's up significantly from a decade ago. in 2014 it was down at 47%. you could hear it in the rhetoric from political leaders in illinois yesterday. standing outside the hospital of the injured were being treated. >> our community, like so many before us, is devastated. it is impossible to imagine the pain of this kind of tragedy until you are confronted with it. gun violence, a mass shooting such as this, cast a much wider net of agony than with the

public is typically exposed to. it is a crisis that devastates entire families and communities in a single moment. and we know it is going to take a long, long time, if ever, to heal. >> we have to do more to keep our communities safe. we have to get rid of assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and so many other additional common sense reforms that wide majority of americans are crying out for. i just listen to the sound of that gunfire from one of the videos that was captured. and let me tell you, the last time i heard a weapon with that capacity firing that rapidly on a fourth of july, was iraq. it was not the united states of america. we can and we should and we will do better. >> if you are angry today, i am here to tell you, be angry. i am furious. i am furious that yet more innocent lives were taken by gun violence. i am furious that their loved

ones are forever broken by what took place today. i am furious that children, and their families have been traumatized. i am furious that this is happening in communities all across illinois and america. i am furious because it does not have to be this way. and yet, we as a nation, well, we continue to allow this to happen. >> i was struck by that rhetoric from political leaders, again, just hours after the shooting. standing outside the hospital, demanding gun safety in the immediate aftermath of yet another mass shooting. it reflects a sense of urgency a lot of the american public has as well. you can hear it everywhere. yesterday, chicago white sox pitcher liam hendrix, a guy who grew up in australia, said the shooting made clear that something needs to change. >> obviously, i read about it on the way here. it is something that you never want to read. but, unfortunately, in this day

in age it is becoming all too commonplace. i believe the access to the weaponry that is being used in these things is -- needs to change, something needs to be done, something needs to happen. there's way too many people losing their lives. >> an american soccer player, sacha of the los angeles galaxy use the post-match conference yesterday to rail against inaction. >> i'm actually gonna keep this really brief in that answer any questions about the game. i'm not joking. i am sick to my stomach about what's happened in illinois today. and i think we need to talk about gun control. you guys can write about the game if you want. but i don't really give a -- kids get shot up, we say thoughts and prayers, we do nothing. and then we talk about on social media, it does nothing. and then our government does nothing. and then someone gets shot up again. so. it pisses me off and i cannot even think about anything else but that.

i don't even know what to say. i'm not a politician, but i'm a human being. i fear for my kids when they go to school. it pisses me off. i think if it doesn't pass you off, if you don't want new gun laws in this country, then there is something wrong with you. so. i guess that's all i have to say. >> there's some real, tangible evidence in politics around this issue might be changing. for instance, the very fact that just last month the 50 - 50 senate passed the gun bill with some really meaningful and significant provisions. is a reflection the attitudes in the country shifting. it's been years since anything has been passed, if you don't believe, me ask republican senate minority mitch mcconnell -- who told -- after the right of partisan bills passed said, it's no secret we've lost brown in suburban areas. we pretty much own rural and

small town america. i think it's a sensible solution to the problem before us as which is school safety and mental health. and yes, i hope it will be viewed favorably by voters in the suburbs that we need to regain in order to hopefully be a majority next year, >> already three for four mcconnell. it's not just politicians, an athlete. regular voters know something to be done. it's wet one highland park resident, doctor david vaughan, who witnessed yesterday shooting and help the victims told me yesterday. >> what is safe is it safe to take a child to a water park? is it safe to take them to daycare? is it safe to go to a synagogue? the people who are gone, were gone immediately. they were gone immediately. and i might be repeating myself. but you know what? nobody should have to be blown up by high powered rifles from a top -- a fourth floor of a building. it is just too much. it is too much, something has gotta change. >> senator dick durbin is a democrat of illinois. he called yesterday's shooting

in his state, senseless and horrific. he joins me now. senator, it's good to have you on. i'm sorry it's under these circumstances. i imagine you've been speaking with folks from highland park all day. i just want to get your sense of how things are in 24 hours later. >> this combination of shock and anger. shock to think the possibility that you would take your children or grandchildren to this highland park fourth of july parade, one of the safest communities in our state and maybe the nation. have them subjected to these kinds of random violence, killing people. and injuring so many others. people are still in shock over here. when i went there today, you can still see on the ground -- as you're showing on your screen, things that are left behind by these people as they ran away from the scene of the crime. and also, anger. for god sake, where is it safe in america? where is it safe to take our children? can we send them to school? can we take them to the theater?

can we send them to a concert? can we send them to a grocery store? everywhere we turn, another mass shooting. they're fed up with. it and i am too. it's about time we came to our senses. the idea that we can descend and sell in this country military assault weapons, capable of shredding the bodies of the victims, is just senseless. it has nothing to do with constitution or the second amendment. >> vice president kamala harris talked today about reiterating the biden harris administration's call to remove the liability shield. which, there's really nothing else like it in american law, it protects gun manufacturers. take a look at which he had to say. >> an assault weapon is designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly. there is no reason that we have weapons of war on the streets of america.

we need reasonable gun safety laws! and we need to have congress stop protecting those gun manufacturers with the liability shield. repeal it! repeal it! >> that specific proposal does seem like a fairly clever and straightforward way to go at what is a very difficult problem when you think about 400 million guns in this country. >> it certainly is. if a gun is inherently dangerous, as the military assault weapon is, ordinarily manufacturers would be subject to liability in civil court. maybe beyond that. but because the gun industry had control of congress at a moment, and put in this provision, which exempts them from the same standards and liability of virtually every other manufacturer faces, they cannot be tested on the question of whether it is inherently dangerous. i agree with her. >> there's some interesting

comments from mitch mcconnell which we spoke about before you are on. he was pretty frank about the politics of this. i thought it was an interesting admission on his part. basically, he said he supported the bipartisan gun safety legislation that was hammered out between chris murphy and john cornyn for straightforward, political reasons. there are voters he wants to reach and get back to voting for republicans who care about this issue. and he wants to take it off the table. i wonder if that gives you, what you make of that and what it means for the political calculations in congress in the aftermath of another one of these horrific shootings. >> we'll talk about the calculation november. and i understand completely what mitch mcconnell saying, he is brutally honest about that. he does not want to talk about the overturning of roe v. wade in november. he does not want to talk about the lessening of the power of the environmental protection agency, to protect our claimed clean water and clean air. he does not want to talk about the horrific killings and these

mass shootings that are killing innocent people and every corner of america. with these horrendous military weapons. you must focus on where the joe biden pull out of afghanistan too soon. whether inflation can be dealt with successfully by republicans as opposed to democrats. and a couple other discreet issues. anytime you change the subject from his agenda, he wants to end the conversation. so it's up to us, those of us who believe that these issues are critical, and the supreme court has brought them forward. we cannot ignore them. to make sure that americans know, if you don't like the way things happen in highland park yesterday, if you don't like the supreme court decision of overturning roe v. wade, if you happen to believe that we should aggressively make sure that we lessen pollution in this country, and reduce the prospects of global warming, then for goodness sake, you need to vote. you need to vote in numbers unprecedented off year elections. >> let me counter that, or just push back a little bit when you look at the gun laws in the state of illinois. obviously a progressive state, democratic governor, two democratic senators, the assailant was able to acquire this gun in the state of illinois. and it's not a state like texas,

or other places particularly in the american south that have relatively lenient gun laws. what does that say to you about the gun legal between that we have? >> well part of our problem in illinois is that we are not alone. we are surrounded by states which led with much more flexible standards, and unfortunately, only some of them look the other way. in many of our crime concept -- to the states. but having said, that the obvious answer is, these guns, these military assault weapons, should be for sale to anybody. i cannot tell you how many we have an american because i can give a good estimate. it's between ten and 20 million ar-15s in this country. remember that, ten to 20 million. and we have 400 million firearms altogether. police tell me when i meet with him all the time in chicago, and across our state, we are a in guns. you want to know why we have

this random violence, while this terrible incident was taken place in highland park, there were five people shot on the south side of chicago last night to. so we have this going on constantly because we have too many guns. they go way too far, in terms of the numbers and the gravity of the results of them being used in these crimes. >> all right, senator dick durbin of illinois, i pursue taking time with us tonight. >> good to be with you chris. >> still ahead, a big announcement from the january six committee, new subpoenas from pron georgia. for trump's cronies, and a sitting united states senator. that's all coming up next.

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you

can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. >> today a u.s. senator, comcast business. powering possibilities.

sitting u.s. senator who has issued a subpoena by a special grand jury in fulton county, georgia, and it relates to a criminal investigation of potential interference in the states 2020 elections. nearly two months before donald trump called georgia secretary, of state, brad raffensperger, tell them infamously to find 11,780 votes, raffensperger went public about a suspicious call from south carolina republican senator, lindsey graham. >> during our discussion he

asked if ballots would be matched back to the envelope. the absentee ballots. we match back to the envelope. i explained our process after it went through two sets of signature match, at that point they were separated. but then senator graham applied for us to audit the envelopes, and then throughout the ballots for counties that had the highest frequency error of signatures, and that i try to help explain that that is, we can't do a signature max, you can't tie the signature back anymore, you have two of those ballots. >> senator graham despite a raffensperger's claims but not the phone call itself. >> can you clarify this conversation you had with the secretary of state in georgia, did you or did you not ask him to throw out ballots? >> no that is ridiculous. i told him that how you verify signatures. >> why the senator of south carolina called calling the secular st. george anyway? >> because of each of the

country hangs in the ballots. >> now senator graham, want to with other trump legal team, will have to tell their story to a criminal graduate in georgia. tamar hallerman is seen a report of the atlantic georgia constitution, hallerman who first reported on those new subpoenas today, and she joins me now. first, let's just reset for folks, that have maybe forgotten about this grand jury. remind us of what this granbury is, and what is is investigating. >> absolutely. so this granbury was seated in may. it's 23 fulton county residents, as well as three alternates and they are tasked with investigating efforts to meddle in georgia's 2020 election they are going to be hearing testimony from a lot of state and local folks, but as we saw tonight, some folks connected with the trump campaign as well. and it's that drop at the end of the day to recommend whether fulton county district attorney, fani willis, should press charges against former trump or any of these former president donald trump, or any of his allies. >> these are sort of who's who of trump world, the grand unrealistic up to me because i will be honest, at some point, i knew he had made that phone call, it had gotten a little memory hold for me. but when i saw today, i wasn't all right, that is right.

i want to read from the subpoena here, witness, meaning late lindsey graham, made at least two telephone calls from secretary state brad raffensperger, and the staff, following the 2020 election in georgia. during the telephone calls, secretary raffensperger on the staff of reexamining certain absence ballots in georgia, an order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former president donald trump. what does the subpoena require of senator graham? >> well it requires him to show up and fulton county georgia, in downtown atlanta on july 12th. him and six other folks close allies of the former president, have been requested to appear that day. it's unclear exactly how many of them will show up, or if any will try to fight the subpoenas by citing some form of immunity, attorney-client privilege for some of the trump campaign lawyers. but perhaps there is a potential that senator graham will try to incite some

legislative immunity. the u.s. constitution, speech and debate clause, protect some members from talking about their legislative duty, and some other motivations behind their committee work. the base on the floor, but this is a whole different ball game. >> yeah i appreciate your floating that constitutional theory. the speech debate clause which is an interesting part of the constitution generally applies to floor speeches and sort of like, things around that. so this would be a novel application of that. but it's because something institutionally, to me, that is fascinating here. we talk with the department, doesn't talk with the general six committee, this is a folding cali county da. there's thousands of counties across the u.s.. this is the head prosecutor who has potential evidence of a crime, happening in her jurisdiction, that she is not pursuing. in these very big powerful and

the point that people have been subpoenaed, you know, it's sort of a test of a rule of law. they can just not show up i imagine. >> yeah, but it's possible they can try and cite some sort of immunity to block a lot of answering a lot of these questions. it's something we are seeing with some of the local state legislators here in georgia, court citing some similar privileges. >> you are saying before this grandeur? >> yeah, absolutely. we have a former state senator, one of the folks who was the most embedded in the stop the steal movement. he was the one who invited would yuleana calm testify from almost seven hours here in georgia. our lieutenant governor, jeff duncan, they are setting more of a institutional argument that the georgia constitution has a similar provision to the speech and debate clause. they are really bars them from being able to testify. >> fascinating. the sort of judgment call, i you are very good reporter, and you've been reporting on this. i don't want you to get out

passable to feel comfortable saying. i guess as i look at this from a little bit of a rare move, and follow your courting as well as others, how seriously i should be taking this center prize? >> i think quite seriously. the fulton da has shown she is not going to flinch when it comes to calling these very powerful people. she has even suggested that she is not scared to potentially call donald trump as a witness to come testify if she believes that is right. and she told me she is not scared to indict him or any one in his inner orbit, if she thinks that, the elements of a crime have been reached. and she is still willing in her career, to go against public school teachers, in georgia, go against folks who are relatively popular, using the power of her office, she says to follow the law. maintain the law. i would take her very seriously. >> we should note that just to get the fullest here, your

senator lindsey graham, but also rudy giuliani, some very similar figures like for instance, john eastman's of course, who we believe to be an under some criminal investigation by the federal government. he was recently searched by them. you got kenneth chesebro, who is also a lawyer, associated with eastman. jenna ellis, clinton mitchell. these are just, this was sort up the group of lawyers that were both in georgia, and other places, most associated with stop the steal, all of whom have been subpoenaed to testify. >> absolutely. and that kind of put them into two buckets. the first are folks who testify on december 3rd, 2020, in front of a georgia senate committee hearing. many of them waves a lot of conspiracy theories, and kind of claims that were quickly proven to be false by state officials, giuliani or of course headlined that's. also several of them are connected to this effort to kind of lineup and draft

alternative republican electors in georgia, even though the democratic's the one legitimate electors. >> all right, tamar hallerman again weisman a fantastic reporter on the, story on the journal-constitution, throughout, thank you for making some time for us. >> thank you. >> coming, up the latest details on the brand-new january six hearing, just announce, and who is now talking to the committee. that is next.

at the end of last week's surprise january six committee hearing, with former aide to trump chief of staff, mark meadows, cassidy hutchinson, chairman bennie thompson called on other witnesses to follow her example. >> i want to speak directly to the handful of witnesses who have been outliers in our investigation. the small number who have defied us outright. those whose memories have

failed them again, and again, on the most important details. and to those who fear donald trump and his enablers. if you've heard this testimony today, and suddenly you remember things you couldn't previously recall, or there are some details you would like to clarify, or you've discovered some courage you had hidden away somewhere, our doors remain open. >> over the weekend, congressman kinzinger one of two republicans on the comittee said some people have already answered that call. >> every day we get new people who come forward and say, hey, i didn't think maybe this piece of the story that i knew was important. but now you guys are talking -- i do see this plays in here. >> just as we are learning more people are coming forward, today the committee announced they will have another hearing, a week from today. it will focus on the participation of white nationalist groups like the proud boys. betsy woodruff swan covers the

committee at politico where she is a national correspondent, she joins me now. betsy, that announcement today took us a little bit by surprise. there's some talk about this happening. what do we know about this hearing that's coming up? >> what we expect is that this upcoming hearing which is set for next week is going to kind of zero in on the extremist groups that were responsible for the kinetic violence at the capitol building on january 6th. it's been widely reported that this particular hearing, which we know was in the mix at some point of the timeline for quite awhile is going to be helmed by congressman jamie raskin. this is going to be the big project he's been working on. this hearing has also been interesting because it's probably the only opportunity, or only risk moment for the committee to take a look at the major tech platforms that we know have been the focus of their investigation. we know the committee issued a subpoena and not a friendly

subpoena to some of the largest platforms, including youtube, facebook, reddit, as well as others, several months back. basically demanding more information from them. and suggesting those companies are withholding things they needed to know. of course, the key focus when it comes to those companies is how much did the people running them know about the way their platforms were being exploited to prepare for not just violence, but also insurrection on january 6th. if the tech companies do not come up in this hearing, i think it's unlikely they will come up live at all. that's something to keep an eye out for. >> that's interesting. there's some news today about an individual name sarah matthews, a former deputy press secretary for president trump when he was president. it's interesting because during cassidy hutchinson's testimony. i saw sarah matthews tweet saying, look, believe me cassidy hutchinson is a trustworthy person. something to that effect. she is now been subpoenaed to

testify at a public appearance as early as next week. why do we know about that? >> sarah matthews is unlikely to be part two of the cassidy hutchinson project. she just wasn't a senior in the white house, wasn't in the, quote unquote, in the room as often as hutchinson was. certainly did not have the access to very senior people that hutchinson did. of course, we don't know what we don't know. she was a white house official, she worked in the press shop, she would've been connected to the white house's external and internal communications on january 6th. and she resigned in the immediate wake of the violence, citing the attack on the capitol building. without question, she's an interesting person. she would bring a new voice. she had been cited in prior hearings. i think they've played brief clips of her. she is someone who certainly has not had main character status that so many other witnesses have had. and the fact they are bringing her in live suggest she has something important in new to

tell them that we don't know about. >> that struck me too, exactly along those lines. particularly when you look at the other folks they have brought in. let's talk a little bit about the witness tampering -- there was of course that, you know, really striking conclusion the last hearing in which liz cheney reads these messages, right? that had been conveyed to potential witnesses. some reporting by yourself and others that seemed to identify cassidy hutchinson as a recipient of one of those. there's some talk now that cheney has spoken up this week and a possible criminal referrals for that. i think we have some sound on that. here is what she had to say. >> the committee will or will not make a criminal referral? >> we'll make a decision as a committee about it. >> is impossible to be a criminal referral? affected at the committee that they should be -- and this is the evidence. >> the justice department does

not have to wait for the committee to make a criminal referral. there could be more than one criminal referral. >> i was struck by that. and obviously, they've used criminal referrals as a tool and other investigations where they had noncompliant people who have refused subpoenas like bannon, peter navarro. what do you make of that? >> this is a little bit of the cart going ahead of the horse. just to be candid. we know the committee is very much currely investigating the possibility of witness tampering, improper influence. we know cheney kind of studiously, in that final statement that she made, did not actually use the term witness tampering. the legal terms, something that was used by other committee members after the hearing. and we know that in those final, very dramatic and cryptic minutes, cheney specifically said, we are currently looking at this. and if you have information, please come talk to us. so this question about are they going to make a criminal referral based on what they know right now. in my view, look, all of this is certainly interesting. but they are being very, very

public about the fact that they are really, really in the moment looking into this. what's else i can tell you that amplifies that, is that the two messages the committee showed onscreen were both based on material that cassidy hutchinson shared with the select committee in her very last fourth and final deposition. that is the deposition that was significant enough that it triggered the entire emergency hearing situation. that of course now has played out the way it has. just to reiterate, this is new stuff, this is ongoing stuff. the question of whether or not the committee will get to the point of being able to make a criminal referral is gonna be predicated entirely on what they discover, what's new material, when new context, what new perspective comes through in the next couple of weeks. >> all right, betsy woodruff swan. thank you so much for that. we learned a lot. >> thanks, chris. i appreciate. it >> still have the latest threat

to american democracy and how marc elias and others plan to stop. it plus, there's some good news in the georgia senate race. that is next. in the georgia senate race that is next

>> all right, so the political environment democrats are, now particularly incumbents, it's rough. it is a few months after the midterm elections, president joe biden's parading his low, inflation gas prices are up. but the thing, is the future is unwritten. nothing is set in stone, and

politics or in life. and the georgia senate race, we are seeing a reminder that not everything is a torments by those big structural internal factors. in fact, candidate quality, really does matter. democratic senator, ralphie one of, is one of the most exceptional, interesting members of the senate in recent history. perhaps ever. corrupt and public housing, senior pastor, ebony baptiste church in atlanta, minus junior's senior and junior congregation. >> while serving as a u.s. senator and says defeated, republican kelly rolfe, or in a specialist. yeah senator warnock is running for a full term, and he is facing against the trump endorsed former football player, herschel walker. the republican nominee has no real qualifications of the to to be aunited states senator. and has lived in texas, not georgia, for decades. a new polling shows senator warnock has now opened up a ten -point lead over walker. 54 to 44%. now, please, take that with a

grain of salt. i do with all polls these days. we have seen poll in messes. let's see you not have a bunch of boys consider a dead heat right now. at that heat is a notable sign in a brutal environment. a lot of people in georgia are looking at herschel walker, who just won a republican primary saying, i don't think this man should be a u.s. senator. walker has a long history of telling outlandish lies, from claiming he was an fbi agent to promoting a mist that kills a covid virus, and greatly exaggerated academic achievements. earlier this year he question of allusion because eight still exist. walker's also been a subject of very serious allegations of abuse. his ex wife accused him of violent behavior including pointing a gun to her head and threatening to blow her brains out. a judge issued a protective order against walker. prevented him from owning weapons for a period of time. marshall walker has also not been running a particularly good campaign. for instance, he refused to participate in any of the primary debates. just didn't show up. and now, the nominee anytime a

reporter can get close enough to him, to ask a basic straightforward question about what he believes, what he would do a senator, and he sounds like this. >> you know, cain killed abel, that's a problem that we have. and i said, what we need to do is look into how we can stop those things, talk about doing a disinformation. what about getting enough department that can look at a young man that is looking at women, looking at the social media. what about doing that? looking into things like that? we can stop it that way. but yet they want to just continue to talk about taking a away our constitutional rights. >> ... okay. despite all of that, this race will almost be down to the wire. a number of candidates from the nominates, like herschel walker, are quite uniquely bat. and that does offer democrats some serious hope.

because again, nothing is politics is for ordained. never forget that. ordained never forget that.

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. >> donald trump's big lie, the

2020 election was stolen, it's still at the center of republican politics, especially at the state level. instate primaries, we see this play out from state to state. the republican front runner, to be the next governor of arizona, carry lake, at last week at a primary debate, she used the big lie to bludgeoned her opponent, who is not an election denier.

>> you call joe biden illegitimate president. what does that mean? >> he lost the election. he shouldn't be in the white house. we had a corrupt election. i actually like to ask everybody on the stage, if they would agree, we had a corrupt stolen election. raise your hand. >> did we have -- >> i would like to -- >> i'm not gonna play to your stunt. >> she is not gonna play the stunt. although the sun sort of happened. this is a state level race. the january six hearings have shown how much pressure was put on state level officials to overturn the elections. here we have also showed how officials like, republican

arizona speaker of the house, rusty bowers, a fellow arizona republican, who resisted that pressure, ended up playing a key role in saving our democracy. but now, the supreme court has agreed to hear a case that could essentially make it easier for broke a state officials, to carry out the coup the next time around. marc elias is the foremost election lawyer in the country.

-- docket, up in this upcoming. case republicans are quote, learning at the pressure points and vulnerabilities are in our election systems, and refining their tactics and he joins me now. >> mark i have to say that the people i follow who are not people given to hyperbole, or panic, sound panic about the fact that the court is taking this case. explain with this case is and why people are so worried about it? >> yeah, so chris, thank you for having me back. and i am usually among those people who are not panicked by any one case before one court. i always counsel against assuming that anyone quite decision is gonna dramatically

change the landscape. but this case is different. because this is a case that republicans are trying to use to advance a fringe theory. that is never been adopted before. that says, that state courts, reviewing state statutes, and actions of state legislators, cannot apply their own state constitutions. this is a radical, radical idea. that we would strip state courts of the ability of protecting voters using their state constitutions. >> and just to get some context here, this case emerges out of north carolina, but we see in north carolina, and many states, either states have adopted referenda, or state ballot issues, and state constitutional changes, that control how the state is going to do things like

gerrymandering. that say that you can't partisan gerrymander, and will be seen after state of state, ohio is a place that you've been litigating, we put a lot of sentient, in north carolina, what's happened sane after state, republicans have basically said, square you state law. we are gonna maximize our where electorals date of gerrymandering. and often again that happens, in north carolina, and ohio, i believe, and other places, is a supreme court donning by republicans, say, you cannot do this. that is a violation of state constitution. republicans want to make that impossible. is that right? >> correct. and not just in the redistricting order. it would be bad enough to say that the north carolina's state courts can't hold the state legislator to the state constitution during

congressional district. it will be bad enough if it was true in the ohio supreme court, and the redistricting process there for congress. but this would affect state courts like, montana, that is struck down voter suppression laws in that state other the state constitution. pennsylvania, north carolina, minnesota, michigan, the list goes on and on. what's republicans want to do is take a vital toll out of the tool box, for those people trying to protect democracy. and that tool are the state courts using state law and state constitutional, to hold their state legislators accountable to those laws. >> we should just be clear about the, i mean i hope we are expelling this out clearly. because it could be a little complex. but just to give an example here, what is so dangerous about this is, if the state

legislator draws its own districts. and it draws it in such a way that say, a republican party can get 57% of the seats with 45% of the votes. then they have used this kind of anti-democratic means to barricade themselves in power, and then the supreme court comes along and says, sorry, those guys are essentially on reviewable. they can do whatever they want. you're in a pretty by script of minority rule then. >> right. and chris, remember, it was only in 2019 that the u.s. supreme court said, you cannot challenge a partisan gerrymandering map in federal court. okay. there is no way to challenge partisan gerrymandering in

federal court. there was a 54 decision by the supreme court. but chief justice roberts said, in that opinion, do not worry. you are gonna be able to go to . thank you, sir. >> thank you. that is all in on this tuesday night. msnbc prime starts right now with ali velshi in highland park, illinois, good evening. >> good evening and thank you. we'll see you tomorrow. thanks for joining us this hour. i am here in highland park, illinois, a suburb north of chicago. the latest american city on a long list of cities, a growing list of cities that have experienced a deadly mass shooting. around 10:15 a.m. yesterday morning a gunman climbed up on the rooftop began firing toward the fourth of july parade below him. e